I would have to take issue with you, Mr. Hiebert. Almost all employees, including the employees who work in the public service, have a right against self-incrimination and are not obliged to provide a statement that could result in their being disciplined or being dismissed.
I think that we would all agree with you that where the public interest is involved, a balance has to occur, and that the balance has to reflect some of the concerns expressed by several of the witnesses here, including Mr. Mukherjee, the witness for the CPA, and Mr. Townsend, as well as in the question from Mr. Scarpaleggia.
What you have as a difficult task here is to balance the rights of the members of the RCMP against being subject to absolute and arbitrary power by a commissioner who is in fact judge, jury, and executioner while at the same time balancing the public interest in making sure of the institution.
The RCMP was a great pride to our country and has fallen into disrepute because of the actions of a few members, so you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's what you're going to be doing if you give more power to somebody who already has absolute power. To me your question about forcing members of the RCMP to give up all of their rights and incriminate themselves in that context, with great respect, betrays an ignorance over how the system actually works. Section 5 of the RCMP Act says that the commissioner has absolute authority and power over members of the RCMP. Can you tell me why somebody in that position needs more power?