Certainly there's an old adage that justice must not only appear to be done but must actually be done, and in terms of policing, the whole aspect of maintaining the independence of policing investigations is paramount. We're not talking here about the management of the police service or the numbers of police officers or how they're deployed or a variety of other aspects, but the day-to-day operation and the investigations.
Whether police investigations are conducted by street officers—or in this case, NIS officers—or police detectives, that information is gathered, and if charges are laid and the charges go forward, the information is then in the control of the crown attorney or the assistant crown or whoever is handling that case. They are responsible at that point for carrying it forward, so it's paramount that police have to remain independent.
Does that mean you don't have conversations with your superior, in this case the VCDS, or in my previous life maybe the mayor or even the board member or another board member? You keep them informed as to what's happening so they are aware of the public aspects of things, but you're not receiving directions from them as to how you're going to do your investigation. That's absolutely out of the question; they are not to get involved in it. Not only that: they are not to get down into the organization. That is the responsibility of the chief of police.
In this case, the CFPM is ultimately responsible for the investigations conducted by their members, both domestically and internationally, which is a whole other story. The issue of investigations is his or her responsibility.