There's not a whole lot to add, Mr. Chair. I think the discussion has been fairly inclusive.
I would point out that, as was noted at the start of the discussion, the proposed amendment does two things. The focus has been on the 60% number, but it also excludes any officer or non-commissioned member from being appointed, which deals with the provision in the act that I think Mr. Hamel raised when he was here, saying that it's something he would like studied and had some concerns with.
Obviously, there has been no internal policy discussion within DND or with the grievance board on that issue. Obviously, it's within the prerogative of the committee to do as it wishes in that regard. But I just want to make clear for all the members that it is doing that, as well as dealing with the 60% number with respect to the numbers of the members on the committee who must not have had previous experience. Again, I don't think I'm going to say anything that hasn't been said, but I'll just run through these points in case something has been missed.
First of all, the notion of using legislation to prohibit experience is unique. We actually talked to the holders of the federal statute base, and they were not aware of any provision that actually prohibits experience when talking about qualifications to fill a position. They generally prescribe what experience is necessary if they think it's relevant to the job. Again, that's based on that feedback.
The other point I would make is that these are four-year term appointments. They certainly are renewable, but they aren't automatically renewable. Generally speaking—again, this is a practice across the appointment structure within the federal scheme—it's the appointment authority that has the responsibility for considering and striking that balance, and it can rebalance that. That's why these appointments are made for defined and fixed terms.
If the balance has fallen out of whack, then one would presume that the appointment authority—in this case, that would be GIC—would be in a position to rebalance that as appointments come up for renewal or reconsideration. That point is out there for your consideration.
There was some suggestion that perhaps CF members or retired CF members were becoming aware of these appointments more than other members of the public. I can't really speak to that, except to say that it's certainly my understanding that notices of appointment or openings within these bodies are advertised in the same way as any other GIC appointment is and that they're advertised to the general public.
I'm not sure how that would favour CF members, but I'm not quite sure what the context of that discussion was. I'll leave that out there.
The final point I would note is that even the grievance board chair himself, when he appeared, noted that there was any infinite number of combinations and permutations with respect to experience that could work on the board, that certainly he didn't see it as being within his purview to indicate what would be the right balance, but he noted that there are a number of balances that probably are right and work. As we prescribe a specific balance in this piece of legislation, we seem to be moving towards a right answer, and that may be a bit of statement, because I see that it says “at least 60%”, not 60%. It leaves some leeway.
Anyway, I throw those comments on the table for your consideration, and I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.