Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question will be for Mr. Stannard.
Certainly from the questions that have come out here and from your testimony, we would agree that civilian interference in a police investigation would not, obviously, be tolerated, but I think you'd agree with me that military police are a unique police force in that they not only have a policing role but a soldiering role as well. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff addressed the concerns with the particular clause we've been discussing in a March 2, 2011, committee discussion. He said, and I quote:
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.
Clearly this is meant to be an exceptional power and one which, given the example provided by the VCDS, would seem to be necessary.
Do you not agree that this power can be justified, given the safeguards that are built in and given the transparency that the publication of directions received from the military chain of command to the provost marshal can be released? Why would there be a problem with that, given these safeguards and the transparency?