I wasn't merely speaking in terms of the need for enhanced powers just for that purpose. I spoke to those powers because I think it relates directly to the efficacy of the commission to look at the program you're looking at.
When I look at the Hansards back in 1995-96, when the legislation was put forward, there was all sorts of discussion at that time as to whether we could look at the program and whether there would be in camera hearings before committees and things of that nature, because parliamentarians were concerned about making sure of the efficacy of the program.
What I'm indicating to you is that when there's a complaint to us, the nature and scope of our inquiry is dictated by the complaint. So if a person says that he or she has a concern about financial compensation, the issue that is looked at and investigated is strictly the issue of financial compensation. And most of the complaints tend to be of that narrow nature. You cannot tell how the program is working, even vis-à-vis that individual, because you're only looking at the subject matter of the complaint and the relevant material concerning that particular complaint.
Therefore, the indication of our satisfaction with the resolution was in the context of the person complaining about money and what the information was relative to whether the person got the money over the promises in terms of compensation. It had nothing to do with how the program itself functioned or anything else that might have come out in terms of the uniformity of application of that program across the country. They are very narrow in terms of scope. That was the only context in which I put my comment.
In terms of the recommendations we made in the two cases I responded to—those are the ones I indicated were back around 1991-92—they're very detailed in terms of guidance as to whether they should have assessed the person for suitability for the program and things of that nature. I've undertaken that we will provide you with our specific recommendations and the response we got in both of those cases.
The current case I have before me, clearly, I can't discuss, because we don't yet have the relevant information that allows us to go ahead and make a determination. That's the one case I indicated was outstanding.
I wanted to contextualize that.