Part of what I'm driving at here is that you prefer the approach of Professor Mullan, but of course defining a fixed number of multiple complaints I think would be problematic, because that does limit legitimate complainants, if we did that.
What I find interesting about this bill--and very positive, actually--is the initial section that talks about what constitutes vexatious complaints. And I will preface that by saying not all vexatious complaints or the stipulations to prevent that from people actually are vexatious. It says “multiple complaints or grievances that are of...”. So they have to be multiple, for one, and either vexatious, frivolous in nature, or not made in good faith. So we need multiple in the first instance, and then they need to meet the condition of vexatious, frivolous in nature, or not made in good faith. I think that's positive.
When we look at the regulations, as has been pointed out, that's already somewhat permitted. This goes back to what's in the act and the regulations, but now we go back to what Mr. Rathgeber was saying: that now this bill seeks to take that out of the hands of front-line and supervisory staff in the correctional centre; has greater oversight; moves it up to the commissioner level; provides judiciary review; provides a mandatory assessment of the status of that designation, where it doesn't currently; provides an exemption where a decision-maker cannot refuse to hear something that might cause irreparable, significant, or adverse consequences. I think that doesn't exist in regulation right now.
Would you not agree that those three steps are very positive steps to protect the inmates in this grievance process that don't currently exist in the act and regulations?