Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Vice-Admiral Donaldson, Colonel Grubb, and Colonel Gauthier, for joining us today.
This is a most interesting piece of legislation. A lot of complex issues are before us, some having to do with the relationship between the CDS and members of the forces. I think in the case of the grievances in particular, we were given a few very passionate ideas about the relationship between the CDS and the members of the forces. These ideas came from ex-military people with a great deal of respect for their lives in the military and the military commitment.
We've had very outstanding chiefs of defence staff in our forces. The relationship seems to be important for the purposes of morale and leadership. There's almost an attempt to achieve a personal relationship, if you will, as part of the function of leadership. I think you would agree with that; I see your head nodding. I think that's desirable. It was suggested that in that context it was unwise to have the CDS delegate that authority for something like grievances, for example.
Maybe Colonel Gauthier or either of you could answer this. Would it not make sense to retain the right to settle grievances in the Chief of the Defence Staff as the final authority, recognizing of course that even in your role as a delegate, you would consult with him and that perhaps even the decision would be made by him? Couldn't the final authority still be retained with the CDS? It's been suggested, although not by any witnesses in this committee, that maybe the CDS doesn't want that responsibility, either for financial aspects or for final authority.
Is there any sense of that in your organization?