Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to take a few seconds to thank you, General Eyre, for always generously attending our committee meetings and for your responses, which have helped us make sound recommendations. We're sorry to see you go, but we wish you every success in your future endeavours. I hope that you'll be back again before the end of the parliamentary session.
My question is quite long. I hope that it's relatively clear, regardless. Please take as much time as you need to answer it. This question was inspired by a question that a military member asked me.
He told me that there had been three independent reviews of the grievance process, but that there were still delays and backlogs and that the process was cumbersome. He also told me that an old federal decision confirmed that the military members weren't tied to the Crown by any employment contract. As a result, the grievance process, no matter how it's changed, will always remain internal within the Canadian Armed Forces. There will never be any possibility of external recourse.
Isn't this a matter of looking at the issue in the wrong way? Should the process for hiring military members also be reviewed? Should the fact that they aren't necessarily public servants and that they don't have employment contracts or recourse other than through internal channels be reviewed? Could a review of this process also be part of the discussion on how to improve the grievance process?
I think that we already started this discussion with Minister Blair. We talked about the possibility of a two‑year trial period for recruits, to see whether they like military service and to give them the chance to leave. There already seems to be a move towards reviewing the current approach.
Would it be a good idea to also look at how military members are hired and tied to their jobs? Could the study on grievances explore this option?