In this particular case, one of the reasons I came forward, and all of my predecessors before me had come forward, was to ask for greater independence, in particular reporting to Parliament as an officer of Parliament. It is to ensure that, as I said when I talked about the grievance system, there is greater trust that there is a completely independent—and perceived to be completely independent—organization that has oversight over, in this case, the Department of National Defence and the military. This is to ensure confidence in the system, that this organization is independent.
Over the years, we have seen interference in our office. We have seen our authorities changed without consultation. All those elements of administrative interference and direct interference cause issues of confidence. They also cause us some inability to carry out [Technical difficulty—Editor].
One of the main reasons I asked for that independence was to be able to escalate a particular issue, whatever it might be, beyond just the minister. The minister—whatever minister and whatever party—is always a member of a certain party, and the issues that affect the military.... The military is a Canadian institution that is critical to all Canadians and needs to be heard by those who represent all Canadians, which is Parliament, and not to have any of the filters of any particular party in power as it goes forward.
In some cases, I may need to escalate that beyond Parliament and perhaps to the Prime Minister—any particular issues that we hear—because the importance of the military as a Canadian institution for national security is vital, and those issues, whatever they might be, need to be heard by Parliament. That is the main reason I've asked for greater independence.