I'm not going to disagree with the fact that there are going to be special circumstances, especially in theatre, whether it be sending a military police, an NIS officer, to deal with a KIA the field and do the forensics. There's no question that there will be circumstances. Quite frankly, the VCDS isn't going to have to give direction to the military police or the NIS. They're experts in their field, and they should know when it's safe to go and when it's not.
But the whole issue relative.... You say that this is “exceptional”; that's not how it's written here. It's a very general statement that says, “The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.” It doesn't say an “exceptional investigation”. It doesn't say anything about “in combat”, and it doesn't say anything about “in theatre”. Who's going to do the interpreting? Is this going to be the interpretation of the VCDS? It might be one interpretation today by one VCDS, a different one tomorrow, and a different interpretation of the instruction coming back from the CFPM.
I don't know if the CFPM is going to appear at this hearing, but as a former chief of police, I would not want a broad statement that my boss could tell me what to do on a “particular” investigation. It doesn't make sense.