National Defence Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witness.

Mr. Joshi, many of the questions at our meeting today and in past meetings centred around the number of grievances and the process of a grievance after it's been filed by a CAF member. I'm interested in the conflict resolution process that you have in place prior to someone filing a formal grievance and how that process might help us reduce the number of grievances we have.

Could you relate to the committee what processes are in place for a member who has an inquiry about a personal matter they have and who is contemplating filing a grievance?

[Col Vihar Joshi]

We only see a grievance when it's referred to us by the Canadian Forces, which is long after the grievance has been filed. Usually it's four to six months at least after it's filed.

We do keep on our website the case summaries we publish. If an individual calls us, we can direct them to our website with case summaries so they can have an idea of what types of findings and recommendations have been provided in the past. When final decisions are made by the chief of the defence staff, we summarize them and add them into our case summary batch so a griever can see, in essence, how the Canadian Forces may have looked at it.

In terms of us engaging in conflict resolution early on in the process, that is not part of our mandate.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

They would then turn to the complaint management service that's offered.

[Col Vihar Joshi]

That is correct.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I know there are a lot of similarities with the collective bargaining process and unions as that relates to the rights they have. Of course, our system here is managed differently under the act.

I've found over the years, when dealing with employee grievances, that oftentimes it's a leadership issue. I could look back at that in the career I had prior to this one. For some individuals, wherever they went in the organization, we'd see a bump in the number of grievances. That just seemed to be a trend that followed them. I think a lot of that had to to with leadership skills and interpersonal skills, and how they dealt, in this instance, with employees.

Mr. Lick, how much of the ballooning number of grievances we've seen is an issue related to culture and leadership? Conversely, how much is it related to the cultural change we want to see within the organization?

[Gregory Lick]

There's likely a whole range of reasons why people are putting forward grievances or complaints in our case. Yes, absolutely, some of them have to do with leadership and the ability to resolve conflict in a workplace. That doesn't always means it's leadership. Sometimes it's with your colleague. The ability to deal effectively with interpersonal relations is absolutely a skill, and the lack of skill results in complaints and grievances.

The department is putting in place some means of helping people deal with that through the CCMS group, which helps individuals deal with conflict in the workplace. It's a great initiative. In fact, we refer people back and forth between our group and theirs, depending on which is best able to handle a particular complaint.

The informal conflict resolution process that you spoke about is, I think, new for the CAF at this point in time in the grievance process. We're optimistic that it will provide another opportunity to resolve a complaint or conflict before getting into the long grievance process. We're optimistic, and I think it will be a positive thing. We just don't see all of the results just yet because it is so new.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

To follow up on that, you talked about mandatory timelines and the benefits that come with them as they relate to resolving grievances and complaints. I know that in dealing with unionized employees, the big issue is that it becomes a morale issue the longer it festers and boils. It can also lead to other grievances.

Can you speak to some of the morale issues that have come about as a result of the investigations you've undertaken in your office, and their impact?

[Gregory Lick]

As I said, we're very effective in getting resolutions for people who come to us, but we can only really help people resolve an issue if they come to us, apart from some of the systemic investigations we do.

On an individual basis, yes, we're very successful, but we always say to people, as I think I mentioned earlier, that if they can come to us earlier, we may be able to help them earlier, whether that's with information or helping them deal with a particular issue. Sometimes it's a simple phone call to somebody we know in our great network of contacts.

Some people leave it to the last minute to come to us, and that's usually not helpful. We can still help them, hopefully, but we always say to people that, while we're the office of last resort, we're also the office of first resort to help people deal with an issue, hopefully before it becomes an issue in the first place.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Before I turn over two and a half minutes to Ms. Normandin, I'm taking note that all of the noise in this room seems to come from one location. I've yet to determine it, but I have an idea. I might mention it the next time the noise level hits. Show respect for colleagues, please.

You have two and a half minutes, Ms. Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lick, something in the documents you sent us caught my eye. In the United Kingdom, not only can the ombuds make recommendations, but also, in some cases, those recommendations are binding. What kind of recommendation could be binding? Is that something that could apply to your position?

Mr. Joshi, I would also ask you whether it might be possible to make some of the recommendations of the Military Grievances External Review Committee binding.

[Gregory Lick]

The U.K. Service Complaints Ombudsman has the ability, in essence, to enforce certain recommendations—not all, but certain recommendations. That is one way of doing it. I think we've proven, with CAF in particular, that we were able to do it without that type of enforcement. I'm neutral as to whether that would be beneficial or not.

The idea, usually, with most ombudspersons around the world, is that there is no enforcement power. That's because of the way ombudsmen work through moral suasion: Do the right thing with the evidence of our investigation.

As I said, generally, we find that with individual complaints, this works quite well for us. I don't think it's absolutely necessary. There may be a situation in the future when it may be nice to have that, but I would say it's not absolutely necessary with the situation we're currently in. At the same time, that situation could change with different leadership. I'm neutral in that way.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Joshi, do you have anything to add?

[Col Vihar Joshi]

Very quickly, is it possible? Yes, it is possible.

Mr. Fish made two recommendations in that regard. One said that if the final authority does not make a decision in 90 days after receiving the call from us, our findings and recommendations would be binding on the Canadian Forces. As for the second scenario, he called for a working group to look at whether the final authority power should be directed somewhere else, somewhat like the committee.

I would caution that it's not as easy as it may seem, because the authority that's set must follow. If we are giving decisions with a financial implication or putting people in certain positions, the authority set must be there. However, it is certainly something that could be investigated, and Mr. Justice Fish, in his third IRA report, did make those recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madam Normandin.

You have two and a half minutes, Ms. Mathyssen.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

To build off Madam Normandin's questions, when the minister was here at committee, I asked directly whether changes to those pieces of independence, especially around the ombudsperson and their office, which I was calling for in my legislation, Bill C-362, will be made within the changes he has indicated he will be making. Unfortunately, he said they were not, so I'd love your comments on that.

Mr. Joshi, you talked, in reference to independence, about the importance of independence in your office and the changes that Justice Fish and Justice Arbour were asking for as well. Do you believe those will come forward in future legislative changes? Have you heard anything? How important are both of those things for both of your offices?

[Gregory Lick]

I'll start first, if I may.

The minister has not consulted with me on that particular legislation, so it's hard to say what exactly it is, though I may have some knowledge of perhaps what it could be. Certainly, he has not consulted with me on the issue of the independence of our office. That is unfortunate in the sense that I think it's appropriate that I put a case forward, and he can decide what to do with it, obviously.

Obviously you know my opinion and all of my predecessors' opinions on whether we should be legislated or not, but at the same time, ultimately it is a choice of Parliament as to whether this happens or not. I think the best opportunity is going forward with legislation, absolutely.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Go ahead, Mr. Joshi.

[Col Vihar Joshi]

With the grievance system, we know that the Canadian Armed Forces is making internal adjustments to their system. We've been briefed on some of the amendments to the system, but there has been no discussion on their part, with us at least, to look at those two critical Fish recommendations.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 30 seconds.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan, you have five minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all three witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Lick, please remind me. Did your predecessor Gary Walbourne propose legislation to make the office of the ombudsman independent as an office of Parliament?

[Gregory Lick]

Yes. The document that we'll table with the committee has draft legislation for the independence of the office through legislation.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

You're looking at making sure that you are truly independent.

When we look at historical cases, going on Mr. Collins' line about a lack of leadership, we know that with the sexual misconduct case against former chief of the defence staff Jon Vance, documents brought before your predecessor were given to the Minister of National Defence at the time, Minister Sajjan, who refused to handle that documentation.

As an independent office, how would that situation have been handled?