It's not just independence of the commission, although that's important. In the last number of years we've seen some very, I think, contentious issues for which the RCMP has been brought before parliamentary committees. There was the pension income issue, and so on.
As a lawyer, a former barrister, I felt uncomfortable watching what was happening before the committee, because it was a highly partisan environment. You can challenge that if you wish. I thought it was very difficult for witnesses to appear. Natural justice seemed to take a back seat to many issues. Counsel could attend, in that case, with the commissioner of the RCMP, but could play no role. And members were being played against each other. I found that to be very unsettling in terms of both the reputation of Parliament and the reputation of the force and the members.
Because the issue you were dealing with was important to Parliament, I would have preferred it if you could have turned to a body such as ours, at the time we had the power, and said, “Will you look at this? These are our concerns. Go off and do it in a format whereby people have rights and due process, and then produce a report that responds to the needs of parliamentary committees”.
As a lawyer before a court and who is familiar with the charter, I felt very uncomfortable. To be quite candid, it looked like 16th century England in terms of how that matter was handled, and I don't think it helped anyone. I think a committee could actually help you.
The other thing is that we're dealing with a national institution. I think it's important that all members, and your constituencies, because you come from across the country, have faith that the role is being properly fulfilled and have faith in the person carrying it out.