Mr. Cook, as you perhaps heard when I was speaking to my amendment, I talked about the section that says an “official may provide to...an appropriate police organization...confidential information, if the official has reasonable grounds to believe” this and that. I said that it could be a low-level official in the CRA talking to a police organization of any description.
Have I read this section properly? There's no reference, for example, to the criminal investigations division. There's no reference to oversight by the commissioner. There's no kind of chain of command within the CRA that's alluded to. Any official of any description could speak to any police organization, and Mr. Keddy said that's where a criminal offence has been committed. It doesn't say that, of course; it says that's where that official has “reasonable grounds to believe” that there will be information to “afford evidence” that there was a crime.
My question is, was I wrong in the way I portrayed it? Is that your reading of the statute as well?