The bill sets up a rather complicated process in disputes over access to information between the commission and the RCMP commissioner. We heard very strongly from Paul Kennedy, as the former commissioner. We also heard from Mr. McPhail, if I remember his testimony correctly, and also from Mr. Mukherjee, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, that it's necessary for commissions to have access to all information.
There are ways that are parallel to those done in SIRC where you can make sure sensitive information is not subsequently released to the public, but the commission needs to see the information before it can determine the relevance. This sets up a process where a third party, probably a retired judge, would make recommendations on those disputes. The comment was then made by officials, I believe it was Mr. Potter, that if the parties still don't agree, they can go to court.
Our purpose in suggesting this is that we don't see why—if we've brought in the third party, a neutral party with expertise to give a recommendation—we shouldn't avoid those future court costs and delays by simply making those recommendations binding on the two parties. Either we have confidence in this third party's recommendations or we do not. We don't see the point of subsequently having a court dispute between the commissioner and the commission when we've had a third party look at this and make recommendations. This would make the recommendations of the third party binding in disputes over access to information.