So with amendment BQ-3 not being carried, the Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority with respect to all grievances, including those submitted by military judges. Given that starting position, what happens with amendment BQ-4 is that we're now removing the obligation that the chief would have if this bill were to pass unamended to refer every grievance from a military judge to the grievance board for their findings and recommendations--not for a final decision, but for their findings and recommendations.
That is in the bill to address the type of concern you're talking about, which Mr. Bachand was referring to. The amendment that's being proposed would remove that obligation, so it would read, after the amendment, simply that “the Chief of the Defence Staff shall refer every grievance that is of a type prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council to the grievances committee for its findings and recommendations”.
So the CDS would have the discretion as to whether or not military judge grievances would go forward, and it would be based on the nature of the grievance and not on the fact that it came from a military judge.
The unamended clause would cause any military judge grievance, as long as it falls within the scope of the act--and there are some prohibitions on what military judges can grieve, but any grievance that's properly submitted by a military judge, regardless of its content, would go to the grievance board for findings and recommendations. That's what would disappear if this amendment were adopted.