Very well. I do not want to appeal your decision. To date, especially from a political standpoint, what I have seen in this bill is a mix of ideas dealing with the higher structure. It's about having more judges, more of this and that. In some ways, I don't see how we can save judicial independence. As I said, I am not questioning your decision, but I am a little disappointed that we would agree to this type of judicial responsibility. It has actually been ruled out of order because, under the act, military judges and the Chief of the Defence Staff will have the final authority. In other words, the bill that was submitted to us deals with very specific issues that, in my view, do not go far enough. I wanted you to know that I accept your ruling, but I had to say that about amendment BQ-3.
I will now go to amendment BQ-3.1. My suggestion was to have the following wording: “final authority in the grievance process—except in the case of grievances submitted by a military judge—”, but given your decision, I suspect that we will have to withdraw it. However, there is still a principle set out in the amendment through the wording: “including for the settlement of financial claims, and shall”.
I am not sure how to proceed. Can we simply cross out the words “except in the case of grievances submitted by a military judge”?