Mr. Chair, in the first investigation I made some recommendations for legislative changes that were directly linked to the experience we had in the first investigation.
The issue I have with making recommendations now is that I still have three other investigations that are ongoing that have similar allegations. The committee can rest assured that once I complete these investigations I will make recommendations as is appropriate in relation to the legislation and perhaps some of the gaps in the legislation at that time. I'm highly uncomfortable doing that now because the other three investigations are not completed, and those investigations will also inform my recommendations.
Clearly, what happened in the first investigation.... The provision that deals with an infraction under the act, section 67.1, was added to the act in 1999, and that was done by way of a private member's bill. As a result of that, there was actually no full review of the legislation to see if that specific amendment created other problems in the legislation.
One of the clear problems that it created and that became evident in the first investigation is that the section 67.1 provision talks about any person who—and I don't have my act with me—alters, falsifies, or destroys documents or conceals documents. But my ability to disclose information to the Attorney General is limited to people who are actually public servants. So there's a gap in the law. The provisions that allow me to share this information have actually not been amended, so in consequence—