Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that when you were talking about the change in the timelines, you were talking about reviewing cases from the time they come to you to the time they are disposed of. One of the big criticisms of the grievance process has to do with what happens before it gets to you. It's supposed to be resolved in 90 days, yet the average time seems to be up around 18 months. I know of one fellow who complained that he changed from the reserve force to the regular force and had to move his family, and it took two years for his move to be reimbursed, even though he was fighting in Afghanistan. That seems to be wrong. It doesn't seem to me that board members would have to have a lot of military experience to decide that this is wrong and ought to be fixed.
There may be some issues that have a military overtone, but we're talking mostly about bureaucratic things, even in the area of promotions. I've had 30 years' experience as a labour lawyer. You have people adjudicating these matters who are trained arbitrators. They may not be working in the public service or the factory where the grievance comes from. These are really labour-relations matters, so I'm wondering where the military experience comes in. You're not dealing with discipline, although you talk about administrative measures here. What that requires is adjudicative knowledge and ability, as opposed to military experience. I say this to combat some of the comments from over this way.
What about the process itself within the military, the long time it takes to resolve what are often straightforward matters? Why does it take so long, and is there something that could be done, legislatively, to deal with that? I notice that a recommendation for a 12-month time limit was not accepted. That was recommendation number 74. Would you care to comment on that?