I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, I might disappoint you on this one.
The question of whether “may” becomes a “shall” and when “shall” is a “may” is a pretty interesting question for lawyers and those who study the law. I'm not sure others would necessarily be that interested in all the machinations around those possibilities. I think the point of the subamendment is certainly to clarify that it is a “shall” as opposed to a “may”. The “may not” in this instance could be read as discretionary; a “may not” does not appear to get translated into an obligation. It is possible sometimes that a “may” can be interpreted as an obligation.
I certainly think the reason for the subamendment is to ensure there is clarity, that in fact it is clear that the heads of the institutions listed in (a), (b), and (c) not have the discretion to refuse to disclose a record that contains information created by them or on their behalf in the course of an investigation, once that investigation is complete and all ancillary proceedings, if you will, are finalized.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])