It has probably become clear that I like the view that you build your framework and then you consult with your stakeholders and build the details. The code of conduct can have a very specific statement when it's developed to talk about harassment. There's no question it can deal with that beyond the general comments. You can build that into it.
The other component I see as important is that while Treasury Board has some responsibility over this as the employer, so does the RCMP. The ability to create rules to create a process to deal with harassment complaints is important. I've already had meetings since the last time I was here on fairly complicated, complex cases involving harassment. It's disheartening. You can't move them forward quickly, but you are entangled in a bit of a snare when you have the situation of the part IV, which says you have to do certain things. You're trying to resolve this, trying to get rid of the poisoned work environment, and you're not doing it in a timely way. Nine months or a year later, you're saying that the harassment one didn't turn out, and now you're into code of conduct. Then there is the view that we do a code of conduct investigation and then try to do harassment resolution.
I think there are two parts. The code of conduct can speak to it specifically. That can occur through consultation, with a statement on that. We now have a process to create rules to deal with harassment that allow us to comply with Treasury Board directives, which are important in this area, as the employer generally for the core public service.