When we go across the country and talk to military police officers, it's an interesting discussion we have about interference complaints. One of them is that we don't get very many. Some people are of the opinion that maybe we don't get very many because the chain of command in the military police is not unlike the quasi-judicial system that policing has. It's a little bit stronger, but in policing it is much the same.
With all due respect to the CFPM, I can see the provision is there, but that still isn't going to stop a VCDS from giving instructions on a particular investigation. That is problematic. It is giving up an independence that has been in place for 15 to 20 years, or even beyond that.
Yes, this provision is there, and proposed section 18.5 says he can only issue instructions and guidelines that have been made available to the public. It doesn't mean he can stop the VCDS from giving instructions; it just says that they're going to be made public, not that they're going to be stopped. Then he would have to follow those instructions. He doesn't even have to release them to the public, according to proposed subsection 18.5(5), if he doesn't think it's in the best interests of the administration of justice.
There is a lot danger in the way this is worded. Changes need to be made. Either repeal it or make changes that will give a provision for that exceptional circumstance that can't be misinterpreted as a “particular” investigation. Don't disagree with the exceptional circumstance. There's always a special thing that can be there.
The way it's written, the CFPM does not have the independence you would think that a police organization should have.