Yes, I did.
Indeed, the language in the investigative threshold here really relies on what we find elsewhere in the Criminal Code. We're talking about when the commission can invoke its investigative powers. We do see this elsewhere in the Criminal Code. It was definitely an intentional choice.
With respect to the U.K., the “real possibility” standard figures in their referral powers back to the courts. That's just how their criminal code is structured, with a real possibility that the court of appeal will not uphold the appeal. Our statute here in Canada is different. Definitely, we incorporated the concepts that are familiar in the Criminal Code.
I want to elaborate on another aspect of this provision. There's an “or” here. It's that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” or that “it is in the interests of justice” to conduct an investigation. There's an alternative there that's being introduced, because a lot has been heard in the past about the idea that the minister's powers to conduct an investigation in this context already require that there are reasonable grounds to believe a miscarriage of justice occurred, yet there's no evidence to substantiate that.
Some case law has pointed out the catch-22, if you will. How can that even be determined unless there's some ability to seek out some relevant information to look into the matter to see if there are real merits in continuing with a review? That's why the language is changing a bit here to provide that alternative. I'll also point out that when it comes to the final referral back to the courts for a new trial or a new appeal, it's a bit higher: It's “reasonable grounds to conclude”, not believe, “that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and “in the interests of justice to do so”. That, too, will get at not sending back to the courts frivolous matters or ones that don't have merit.