The bill actually provides that if the intelligence commissioner turns down the request submitted to him by the minister—or his conclusion, I should say—then he has to give reasons. On the other hand, if he approves the authorization issued by the minister, he doesn't have to provide reasons.
As a retired judge, I don't mind providing reasons. I've been doing that all my life. When you issue a judgment of any sort, you provide reasons. I'm not against the suggestion that even if I approve the conclusion reached by the minister with regard to the issuance of an authorization, the commissioner should provide some reasons. Obviously those reasons would be rather short compared to when the conclusions of the minister are judged unreasonable by the IC, but I'm not against that suggestion.