I have a couple of comments. The way that subclause 28(3) is written in the act right now talks about the commission's doing an investigation on its own initiative, not because somebody has complained about an issue. They have undertaken all by themselves to do something. That's different from what Mr. Julian is suggesting in regard to racism, anti-Semitism or any sort of complaint that someone might have that goes to the commission. That's a totally different scenario and a totally different path for an investigation.
I agree with Mr. Julian's suggestion that if a complaint of that nature was to come to the commission and they chose not to investigate it because they didn't have enough resources, the government needs to certainly give its head a shake and say we have underfunded a commission; however, if the commission on its own accord has chosen to take on an investigation for whatever reason—and I can't think of one offhand—that they would initiate themselves and that hasn't already come to the attention of a third party, that would have changed the language to reflect a third party coming to the commission and saying that this is an issue, because subclause 28(3) doesn't apply to the regular scheme, and that is somebody coming to make a complaint. It only applies if the commission on its own initiative decides to conduct an investigation, and these are the criteria for it.
I think that the act needs to stay the way it's written. I have a problem with NDP-19.1 narrowing the focus even more. I agree with the comments made, as I said previously, by Mr. Julian for certain types of investigations that come to the commission, but subclause 28(3) doesn't apply to those sorts of complaints, unless I missed the boat here.
I'll defer to Mr. Koops. He usually tells me if I missed the boat or not.