Certainly, grievances are tracked. I don't have any data before me today that could talk to you about the satisfaction level within the membership of the Canadian Forces with respect to the grievance process.
I think I can say, though, that I certainly have not heard the grievance board criticized for being too closely aligned...and I guess that may be an implication, but surely not what has been said here.
I understand exactly what the message is, so I'm not engaging in debate, but just putting on the record expressly that I don't think this is being driven by this thought, and it's certainly not a criticism that I've ever heard, that the grievance board is aligned with the Canadian Forces and therefore is not providing meaningful and legitimate findings and recommendations. I would just throw that out there, again recognizing that that's certainly not what has been expressed.
The final point I would make, again, just for the record more than anything else, is that the current appointment process is competitive, to the best of my knowledge. So all of those individuals—and again, it was made very clear that nobody is talking about the qualifications or the integrity of anybody serving on the board at the current time, and that's well noted—were all appointed through a competitive process and were judged to be the best suitable based on the applications that were received. Obviously I can't speak to whether everybody who could have or should have applied did.
I make those two points. I think Colonel Gibson has just one thing to add.
