We see number 11 a little differently, as I've indicated. We don't think that is the way to go in terms of direct. I read the honourable minister's comments, and if you say to people that they can go to the federal court in order to get justice.... I guess we're saying that it would be better if the commissioner had the tools to expeditiously resolve complaints, as was intended.
As far as number four, I guess we would respectfully disagree that it is going to hamper access to justice. To say that requests are moot by the time they get to the commissioner--so even if they're resolved, they would be meaningless, because the time has expired, the person got the record or whatever.... To say the commissioner should never have any tools to investigate.... It's not always a black and white situation where this person is going to be deprived of access to justice.
It's a sensible and reasonable approach. In fact--and I'd have to say that I'm sure the minister is aware--even the courts can dismiss actions if they're frivolous and vexatious. Those are the words used in the courts. I think these are there for good reason. One of the reasons that we're suggesting here is the individual complainants have other recourse under our laws. So I'm just saying they wouldn't deprive them of access to justice--quite the contrary.