Mr. Chairman, we are aware of the studies carried out by Mr. Roberts. If you look at the analysis, in terms of his references to ATIP requests -- and I want you to know I'm not questioning his credentials as a university professor -- you often see that requesters, reporters and the media ask questions on subjects that may not be routine. Is it necessarily because it's a reporter, a politician or someone else making the access request that there is this delay, or it is because it may be a complex issue?
The other thing I would like to add is that, under the Access to Information Act, the Information Access Office has 30 days to process the access request or, under section 9 of the Access to Information Act, it can ask for extensions. The coordinator has to ascertain the complexity of the file request within a 30-day timeframe. Under the current regime set out in the Act, we cannot say, after 45 days, for example, that we improperly established the timeframe for a response. We said it should take 60 days, but really it's going to take 90 days. We have to consult an embassy in another country or go through another process. So, it becomes very complicated. And based on the regime that is currently in place, we are somewhat bound by the extension that we request right from the outset. That may be one of the factors contributing to the fact that the Access to Information Office makes mistakes or may be late responding, where very complex files are concerned. That is one of the important factors.
In other jurisdictions, that may not be the case. But we cannot come back after the fact and say that we realized it was much more complicated than we originally thought, that there is a whole avenue we didn't see initially, and ask for a second opportunity to revise our estimate. That is not the case. So, as I say, we are somewhat bound by the timeframe that we set at the beginning of the process.
