She asked that it be removed, but either amendment gets us to the same place, I believe. Including language that says “sufficient resources exist for conducting the review and the handling of complaints under Part 2 will not be compromised” takes our mandate to do systemic reviews and makes it secondary to the handling of complaints, so the chairperson then doesn't have the discretion to say that a certain amount of resources is going to be dedicated to look at this issue more systemically.
We have an ongoing example. There's an ongoing investigation out in B.C. into the Community-Industry Response Group. Fifth Estate did a piece on it on the weekend. We have over 500 complaints related to that unit in the RCMP in B.C. Those complaints are being investigated and the conduct of individual members is being examined.
Our systemic review is not looking at the individual members. We're looking at the broader issues of whether there's policy, whether there's training, and the command and control. We won't examine each individual member. Instead we're looking at it more broadly.
We couldn't start that investigation for a couple of years, until the commission actually received additional program integrity funding last year. That's when the systemic review was initiated. Up until that point, resources weren't sufficient to undertake a review of specified activities, which for clarity we call systemic investigations, so that was held off for a while until the funding came around.