National Defence Committee on Feb. 9th, 2011

[Bruno Hamel]

Board members, including the chairperson and the vice-chairperson are appointed and hold their positions during good behaviour. They are appointed during good behaviour. However, a term can be terminated. We do not have security of tenure, but there has to be a serious reason to dismiss the chairperson, the first official and a member. In my case, I was appointed for good behaviour.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Does the Minister of National Defence make recommendations to the Governor in Council? Do they then proceed almost automatically, as usual? Do you know?

[Bruno Hamel]

I can't answer that question. I took part in the competition, then I had an interview. I was contacted and asked questions. When I won the competition, I was informed of that fact. What happens then, from the moment a candidate has made it through those stages, is the responsibility of the Privy Council Office and the Governor in Council.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Very well, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

I will now give the floor to the last member to speak, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that when you were talking about the change in the timelines, you were talking about reviewing cases from the time they come to you to the time they are disposed of. One of the big criticisms of the grievance process has to do with what happens before it gets to you. It's supposed to be resolved in 90 days, yet the average time seems to be up around 18 months. I know of one fellow who complained that he changed from the reserve force to the regular force and had to move his family, and it took two years for his move to be reimbursed, even though he was fighting in Afghanistan. That seems to be wrong. It doesn't seem to me that board members would have to have a lot of military experience to decide that this is wrong and ought to be fixed.

There may be some issues that have a military overtone, but we're talking mostly about bureaucratic things, even in the area of promotions. I've had 30 years' experience as a labour lawyer. You have people adjudicating these matters who are trained arbitrators. They may not be working in the public service or the factory where the grievance comes from. These are really labour-relations matters, so I'm wondering where the military experience comes in. You're not dealing with discipline, although you talk about administrative measures here. What that requires is adjudicative knowledge and ability, as opposed to military experience. I say this to combat some of the comments from over this way.

What about the process itself within the military, the long time it takes to resolve what are often straightforward matters? Why does it take so long, and is there something that could be done, legislatively, to deal with that? I notice that a recommendation for a 12-month time limit was not accepted. That was recommendation number 74. Would you care to comment on that?

[Bruno Hamel]

We support Justice Lamer's recommendation and we believe that a one-year timeline is reasonable. We firmly believe in that. Unfortunately, the Canadian Forces grievance system does not belong to the board. I have limited visibility on those timelines, but on those grievances for which I have full visibility--i.e., that 40% portfolio--I can say that in 2009, from the date of submission to the date the Chief of Defence Staff rendered a decision, the average time was 28 months; in 2009, the board took six months. In 2010, so far, on the decisions we have received--those cases for which we have visibility--the overall average dropped from 28 to 22 months.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If I can just jump in here, are you talking about the timeline after you render your recommendations to the CDS and CDS gives you a decision? What's that timeline, typically?

[Bruno Hamel]

Currently, in 2009-2010, what we have received mimics our timeline. In 2009, it was roughly six months once we issued our F and Rs, our findings and recommendations.

In 2010, so far, it's three months. That is the time from the moment our work is done to the moment that the Chief of Defence Staff renders his decision.

It was three months last year and six months the year before. That's roughly the same timeline as ours. It was six months last year, which is three months in our hands and three months with the Chief of Defence Staff, and that is a chunk of the 22 months, so there's a 16-month period prior to a grievance reaching the final authority. During that time I have no visibility. I don't know where in the timeline it is.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That's the number I'm familiar with, the number that has been suggested.

It seems to me--and you can comment on this if you wish--that you folks are doing all the heavy lifting. If you're doing an independent external review, if you do your investigation, if you gather all the evidence, if you look at all the factors and render a reasoned decision, the CDS doesn't have to do that all over again. He just has to say yea or nay.

Why does it take him as long to say yea or nay to a reasoned recommendation as it takes you to do the investigation, interview all the witnesses, consider all the policies, come up with a reasoned decision, and say, “Here, General, is our recommendation”? It still takes three months, on average, for them to render a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hamel, please be brief.

[Bruno Hamel]

Mr. Chair, my mandate really stops when I issue my F and Rs. After that I have limited visibility, except when the chief complies with his obligation to inform the board with a copy of his decision. What happens in between is not in my mandate, and I have no visibility as to what happens, so I cannot tell you why there is a delay. I can only tell you that once we've issued F and Rs, we wait for the response--because there's a requirement--and we measure the time in between. That's all I can say on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hamel.

Mr. Dryden, do you have a brief question?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I do, just quickly, on what I was trying to jam in as a question before, which you didn't really have a chance to answer.

It's just a matter of curiosity. Are there certain trends to the nature of those grievances? If so, what would those be? What are you seeing more of now than you would have seen a couple of years ago, or that your predecessors would have seen years before that?

[Bruno Hamel]

Mr. Chair, there is actually a very good example, and it's probably très approprié au moment où on se parle.

Very recently the board has seen a trend of an expansion of benefits or a restriction of benefits approved by Treasury Board in certain areas when people are posted from one location to another. We've noted that trend, especially with regard to what's referred to as an aide-mémoire, which in certain cases either provided expanded benefits to members who were not entitled or restricted benefits to which members were entitled. That's one of the most recent trends with relocation benefits.

We have actually put that forward to the CDS on a personal level, through a grievance, and we've raised it as a larger systemic issue. In a recent decision a couple of weeks ago, the CDS agreed with us that the aide-mémoire was not to be used as direction. He ordered a review of it, because it was creating a nightmare in the administration of benefits. Members were receiving money that would have to be recovered, and other members were not receiving money to which they were entitled, so he agreed with us.

That's one of the most recent trends. We are certainly aware of something similar happening over the course of the last few days concerning similar types of issues, with some findings of benefits having been given without authority. That's one example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Dryden.

Thanks very much to our witnesses, Mr. Hamel and Ms. Maynard. Thank you for being here.

This completes our 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

We will see each other next week. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.