National Defence Committee on Feb. 9th, 2011

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I will change gears somewhat. With any board or administrative tribunal, the case processing time is always a critical measurement. Has the case processing time under the board gotten any better? Has it improved in the last year or so? Has the pilot project improved case processing time? What's been the experience?

[Bruno Hamel]

On the first question, Mr. Chair, our timelines have significantly diminished. Initially, 10 years ago, for the year 2000, our average time was around 25 months. Three years ago we were down to 9.8 months. That's from the time we received it to the time the file was out. We reduced that to 6.1 months two years ago. Last year our average time on hand was 3.1 months.

That includes not just the time for review, but also all the provisions for procedural fairness. The board is held responsible for procedural fairness, a part of it at the final authority level. A significant amount of that time is counted towards the board. Of course, we can actually do some concurrent activities, but we also take care of a greater challenge.

Right now, on average, the time is 90 days from the time we receive a file to the time it's out. Last year, for the first time in the board's history, the board was current in reviewing files that had been referred to it in that same year. I think we reached that in October of last year. In October 2010, for the first time in history, we were reviewing files that had been referred to us in 2010. I expect this level will be achieved this year around the end of March or early April with that 90-day timeframe.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, and congratulations on that progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Hamel.

I will now give the floor to—

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

There's no time left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You still have 25 seconds. Take your time.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I'll talk fast if you folks can listen fast. We'll be okay.

What you've shared with us, sir, is extraordinary in terms of shrinking the time. Could you expand on that? How did you do that? You've shrunk it down by 80% or so.

[Bruno Hamel]

We reduced it by 70%, or close to that, and the quality has not been affected. Actually, the 45:55 ratio has not been affected by it. The deferrals of the Chief of the Defence Staff, so far as we've received his decisions on these cases so far, have not changed. They're seeing that the trend is there.

Without going into great detail, we've basically overhauled our internal system. We've reverse-engineered. We've reversed the way we approach a case. The involvement of the board member basically went from the end of the process to the start of the process: the board member now takes the lead on the problem that he's facing. He provides clear directions, a little like a judge would when he has a case, and he uses the clerks and the people around him to do research. We've reversed from an end-of-process approach to a front-of-process approach. That has proven so far to be extremely efficient, in a nutshell.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Hamel and Mr. Boughen.

I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert. You have five minutes.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I thought it was seven minutes, but okay; thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your generosity.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued by your final comments with regard to this innovative project and the January 1 date. Since that date, the forces have begun referring to the board any unresolved grievances that reach the final authority level.

First, could you tell us the genesis for this approach and how this new approach will be measured? Who's going to measure it? Is it going to be the board? Is it going to be outside?

Next, could you tell me what you see as the benefits of this new approach and what the timeframe is in terms of the evaluation?

Finally, are there any examples you could give us as to what is now coming to you that may not have been referred to you in the past?

[Bruno Hamel]

Mr. Chair, the genesis of the pilot project is a consequence of a working group that was initiated by the Canadian Forces and on which we were invited as experts. We had the Lamer report's concerns on the timeliness issue and we were looking at how we could make it better. Also, benefiting from 10 years of the board's findings and recommendations and having seen the level of deference that the Chief of the Defence Staff gives to the work of the board, we also turned over that critical stone to ask ourselves if we could do more.

As a perspective, in 2000 there were more than 1,000 cases at the Chief of the Defence Staff level. There was a huge backlog. When the board was created, it instantly received a delivery of about 300 grievances. That was on June 15, 2000. It was an instant backlog.

Article 7.12 of the QR&Os--those types of referral--were not such a big issue at the time, because there was more than enough work at the board at the time to be extremely busy under the constitution that it had back then. With the number of cases that then started to be referred to this board, we also saw that in these cases, the board's F and Rs--their findings and recommendations, their report--received the same kind of deference from the Chief of the Defence Staff, so we asked, after the Lamer report and having eliminated the backlog at the Chief of the Defence Staff level, how we could maximize that system. One of the options was to have all the members benefit from an independent and external review when the Canadian Forces were unable to resolve the issue internally. We thought it was a great concept; we agreed to that concept and we contributed to it. That's the genesis of it.

It was approved by the Armed Forces Council, which is the highest authority level within the Canadian Forces. They authorized a pilot project, and we will report back to them. It may not be me, but we will contribute to the report. The administrator of the system, which belongs to the Canadian Forces, will report back to the Armed Forces Council in the fall, I assume. The Chief of the Defence Staff has already, in the minutes of that AFC report, said that this is promising, and if it works, it may well become the way ahead. We support that because, of course, although it does not expand the board mandate, it provides that external review for everybody, and it is no longer by criterion or type. Irrespective of what you grieve, you get the benefit of a board's review.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Who's doing the evaluation of the success or failure of this approach?

[Bruno Hamel]

It is the Canadian Forces.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

It's the Canadian Forces. Are there any specific examples?

[Caroline Maynard]

The types of grievances we're now getting under this process are promotion grievances and administrative measures. Even though they're not disciplinary measures, the CF are allowed to, for behavioural or performance issues, give a recorded warning and C and P--

[Bruno Hamel]

That's counselling and probation.

[Caroline Maynard]

We never used to have counselling and probation. We had them once in a while, but now we're going to get all those--

[Bruno Hamel]

They include personal evaluation reports, removals--

[Caroline Maynard]

There's relief of command, removal--

[Bruno Hamel]

--removal of command in Canada--

[Caroline Maynard]

--and repatriation from Afghanistan. We've had a few of those. Those types of grievances that are usually within the chain of command prerogatives and that were not referred to the board before are now being referred to the board.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

What has been the reaction of those whose cases have been brought before you? How do they see this approach?

[Caroline Maynard]

Members in general are very happy when the board reviews the grievances, whether we are denying their grievance or supporting it or supporting a grant, because they, for the first time, often see a reason and an explanation providing both sides of the picture. We've seen grievers withdrawing their grievance, saying that finally somebody is giving us a full answer to their issue. So far, it's very positive.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Than you very much.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Bachand.