General Cathcart, I have a couple of questions. One has to do with the military provost marshal. The role of the provost marshal, as I understand it, is to act as a police force within the military to ensure that the laws are being obeyed. These would be the general laws of the forces but also the laws of war and other obligations of the Canadian Forces.
In that context, I wonder if you could discuss the aspect of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff having the power to issue instructions in relation to the conduct of a particular investigation. I say that, of course, in the context of one of the things we've been concerning ourselves with over the last year or so, which is the question of the actions of the military police themselves. I realize that these are before tribunals now. It is just the whole notion that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff could, in fact--you could call it interference--actually provide instructions with respect to the conduct of a particular investigation. It presumes that he could say that he doesn't want you investigating this or doesn't like the way you're investigating this. That seems to me to be, in the context of an expectation of the provost marshal, aside from you, as a JAG.... You can give advice, but you can't arrest anybody. Maybe you can. You're in the position of giving advice. The provost marshal's role is somewhat different. Yet the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff can, in fact, control those investigations.
Could you comment on that, generally? When do you see that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff might use such powers in actual practice, and can you give examples?