I do, actually. Thank you very much, Rachel. I certainly can tell you that I've thought quite a lot about this. I think there are three ways we can fix the problems, and I welcome the opportunity to advise in terms of what I've seen.
First, I believe we need to overhaul the grievance system within the CAF, because it cannot and should not take five years to reach a decision. To do that, the CAF needs to develop checks and balances so that if a lie is found in the middle of a grievance and is proved to be a lie, it needs to be recognized. That was never corrected in Ms. Nash's case, and that was the start of the worst part of her life. To obtain these checks and balances, I believe that the CAF needs to have an impartial party moving the grievance process along that's not part of the CAF. I say this because the people who are deciding the grievances are the same people who are perpetuating the discrimination and harassment. In criminal law, the decision that the Supreme Court of Canada handed down of Jordan had tremendous impact on moving criminal cases forward quickly and effectively. Why not the same with the CHRC? We need to legislate that, but we need to have a watchdog.
I believe there's a second way to overhaul the grievance process. The CHRC cannot be the last place a griever can go after the grievance is exhausted, because that allows the CHRC to be able to adopt a passive role. Quite frankly, it requires an amendment to the act, to paragraph 41.1(a), to allow anyone in the federal sector to be able to go to the expert tribunal to get an expert decision in place. I think it's something that has to happen, because throughout Ms. Nash's case, she did not have individuals who were actually expert in the matter of human rights.