Our main concern about Federal Court access is that it is expensive and complex. Our view is that we should explore other avenues, because the trend across the country is to have quicker and simpler recourse to some kind of adjudication.
For example, if a department refused access, the trend across the country is that there's a binding order. You go to a commissioner or a tribunal or to specialized expertise; you get a decision quickly, and that's it. If you have to go to court after that, it's in a very narrow context.
To tell people who haven't got what they wanted from a department that they can go directly to the Federal Court would require revising all the provisions that now envisage going to the Federal Court under the act, because it's all predicated on going to the commissioner first, getting an investigation, getting a report, and having a summary hearing. You'd have a whole different process.
Second, it would be very costly. Not every requester could afford to go there, so you would have two levels of justice. Most folks would still have to go to the commissioner because they wouldn't be able to afford to go to the courts, and the ones who could afford it would go to the courts to get a different resolution. The CBA feels that wouldn't be fair and is not an appropriate way to deal with the backlog. If there is a backlog and a difficulty getting resolution from the commissioner, we should ensure that the commissioner has the tools to do his job.