Well, the act states that I must conduct investigations in private. I've actually built into my process what I call the administrative review, which is my fact-finding exercise. In the administrative review I can get sufficient information to make a determination as to whether it's unfounded—for example, not for payment, or not a registerable activity—or, if it's founded, whether I would be referring it to the RCMP, if I had reasonable grounds, or opening up an investigation perhaps because I thought doing so would be necessary to ensuring compliance with the act or the code.
Once I open an investigation, then I am required to table it in both Houses of Parliament, although there is an ability under the act to cease doing an investigation if I have good reasons to do so. At that fact-finding stage, as you described—something whereby they come in.... If I determine that it's unfounded, it stays within the office. I will write back to both parties: to the person alleged to have breached the act and to the member of Parliament. The results of the administrative review are not made public.