National Defence committee  The board always has a concern to inform decision-makers about problems on a proactive basis. In other words, why wait until a problem is raised through a grievance when it is possible to solve it upstream and nip the problem in the bud? It may be a recent problem concerning relocation or a stricter interpretation of Treasury Board provisions on relocation.

National Defence committee  I would say a balanced board constitution is one of the options available. You could go with all civilians, all military, or a balance. It could go anywhere in between. They would all have their advantages and disadvantages, in my view. Depending upon the angle from which you're looking at it, some would find benefits or disadvantages regardless of the model, whether it's all civilian, all military, or a mix.

National Defence committee  On average, it would be about 100 cases per year, which represent 40% of the caseload at the final authority level.

National Defence committee  The board's make-up varies over time. If memory serves me, there was a time when certain members had military experience, whereas others did not. Currently, in 2011, members who have been duly appointed by the Governor in Council all have military experience to varying degrees. At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that I do not control appointments.

National Defence committee  Exactly, but I would point out that, when I talk about the board members, I'm not just talking about those appointed by the Governor in Council. That doesn't include the board members, that is to say the support team of the members I referred to earlier. There are six members. Two are full time, that is myself, the chairperson and the vice-chairperson and four are part time, in particular the other vice-chairperson.

National Defence committee  I believe that is an understanding of the issue. The board's position has not changed. The department and the Canadian Forces know their positions. However, I'm not in a position to tell you with any accuracy the reasons why the recommendations are not part of the bill. Our position is known and remains unchanged.

National Defence committee  I know that, in principle, they have been accepted by the department, but I can't explain why they aren't included in the bill.

National Defence committee  We have never had to revert to that use of power. Over the last year, we came close on several occasions to having to revert to a hearing in order to acquire a single document. We understand that there's a statutory obligation on the department to provide the board with all the information within its control.

National Defence committee  Thank you. With regard to the board's independence and make-up, that's an interesting question in that I would characterize the model adopted by the department and by the Canadian Forces as highly specialized. It's a stand-alone complaints management model, in a way, in the context of which a number of agencies address very specific mandates and very specific cases.

National Defence committee  Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the board's statistics speak for themselves. Since it was established in 2000, regardless of the membership of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, an average of 40% of the cases that have been referred to the board over a 10-year period have produced positive recommendations for the complainants.

National Defence committee  Yes and no. There may be certain personal decisions, particularly in harassment cases. As a general rule, however, those decisions concern the interpretation of regulations, rights, social benefits and things like that.

National Defence committee  There is indeed an intermediate level, Mr. Chairman. Once the grievance has been submitted to the commander, the initial authority intervenes. The initial authority will basically consider and determine the grievance on its merits. When a member is not satisfied with either the response or the remedy provided to the griever, he or she may actually submit his or her grievance to the next level, which is the final level.

National Defence committee  That provision was taken away by Bill C-25when it received royal assent. It removed the minister from that process. It was a chain-of-command process with seven levels. It was brought down from seven levels to two. It also involved the creation of this board and the removal of the minister from the chain of command and from adjudicating grievances.

National Defence committee  Thank you for your question. Mr. Chairman, the board is absolutely in favour of the principle of independence. It's a principle essential to its proper operation. I should mention once again that the board enjoys institutional independence, that is to say that it suffers no direct internal or external interference from anyone.

National Defence committee  Mr. Chairman, exchanges regarding the grievance process are made in writing. This is an arbitration process, if you will, in the context of which exchanges are made in writing. The board has the power to hold hearings and to ask people to appear before it. Apart from that, submissions are made in writing.