On the issue of the motion on jurisdiction, as you will recall, the Attorney General of Canada challenged the Military Police Complaints Commission decision to hold public hearings into this issue. They went to Federal Court arguing that the commission cannot look at this issue at all and the hearings should be quashed.
There was a ruling in September 2009 by the Federal Court upholding some of the objections made by the government, but nevertheless concluding that there was some jurisdiction for the commission to inquire into those issues. The court made it clear that the focus must be on military police officers. However, it also said that it should look at information that was both within the possession of the Canadian Forces military police or was within the means of knowing of the military police. So we've interpreted that to mean that the commission can look at what the military police knew, or what they could have known had they investigated the matter properly.
At this point the government is making objection to, as we understand it, much of the evidence that the commission intends to call, on the basis that this isn't information that military police knew or had the means of knowing. We don't know how that's going to be tied together.
It's our view that, for example, if Canadian diplomats were making visits to prisons, making reports that detainees are telling them they've been tortured, Canadian Forces military police could have obtained those reports had they looked. But at this point it appears that the government is going to object to that kind of evidence going before the commission. We'll see what they say.