Evidence of meeting #25 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was soldiers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
Right. So what has to be done in order to do that? Does the act have to be--
Acting Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
What has to be done, I guess, is for the department and the minister to agree that this is a good thing. We have had discussions with the vice-chief over the last number of months, and those discussions will probably resume shortly, I'm hoping.
Liberal
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
I want to compliment Mr. Stogran for his decompression idea, because it certainly seems to be well accepted. I think it's now universally accepted as something that should happen.
When they leave Afghanistan, you're saying that whether they're on the front or whether they stay on the base, they all go through a decompression in Cyprus.
Col Pat Stogran
Mr. Chair, that is my understanding. However, I haven't personally experienced it. It has changed considerably from the concept that we put forth in 2002, but it is my understanding that everybody who leaves the theatre of operation goes through third-location decompression in Cyprus.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to everybody.
Did I understand correctly, Mr. Price, that the Chief of Defence Staff has the final decision-making power but that, if he believes that the member has been treated unfairly, he has to refer the file to someone else for financial compensation?
Acting Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
Yes, the magic words are “deputy head” in financial authority from the Treasury Board, and the chief is not considered a deputy head. I am told the Commissioner of the RCMP is considered a deputy head and does have financial power. But the chief has no financial power in terms of ex gratia payments and that kind of thing.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Having worked in labour relations for close to 20 years, I wonder if the real solution... Let me say in passing, Mr. Price, that Bill C-45 will be referred to our committee after second reading in the House. It would be important for you to come before us at that time.
I find it strange that the Chief of Defence Staff, who is the ultimate leader of the Canadian Forces, would be involved in the process at the end.
I would like you to tell me what you think of the idea of having a grievance committee completely independent from the chain of command. Could that be considered?
Acting Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
I'm not getting the translation.
Caroline Maynard Director, Legal Services, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
It's about having a board that makes the final decisions instead of the CDS inside the armed forces.
Acting Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
That was discussed. In fact, I was a legal officer working on Bill C-25 in 1998. The decision of the government at that time was to have a recommending board as opposed to a decision-making board.
This board was based on the RCMP external review committee. It serves virtually the same purpose. As you know, that committee was looked at recently and some recommendations were made to the government. I'm not sure what the decision is going to be. So we're very much a model of the RCMP external review committee.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I am not saying that you should be involved but rather that it is not appropriate for the Chief of Defence Staff to be called upon to decide on a grievance relating to the chain of command and affecting a soldier because he is biased, in a way. I suppose that he would tend to support... It is as if, with a grievance from an employee about his employer, the decision were to be made by the CEO. His tendency would probably be in many cases to decide against the employee.
As the chairperson, you could set up an independent tribunal. Do you think that tribunal should have the final decision-making power, instead of the Chief of Defence Staff?
Acting Chairperson, Canadian Forces Grievance Board
That's a completely legitimate point of view. Senior military officers would probably tell you that the grievance business is integral to esprit de corps, to the functioning of the military, and it belongs with the chain of command.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mrs. McFadyen, was there any reaction from the government about your report on reservists? I found that report very interesting. It showed clearly that there are two classes of soldiers, those of the regular force and the reservists.
Has the government made any comment? Are they going to react to your report?
Interim Ombudsman, Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Department of National Defence
No, we have not yet received the response of the Department.
Interim Ombudsman, Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Department of National Defence
The Office of the Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations but not to order anyone to do something. Our power is to make our report public and, in so doing, to put pressure on the government to implement our recommendations.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Would you like the legislation to be amended to give you the decision-making power instead of leaving it in the hands of the government?
Interim Ombudsman, Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Department of National Defence
No, because the role of the Ombudsman is to put pressure on the government to do the right thing.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
All right.
Mr. Stogran, I will end with you. Why are you here as an individual? Why are you not here as the Veterans' Ombudsman?
Col Pat Stogran
Mr. Chairman, I am the Veterans' Ombudsman but, since our office has not yet opened its doors, we cannot yet deal with the complaints from soldiers and veterans.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
All right. So, your office has not yet been officially set up?
Mr. Stogran, I would like to know what you think about what we have heard. General Yaeger said that the Forces are doing their best, that work is progressing well and that the situation is not that serious, even though not everything is perfect, of course. On the other hand, some people have told us that the chain of command reports to General Yaeger, which means that people do not dare tell him the truth, i.e. that the situation is far worse than he might think.
The problem may not lie at the top of the chain of command but in the middle. People who report to the Brigadier-General do not dare tell him how bad the situation is in the Canadian Forces in relation to post-traumatic stress issues. What do you think?
Col Pat Stogran
Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer in French but it may be a little bit difficult.
The problem is that the treatment of people with psychological injuries is the responsibility of the medical staff. The chain of command does not have the responsibility...
I'll excuse myself at this point and switch back into English--a valiant attempt.
The problem is that the chain of command relies a great deal on the medical authority to treat psychological casualties, those who endured operational stress injuries. I would submit that the medical authorities are experts in treating those who have been injured, but the chain of command should be held accountable for it. The medical side of the Canadian Forces should be the advisers to the chain of command.
For example, in my case I was criticized because I had soldiers suffering from operational stress injuries who were put into the medical system, and we were forbidden to communicate with them. I would hope that situation has resolved itself now. Those soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel who had been injured in our organization felt they were abandoned by the chain of command.
I think that's fundamentally wrong. On the one hand, I think it's very difficult for the chain of command or the military to be criticized for having stigma about operational stress injuries, but on the other hand, we leave it to the medical authorities to look after our injured. We don't do that with our physical casualties. We bring them back into line, and we try to get them back into service as quickly as we possibly can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
You've indicated that as a commanding officer you were forbidden to talk to your troops? When was that, what years?