Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, in the many reiterations of this bill, one of the debates was around the independence of the police to conduct investigations. The independence of the police is as important to the rule of law as the independence of the judiciary.
As I said earlier, the tension between the independence of the police and the command structure of the military is what creates something of a hybrid system for military justice in this country, and for that matter, in all other countries.
There exists a tension in the military system of justice that does not exist in the civilian system. Where police would be assumed to be, both factually and in appearance, independent of supervision from, say, an authority like a mayor or other political authority in a military justice system, that is not entirely a warranted assumption.
Hence, my question is with respect to subsection 18.5(3), which states: “The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation”.
I would be interested in the government's view with respect to the ability of the vice chief of the defence staff to actually issue instructions on a unique and discreet investigation. That does not auger well for the independence of the police to pursue an investigation, where it might take the police.
Does the hon. member have some concern that this particular section could be both used, but more ominously abused, by senior brass, for want of a better term, in order to shut down an investigation?