I'm not sure it's possible, Mr. Chair, to answer that question shortly, but let me offer a couple of thoughts.
First of all, this is a different business. Colonel Grubb and the provost marshal have the unenviable task of operating a world-class police force in incredibly changing and challenging environments. In that regard, the imperatives of conducting an investigation, the expectations of Canadians, and perhaps even the responsibilities of a provost marshal may come into conflict with some of the other priorities the Government of Canada has established for its fighting force.
One example would be conducting a forensic investigation in a battle scene. It goes without saying that we wouldn't send a whole bunch of military police into a live fire zone and put them at risk, but there may be a desire to send a bunch of military police into an area that will soon become a live fire zone, and there may be a requirement to balance some of that off.
I cannot really foresee very many circumstances in which I would make use of this provision, Mr. Harris. It makes me a little uncomfortable, because I value quite highly the independence of the provost marshal. In fact, I depend upon it.
Having said that, I could foresee, potentially, occasions when the provost marshal may wish for me to provide instructions to guide the course of an investigation in a complex scenario, because he may feel conflicted. He may seek that type of guidance. A provision in the bill would allow us to confront that quite openly and transparently and allow us to address that. I think that 10 or 15 years from now I would not want to be a vice-chief wishing that we had some way of dealing with the situation. Having it in the bill gives us that option, even if we never exercise it.