No, I don't believe the minister has a point. I think he has misread the recommendation and the text related thereto.
The current system of access to the courts through the commissioner, after investigation, with the commissioner bearing the cost of access, with the permission of the requester, to the court, wouldn't change. That's maintained.
Number 11 creates a fast track to the court for those who want to go to the court and have the means to go to the court. So it's a new avenue to the court, and I would say it would enhance access to justice in that sense.
Numbers 4 and 11 are not intrinsically linked, and I think I said this in earlier testimony. Number 4 is to give the commissioner discretion in terms of dealing with some of the complaints investigations. Right now I have no choice. The law says I “shall” investigate. It's made me master of my own procedures, so I can kind of manoeuvre through that, but it would allow me to deal with some of the issues that the other witnesses deal with, things such as frivolous, vexatious, or voluminous requests. In Ontario, for instance, the commissioner has imposed a certain limit on anyone using the complaint system.
It would allow me to pressure both users and departments, in the case of volume and what might be perceived as abuse. Abuse for the user, in terms of perception, and for the department are under different lenses. It would put me in the position to at least mediate that, if I had the discretion of whether or not to investigate.
So the two are not necessarily linked, in my view.