Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister.
You will know, Minister, that the contentious part of this bill is contained in proposed sections 18.5 through 18.6. It sets up a scheme whereby the “Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation”. Then the provost marshal is expected to publicize those, unless the provost marshal decides that he or she will not publicize them in the interests of the administration of justice.
You would know as well as anyone that this is a contentious point of constitutional law and charter law. In fact, when the last iteration of this bill was before us in January 2011, the Military Police Complaints Commission drew it to our attention and urged us to remove the clauses of the bill that would permit the vice chief to issue instructions in respect of a specific military police investigation and described them as “highly problematic” and, in the opinion of MPCC, directly contrary to the accountability framework of March 1998 by the VCDS and the provost marshal. This came about as a result of the Somali inquiry, which was not a happy period for either government or military, and which found that interference in police investigations by commanding officers had been a pervasive problem.
The question, Minister, is that, as I understood your response to Mr. Harris, you do not have in your possession—and I am presuming you have not sought—an opinion as to the charter-worthiness of this particular section. Am I correct about that?