Let's never forget how judges get appointed. It's that awful business of politics and decision-making by ministers that results in judges becoming appointed. So I take your point that in this instance it may appear redundant, but there can be circumstances that arise where a minister I think should and could have the authority to have an investigation into a judge. I think it would be a rare occasion.
I think you'll find within this bill, Madam, that the powers of the Minister of National Defence are actually diminished. There are a number of clauses here that are aimed at curtailing, if not eliminating, the power of the minister within the justice system—appropriately so. But the power to order an investigation I don't see as interference. I see this as a rare opportunity where a minister might determine that something within the Department of National Defence, and within the justice system within the military, might merit an investigation. That's not to interfere in the outcome. It's not to interfere in the way in which the investigation were to occur. It would simply be to order an investigation. That would be my personal reflection on the matter.
With respect to clause 20 and clause 40, I think perhaps what I would suggest is that I can respond in more detail to the member's question, but clause 20, again, comes back to the issues of necessity for discipline, necessity for, in some cases, rehabilitation around the member in question. The ability to summons or to order attendance is not to necessitate testimony but to have the individual present in the court. This is also, I would suggest, similar to the powers that exist in our current Criminal Code to have an individual present and in the courtroom, and then the discretion exists to call that individual to give testimony, to provide testimony or evidence to the court, should the court decide so. But to have the ability to summons somebody is simply to have them attend. That is my interpretation.