That's fair enough.
I'm going to go to Mr. Koops for a second.
We support the intent behind this legislation. We've talked before at this committee about how to make it stronger to ensure that a complainant is properly looked after.
We have to look at both sides of the coin. We have to look at the organizations that are tasked with investigating these, and we have to look at the victim, or the alleged aggrieved individual or individuals who might have a complaint against the CBSA, the RCMP or the commission, for that matter. We have to clarify language in this act at this stage to ensure there's no ambiguity as to when, where and how a third party can actually launch an investigation.
I know the language is in there currently, and in some of your cases, I know that the act.... Currently, you have the ability to not investigate, but having done these, to go through and explain it, and the energy it takes to explain it.... When you say the act is very clear.... Unless you have, you don't get—isn't that right? It's only a matter of adding “with authorization from the aggrieved individual”, or something along that line.
Mr. Koops, I'm looking for your opinion on that. Given each organization's acts that they work under for complaints, and now expanding this to include the CBSA, would it not improve our legislation to have that in there?