Evidence of meeting #63 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you very much.
Time has expired.
Mr. Larose, go ahead for five minutes.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Daigle, thank you for being here. We are always happy to have officials from the ombudsman's office here.
I'd like to talk to you about summary trials. Over the years, has your office received many complaints involving summary trials?
4:15 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
My mandate does not give me the authority to investigate anything related to the justice system. Therefore, I cannot investigate decisions rendered by military judges or those associated with court martials or summary trials. If there is ever an issue that involves any of those areas, it is usually referred to the proper authority. So we cannot conduct any investigations related to the justice system.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Basically, then, you cannot even investigate the mechanisms around the information. You have no involvement in that whatsoever.
4:15 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
People can contact us regarding a situation in which they feel they were not treated fairly, something that might result from a summary trial, say. In that case, we might be able to look at elements that we could address. However, in the case of decisions or summary trials, we are prohibited from conducting any such investigations because that aspect comes under the military justice system.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
What elements do you have the authority to examine as far as a summary trial is concerned? You said there were external elements you might be able to look into.
4:15 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
For example, someone might tell us they were treated unfairly, accused of fraud and so forth. A summary trial might end up taking place. It primarily involves the procedural side before things get to that level. We don't investigate the summary trial or the procedure per se.
In some situations, administrative actions are taken, but no charges are laid for a certain period of time. If the issue is being dealt with through the military justice system, however, we do not get involved.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
The Report of the Second Independent Review Authority recommended a certain number of amendments to the National Defence Act.
Do you think the committee should amend Bill C-15 in accordance with the recommendations made by former justice LeSage in his report?
4:15 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I appeared before this committee in 2011. On March 23, 2011, the committee's report clearly stipulated the following:
“That Bill C-41, in clause 6, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 5 with the following:”
The report said that the Chief of the Defence Staff should “(a) decide all matters relating to a grievance, including financial matters”.
I was very pleased to see that the committee had recommended granting the Chief of the Defence Staff all of that authority under the National Defence Act. Since that provision was almost incorporated into the act, I thought it would put an end to all those debates and processes, which I believe can turn into bureaucratic exercises.
February 4th, 2013 / 4:15 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I have some questions on women, specifically.
Should Bill C-15 have put in place measures to protect women, particularly victims of sexual harassment? For instance, are there measures that prevent the perpetrator from being assigned to the same base or unit as the victim? Men, too, can be victims of this type of harassment.
Does the bill include measures of that nature?
4:20 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
It's hard for me to speak about the bill in detail. If, in the course of our duties, we are advised that people are being harassed, we must refer those individuals elsewhere. What's more, if, in the course of investigating a case, we discover that criminal activities took place, we are required to notify the chain of command and the proper authorities. The Criminal Code still applies. The harassment process, for either civilian or military personnel, also applies.
We make sure, then, that anyone who has suffered any mistreatment whatsoever has access to the existing mechanisms to resolve their situation. If an activity of a criminal nature has occurred, we are required to report it to the proper authorities such that the next steps are handled outside our office.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you very much. Your time is up.
Mr. Strahl, it's your turn.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Following up on one of the answers you just gave, can you explain what amendments would need to be made to the Financial Administration Act in conjunction with the grant of greater financial authority to the Chief of the Defence Staff? Do you believe that would need to take place in order for that to happen?
4:20 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
Again, our position is clear. When we look at the Canadian Forces grievance system, which is entrenched in the National Defence Act, we feel that there's still unfairness and the system as such is not complete until the final authority, which is the Chief of the Defence Staff, receives full authority to compensate financially.
We do not look into the Financial Administration Act, and we do not look into ex gratia in the sense that it is under Treasury Board, but we know that those particular instruments most of the time deal with the head of the organization, who is the deputy minister. Our report on this particular issue is the Canadian Forces grievance system is mainly under the Canadian Forces and we feel the injustice could be dealt with in the National Defence Act. It already reflects the CF Grievance Board and the Military Police Complaints Commission grievance system, but it does not say that the Chief of the Defence Staff cannot make financial compensation. The minister raised this in one of his letters. Therefore, our position is it should be in the act, which means that the rest is irrelevant.
On the civilian employee, public servant side, if someone has a grievance.... They have no union. This is what the members have. If a civilian employee grieves a decision by the employer and it takes a month for it to get to the final level of grievance, during that time the civilian employee may have been removed from his duties. If the decision is that the decision was wrong, the system will pay the month of salary that the employee lost.
We have examples of military personnel who were removed from their positions, grieved the decisions, came back, and the Chief of the Defence Staff agreed that they should never have been removed. They lost two weeks of salary, and he could not pay them back.
There are two different grievance systems, military and civilian, with all those acts. All I'm saying is that by going to the ex gratia with a direct tie to the conditions imposed by Treasury Board will not give the CDS the final authority to close a grievance under his authority.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
In your opening statement you indicated that your office remains neutral and is an objective sounding board. For obvious reasons we've talked a lot about shortcomings, perhaps, in Bill C-15. Do you have examples of where the grievance process is being improved in this new legislation, or can you not provide those?
From your perspective, is there any good in what the government is doing with Bill C-15 and the grievance process?
4:20 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
There are two aspects to Bill C-15, but obviously with respect to the grievance process, you're talking about the grievance board. The grievance process as such, which is part of the National Defence Act, is a good process. It has been streamlined. It has been improved over the years. All I'm saying is an important part is missing in order to close this process.
I might seem to be an advocate, but we're not advocates for people or for the institution. We're advocates for fairness. The reason I am pushing this issue is there are people in uniform in this country who are not treated fairly because of this particular aspect, and just by closing this loop, we'll once and for all conclude what Justice Lamer and Justice LeSage said should be done, and eliminate the rest of the bureaucracy.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
One of the amendments contained in Bill C-15 enables the CDS to delegate his power as a final authority in the grievance process under certain circumstances. Do you believe this is an effective change to the National Defence Act?
4:25 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I think it exists already. The Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority. He can delegate. Right now the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority is the final authority delegated by the Chief of the Defence Staff, and I think that's a good thing. As former Chief Justice Lamer said, the CDS cannot manage the whole process by himself. The fact that he's delegating to one of his senior officers to help him manage the process does not take him away from or outside the process.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you. Time has just about expired.
I'm going to give Madame Moore the floor for about three minutes, and then we do need to cut it off and clear the table for the next witnesses.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I'd like to pick up on the matter of sexual harassment or assaults. According to the annual report entitled Delivering Results for Canada's Defence Community, harassment is one of the seven top complaints. It ranks fifth among the complaints made by the family members of Canadian Forces personnel. So there are complaints of that nature. Do you think the military justice system could be improved to prevent such situations? Do you have any recommendations as far as harassment is concerned?
4:25 p.m.
Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I will ask Alain to answer because he appeared before a committee on that issue. He has all the information on that.
4:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Operations, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
In our last analysis, we noted 58 complaints regarding harassment over the past two years. Of those, only 3 involved sexual harassment. So we get very few of those. But we do know there are some problems. People are reluctant to complain about sexual harassment out of fear of reprisal. That's a major problem that persists. The figures and the complaints we see do not accurately represent the true number of complaints.
Other surveys have been done within the Canadian Forces. The Chief of Military Personnel recently conducted a survey on harassment, specifically. The results indicated that 10% of women had complained of sexual harassment. So 10% of 14,000 is 1,400. We're talking about 1,400 cases a year. We also saw that only 3 people really dared to complain. There is a clear problem around fear of reprisal within the system. So that is something that has to be dealt with.