No. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
My point was that I think the intention of this was to ensure that a complaint couldn't be rejected simply because it was in the original version an NGO but in our proposal just a third party.
Ultimately, and correct me if I'm wrong, but even given the example just provided in regard to CBSA and the increase in complaints, ultimately the PCRC would still have the discretion to decide whether to move forward or not, and this is simply an amendment to ensure that it doesn't get automatically excluded simply because it's a third party making that complaint.
If there are processes in place such that there needs to be a connection.... I think we've heard testimony or we've heard before that if it were a public interest situation that is garnering attention, ultimately the decision-making authority of whether or not to move forward with an investigation still exists, but it wouldn't automatically be excluded simply because it was a third party making the initial complaint.
Is that a fair assessment of what this amendment would potentially do?