Thank you for the question, Mr. Chisu.
No, it's the opposite, actually. Maybe I misspoke, but military experience in my view is an asset. What I said in my comment is that I also believe in variety and diversity. I don't think I said.... A quota to me would be an error. As the chairperson, all I'm interested in is getting the best board member available. I believe that excluding members based on their qualifications or because a quota has been reached would be inappropriate. That's my view.
If you put it in context.... Say, for example, that someone wasn't a cadet in his youth, just for reasons of having fun and deciding whether or not he was going to go into the military, and then had a successful career through many tribunals, maybe he would not be able to apply for a position. Alternatively, take someone who was in the reserves just to pay his tuition fees while going to college and never served afterwards in the Canadian Forces. He or she would also be excluded as a board member, if that quota was reached.
I think a serving member who has a grievance submitted.... For the Chief of the Defence Staff and for the board, I'm only interested in having the best available candidate. If that means that he or she has experience, so be it. If it means that for what is available at the time, he or she does not have the experience, so be it. But we should not be excluding, in my view, individuals from applying for these kinds of jobs because they have served in the military. I don't think there is tar attached to their bodies. I don't think they should be disadvantaged. I don't think they should be excluded.