Thank you.
With regard to the board's independence and make-up, that's an interesting question in that I would characterize the model adopted by the department and by the Canadian Forces as highly specialized. It's a stand-alone complaints management model, in a way, in the context of which a number of agencies address very specific mandates and very specific cases. In the case of the board, it's restricted to military grievances that concern the lives and benefits of military members on a day-to-day basis. Some raise the argument that was advanced a little earlier. Others say, on the contrary, that it is important to have a certain knowledge, to understand the organization, provided you respect the principle of independence and do not interfere with the issues of the board.
This interpretation can work on one side and on the other. I can tell you that, when a case is assigned to me, it is very easy for me to ask the tough questions, to know to whom and how to ask them. I can't answer on behalf of other people, but I maintain what I previously said, that military service is not a factor that detracts from an individual's neutrality. In my opinion, you can't make that connection, draw that conclusion, simply as a result of military service. In fact our statistics tend to prove the contrary.
It must also be understood that the board plays no direct role in the appointments of people and selection criteria. All that is the responsibility of the Privy Council Office and the Governor in Council. The board's role or my role, if you prefer, boils down to making recommendations on renewal, once people are appointed. That's the only role I play.