Evidence of meeting #47 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to go back to the same questioning that Mr. Harris began. I understand about independence, I understand about neutrality, but I don't think either is the issue. I think that people can be part of an independent structure and can be absolutely neutral in terms of their focus, outlook, and understanding of their mandate, as well as just the basic attitude that they have towards things, but I think it's something beyond that as well.
It's the nature of one's experiences and the kinds of understanding that you develop out of those experiences that determine the attitudes you take. You can act very independently and you can act neutrally, but if you have a certain set of experiences, backgrounds, and understandings, that's what you're more likely to apply.
We've all been part of organizations that have been that way. Part of my background in sports.... What is always said when a question comes up that challenges anything is, “Well, it's a part of the game. It's just a part of the game. It's the way we do things. It's the way we've always done things. It's the way we've done things forever. Others wouldn't understand”.
You get into a lot of boxes because of that and you end up in a lot of unfortunate and inappropriate places because of it. I would think that at the very least the board would be include some civilians, if not all civilians, to bring to that board another set of understandings and ways of doing things--people who may say, “I appreciate that this is the way it has always been done, but really, it's just not appropriate”.
Why is there not at least some civilian presence on the board?
4:10 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
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. That's the role of the Governor in Council. However, I can tell you that that not always been the case. That is the case today, but will it be the case for the next replacement? I don't know.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
What you're saying now is that so far as you know, everybody who is on the board has some military experience. Is that what you're saying?
That's the current makeup of the board, but in the past that may not always have been the case.
4:10 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
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. These are the members who make the decisions concerning a case and who sign the recommendations to the Chief of Staff.
The infrastructure supporting these six members consists of people from all fields. Some are civilians, others military members. They are mediation specialists, people from legal services and so on. A whole range of tools is at the disposal of board members—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
My time is just about up. In terms of the makeup of the board itself—not the support part, but the board itself—I think that having a variety of experiences, and not just military experience, is something to look into quite seriously in the future.
I have one quick question. In your statement, you talked about the individual grievances and how your work enables you to identify trends in areas of dissatisfaction. Can you tell me what some of those new trends in dissatisfaction or problems might be?
4:15 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you. Your time is up.
I will now give the floor to Ms. Gallant.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To our witness, when do you expect a report on the pilot project you referred to?
4:15 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
The pilot project started on January 1. It was authorized for a minimum six-month period. In September or October 2011, we should, in principle, have enough cases to rely on decision-making authorities for them to determine whether the model should be integrated and thus become the standard. In short, by the fall of 2011, we should have a better idea of the matter.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
All right. Thank you.
I'll go back to Mr. Hawn's question on the makeup of the board and the requirement to understand the military. You mentioned what the current makeup is. Would you say the preferred makeup of the board would be a balance of civilian and military experience?
4:15 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
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. There are pros and cons to each model.
I believe there will be opportunities later on to review items like that--not through the review of this bill, but when the next five-year review or next seven-year review comes forward. This would of course require further study and evaluation of those advantages and disadvantages. The board would have to seriously look at these options, and, if invited, they would contribute to such a debate also.
Irrespective of the model you're looking at, I would say you could find advantages or disadvantages to any one of them.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Are you saying that from your standpoint there's no preference, then?
4:15 p.m.
Director of Operations and General Counsel, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
Could I make a comment too?
In 2000, the act was adopted and the board was created. In looking at the current act, we just realized that although it's never occurred, it is possible for current members of the CF to be appointed to the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. The Governor in Council can appoint and second these members to the board as members, but they would remain active members of the chain of command.
That's something we will bring up in the next review of the act. We don't think that having board members who are current members of the Canadian Forces would be an appropriate way of using the appointment system, but retired members seem to be an asset that the Governor in Council has taken for the current board we have.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
On average, what number of cases would the board deal with on a yearly basis?
4:15 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
On average, it would be about 100 cases per year, which represent 40% of the caseload at the final authority level.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Where did the recommendation come from to change the name of the board? Was it the soldiers making comments or having concerns?
4:20 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
Mr. Chairman, this is an issue we raised outside of the Lamer report, and it is pursuant to some activities the board is performing. We noted that in correspondence sent to the board, we were looked at as belonging to the Canadian Forces. The name “Canadian Forces” Grievance Board, by association, makes it a part of it very easily.
During base visits, people were surprised we were not part of the department and that we were not part of the Canadian Forces. We have been spending a tremendous amount of effort and resources in trying to explain that.
That's one of the reasons this name change will bring greater clarity to who we are and what we do. So far it has been
like a ball and chain. We constantly have to explain that.
It's not only us. The Canadian Forces also have to explain it on their part. It creates a problem on both sides, both for the Department of National Defence and the board.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
The concern was that perhaps you were not totally independent.
4:20 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
The concern was that from the main perspective, we were a part of the organization.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Ms. Gallant.
Now I will give the floor to Mr. Paillé.
February 9th, 2011 / 4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Pascal-Pierre Paillé Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you very much. If I have any time left at the end, I will share it with Mr. Bachand.
Thank you for being here. You will correct me if necessary, but I saw that you stated on two occasions in your text that amendments to the National Defence Act will be necessary in order to implement some of the recommendations not found in the bill. Do you believe certain recommendations could be included in Bill C-41 so that we aren't required to amend the act a second, third or fourth time?
4:20 p.m.
Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
Thank you for your question.
That is indeed a possibility. I also note that, when the minister appeared on Monday, he said he was open to recommendations from this committee. My role is to tell you that three of those concern the board's operations, without affecting its mandate. Consequently, they do not affect the aspect related to the committee's recommendations; these are operating tools. There is an openness; there is a possibility. So it's a necessary tool for the board. We've been working without it for 10 years; so you have to watch out. We're getting there, but now there's a possibility. If we want to include Judge Lamer's recommendations in Bill C-41 to a maximum degree, this is the opportunity to do so, unless you incorporate those recommendations in another bill.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Pascal-Pierre Paillé Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Last week, the JAG was here as well when we met with the minister. My colleague Mr. Bachand put a question to the JAG, who told us that, in his view, we would not have to pass another bill in order to make amendments. Unless I'm mistaken, you think it would be much more effective to include those recommendations in Bill C-41 right now, which would mean we would not have to redo a certain process or a certain amount of work in the next few years.