In the interference case there was an access request for a report, and the access to information folks at Public Works decided that the whole report should be disclosed. They had prepared to send the report, and in fact the report was already in the mailroom. Mr. Togneri sent an e-mail saying to unrelease. Following that, there was a series of incidents that basically led to this report not being disclosed for several months, and it was only disclosed in its entirety after the requester made several additional requests.
Referring a matter to the RCMP is a serious matter. The act says that if I have evidence or I feel there is evidence, then I may refer the matter to the Attorney General. In this case, I asked the minister, for the reasons I explained before, to refer the matter to the RCMP.
The actual contents of my investigation are not something that we disclose to the police. My investigation is administrative in nature. I do not make any determination of civil or criminal liability. That is not the purpose of the investigation we do. What we do is an administrative investigation to determine what happened in the processing of an access to information request.
What the RCMP does, whether they decide to conduct an investigation or whether the public prosecutor's office decides to lay charges, is really up to them. I am not involved in this process at all. I do not speak with the RCMP about these cases. It is really up to the RCMP to conduct their own investigation and to come to their own determination and conclusion.