We would offer at least two concerns about the amendment as presented. The first is that it would create an inconsistent condition between the commission's authorities related to the RCMP as found in subclause 52(2) and then, if subclause 52(3) were amended, the new condition created in relation to the CBSA. The commission would be obliged to refuse a complaint concerning part 4 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which is conduct and discipline, but then would not be obliged to refuse the same under the CBSA.
With regard to the substance of the amendment, removing that limitation on the commission would be very much at odds with the design intent and the policy intent of the regime, which are that the commission not be brought into matters of discipline and that matters of discipline not be brought before it. The means by which that is achieved is by imposing on the commission a duty to refuse to deal with disciplinary measures, because they are provided for, as we said earlier, by other processes under other statutes.
The commission would, in any event, not be able to adjudicate or review a disciplinary decision, so there would be no logical reason, in any event, to bring that decision before it for review.