I'm a little concerned that my comments on Bill C-42 have been taken out of context. First, you have to stipulate that USGE and PSAC do not represent the regular members of the RCMP.
As to what potential impact Bill C-42 may have on the resolution of regular member to regular member complaints, it's not my position to comment. My comment was intended to be a reflection of our view as to whether or not the change to Bill C-42 will improve the situation of public servants.
The concern that we've always had, and I've mentioned it before, is we're not satisfied with the way harassment complaints have been dealt with when the complainant is a public servant and the respondent is a regular member. So the failing in Bill C-42, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's largely devoted to addressing the much publicized issue of harassment between member and member and the need for the commissioner to have a capacity to deal with that issue in a more direct manner.
Insofar as it affects the public servants, the problem with the change to Bill C-42 is that it essentially gives the commissioner and the RCMP the right to bypass or not have applicability of the Treasury Board policies and directives in investigations where a regular member is one of the parties. The problem with that, of course, is that it's not a problem if both parties are regular members, but it's a problem when the other party or the complainant is a public servant.
The RCMP proposes to create a new form of investigation under what's called a commissioner standing order. The problem with that process is it's going to apply to any harassment complaint that involves a regular member. Again, I go back to this: what if the complainant is a public servant? We see that as problematic because public servants involved in that complaint would be put under a process that is really more designed for dealing with member to member.
The other problem we have is that we're not entirely satisfied that a commissioner standing order has the legality under law to apply to public servants. I raised that issue internally at an RCMP harassment working group committee yesterday, and they'll provide their legal opinion in due course.
Our view is that the RCMP has to recognize the need for a separate complaint process when the complainant is a public servant and the respondent is a regular member. It can't rely on the new process that they're developing because public servants have certain rights and benefits and privileges under Treasury Board policy that they wouldn't necessarily have under a commissioner standing order.
Just for your information, in response to a query from Ms. Sgro at the earlier sitting, I have provided today a complete list of recommendations in response to the request for a list of recommendation vis-à-vis the RCMP. You will have that once translation is done, I presume.
I could go over it orally if you wish, but it's up to you.