There was a concern among ordinary sailors and soldiers about judges who stood to be promoted and have future postings. There was a fear that it would depend on how much you please those above you. It's a similar concern that we heard from Lieutenant-Colonel Dugas.
Fully separating the corps of military judges from the line officers in the Judge Advocate General branch, which was done some years ago, was a positive step in that regard. Still there was a lingering concern that one's pension depends on the length of service. A judge who was ruling in the wrong way might be ushered out the door earlier and that would have an impact on his or her pension.
Crystallizing the retirement date is, in principle, a very positive move. The last time I was here I think it might have been Mr. Harris, again, who was asking me questions about why the age of 60, why not the age of 75, like judges appointed under section 96 of the Constitution Act. I think the answer to that is that military judges, unlike civilian judges, have to go operational sometimes. We have had courts martial in Canada but held overseas. Military judges have to be prepared to put on boots and a heavy rucksack and deploy. Again, why is it 60 years? Why is it not 59 or 61 years? At some point, you just have to make a choice. It seems to me that's a rational justification for something other than 75 years.