Okay. There is no implied criticism there. I know we are moving quickly, but given that's the case, and the military ombudsman will be appearing, I have one comment and one question.
As he reports to the Minister of National Defence, I guess we'll be asking him if he has been released from any restrictions on his testimony, because he's not an officer of Parliament, and there's a tendency to forget that. He is someone who reports to the Minister of National Defence. I'm not sure—and maybe it's our first question for him—that we're being assured that if he chooses to answer or not answer questions, that's on the basis of his own personal legal advice and not on the instructions from the department.
The second question is that, now that we're having him appear before us, I believe we should offer the minister an opportunity to return to the committee after that testimony, make any further statements he wishes to make and also make any clarifications he'd like to make on the current situation with the second chief of the defence staff under investigation.
If there's a desire to do so, I could do that by a formal motion, but I would like to see us agree that we extend that invitation to the minister as a courtesy to allow him to reply after we hear that testimony. I would hope that there would be agreement to do so.