NDP-3 reflects some of the concerns that were raised in particular by the chair of the grievance board. We had a discussion about the composition of the grievance board. I have to say my initial view was that this should be a civilian board totally, and I suppose along the same kinds of lines that someone outside the military should be deciding this on general principles of what might be considered to be employment law or entitlement for employees who in this case don't have the right to unionize. But I was persuaded by what I heard, that it doesn't hurt to have people who understand the military and the idiosyncrasies of how things get done, and that it does take a little while for people to understand how it works.
There was some suggestion as well from the chair of the grievance board that even though it was permitted by the act for serving members to be appointed to the board, he didn't think it was desirable. So NDP-3 actually incorporates both of those ideas, and I'm told by the legislative clerk that the rest of these items, 4, 5, 6, and 7, are consequential on the first. We're not talking about them all now, but I don't want to re-argue each one. If one fails, they all fail.
The point here is that I don't believe that serving members of the military ought to be on the grievance board--I think there probably are now some seconded, I'm told--and that at least 60% of the members of the grievances committee ought never to have been a member or a non-commissioned member. In other words, as much as 40% would have a military background and they could bring that experience to the board, but the majority ought not to have been either an officer or a non-commissioned member of the force. That's my amendment. I guess there's not much further to say about it. The arguments were made essentially before the grievance board.