Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The right to refuse investigations because the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith already exists in the legislation. That's not a change. What the commissioner and president can do is direct to not commence an investigation if any complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. That doesn't change.
The second proposed paragraph, 38(1)(b), is “the complaint is from an individual who”, and included in that are a number of different criteria, including, “did not see or hear the conduct or its effects as a result of not being physically present at the time when and the place where the conduct or its effects occurred”. There are many provisions that exist for the exact reasons Ms. O'Connell just set out.
I would suggest that the reason Breaking Barriers made this strong recommendation is that what that does, given all the reasons an investigation could be directed to not continue and the fact that an individual, for very valid reasons—concerns about what the exposure might mean—might not make the complaint themselves.... This means that removing this clause, which still gives the commissioner and the president a wide scope not to continue an investigation.... One thing they couldn't point to is an individual who, for very valid reasons, has chosen not to step forward, even though there were witnesses to the conduct who are willing to step forward on their behalf.