National Defence Committee on Feb. 16th, 2011

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

In your opinion, is there a consequence for military morale not to have this provision?

[Pierre Daigle]

Absolutely. When they streamlined the grievance process, in 1998, it was six or seven steps at the time, and they brought it down to two steps. That was to expedite the process, to make it more informal, and to make sure the connection was there. The system is very transparent and very fair. There is procedural fairness. They show everything that's going on. Once someone has put in for redress of a grievance, that person can follow step by step what is happening to the complaint. If it stops at one point because the CDS doesn't have the authority, then it would revert to a civilian lawyer system--

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

There'd be no redress at that point. Ultimately, you'd have to go to court.

[Pierre Daigle]

There'd be no redress, and when those lawyers do address a claim issue, it's not as transparent as the redress process.

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

Will this break the bank? I mean, we have the $56 billion. Is that going to jump up if this is passed? Are we talking about big dollars here? Is there a way of perhaps putting a cap of $5,000 or $10,000 on it?

[Pierre Daigle]

It never strikes me--

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

Is that the issue, from your point of view?

[Pierre Daigle]

No, Mr. Chair, it never struck me to be a monetary problem. I find it a bit difficult, as I said at the beginning, that we're debating this issue here. The only aim of this is to make sure we bring fairness to the members.

As I said to Mr. Dryden, I don't think there is a huge amount of money. It never struck me as being huge. It's a question of fairness. People are going through the system; at one point the redress process needs to have closure and to be finalized, but it is never closed when there is financial compensation attached to it.

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

I have one minute. On that point, again, in terms of a speedy disposition, are you satisfied that military personnel are getting speedy help dealing with their grievances? Is that a satisfactory system, or are you still complaining about it?

[Pierre Daigle]

I am happy to say that in the past two years there have been a lot of improvements with the redress grievance process at the CF, and they want to expedite that even more. There were grievances that could wait two or three or four years on a desk before they had a decision from the CDS, the final authority. Now they are trying to streamline everything, and they have imposed a timeframe on each of the steps in order it sort it out within a year.

Again, this is the process overall. If there is any decision that would award financial compensation, the CDS doesn't have the authority to do that, so all the good efforts to streamline and expedite this process will come to a stop for some individuals. They will be treated unfairly.

You mentioned the union. Going back to my example of reservists, if a reservist is in an office with a civilian employee, and both are taken off their jobs for whatever reason, and it was not a good decision, then the civilian public servant has recourse to go to the union and to go to court and to get financial compensation, while the military person doesn't have that because of their contract.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I now give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for being here.

First, let me thank you for your attention to duty, both in uniform and since then.

A lot of this doesn't relate to Bill C-41, but it's an important topic to discuss nevertheless. One of the problems here is that we're mixing the Financial Administration Act and the National Defence Act, I think.

You note in your report, “The Canadian Forces Grievance Process: Making It Right for Those Who Serve”, that you recommend the Chief of the Defence Staff be given the authority to settle financial claims and so on. That was recommended by Chief Justice Lamer. That principle has been accepted by governments of both stripes. Obviously it's been a long time. Apparently it's not as easy to resolve as might be suggested.

You note in your special report that the Financial Administration Act provides Treasury Board with the responsibility over the financial management of the federal government and that Treasury Board delegates certain powers to ministers and deputy heads of departments. In turn, the deputy minister is the chief accounting officer for the Department of National Defence. He is the financial authority.

Do you believe that Treasury Board would have to be involved in delegating powers to anyone other than the minister or the deputy minister? Do you know if the Financial Administration Act would have to be amended to allow this to happen?

[Pierre Daigle]

Mr. Chair, I've talked to many people on these files and I have heard many comments from various sources. Nowhere in the National Defence Act does it state that the CDS should not have the power to order financial compensation as part of a grievance decision.

The deputy minister of the department already delegates his financial authority to many people within the department. The Chief of the Defence Staff himself was delegated authority from the DM on all kinds of financial aspects: procurement, hospitality, etc. I even have delegated authority for claims liability and for all kinds of financial authority from the deputy minister of the department.

Former Chief Justice Lamer said this could be done within DND and the CF, and I have absolutely nowhere seen anything contradicting this, but it has been eight years since it was supposed to be done. Delegating authority could be done. The National Defence Act does not prevent or prohibit any authority for the CDS to do that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I am not a lawyer, as you're not, but not denying authority doesn't mean granting authority, in my layman's view. It's not the same thing.

[Pierre Daigle]

It doesn't mean denying authority either.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I understand that. When we talking about disbursing funds and so on, whether it's small amounts or large amounts, authority needs to be given for somebody to do that. Just not saying you can't do it....

We're talking in a bit of a circle. Lack of denial doesn't mean granting of authority.

[Pierre Daigle]

My point here is that in 2003 former Chief Justice Lamer was still the Supreme Court's chief justice. He said that it was not acceptable and should be done within DND and the CF.

What I'm saying is that financial delegation authority exists right now, and the DM uses that. The DM gives financial delegation authority to a captain, a lawyer captain, who can spend $10,000 on a farmer in Afghanistan, but does not give to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who is the head of the whole Canadian Forces, the authority to spend $100 on someone who lost something on duty.

I support the Minister of National Defence. Mr. Chair, I really do appreciate that I was invited here on very short notice, but when I followed this up recently, I saw that the Minister of National Defence said in front of this committee that Bill C-41 includes provisions to improve efficiency of the grievance process with a view to making it more effective, transparent, and fair. I am saying if you don't give the Chief of the Defence Staff that authority, you're not going to make it transparent, fair, and effective.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you for that.

Nobody's arguing that.... Justice Lamer recommended was that we find a way to do this, but it has been through two governments, so I'm suggesting that maybe it's not that easy. There's nobody operating the system in bad faith or bad will. I just don't believe that.

You served as a major general. Obviously we never worked together, but I'm sure that you did operate with goodwill towards the troops and the troops' welfare and so on, as I think anybody in command does. However, in a letter to the committee you say you “believe there is an issue related to the military redress of grievance process that should be included in the draft legislation and would serve to address a significant unfairness that currently exists”. That's what we've just been talking about. Then, in a letter to the Minister of National Defence recently, you said that “amendments to legislation may not be necessary and a solution may not be that complicated”.

I'm not pointing that out as some big contradiction, but there's a variance of opinion, I think, in your own mind as to whether we need legislation. Can it be done through regulation? What mechanism would you suggest specifically to disburse funds employed by that position, by the CDS?

[Pierre Daigle]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comment that maybe there's a contradiction.

When I worked on that report after I arrived in the office in 2009 and when my office worked on that report a few years ago, I found that the former chief justice recommended that we amend the NDA to include that. Eight years later, it was not done, so when I wrote to the minister, I told the minister that there are other ways of doing it, because giving a financial delegation to the CDS could be done. When the minister's office stated in the media that to do this they would have to make a legislative amendment, I was concerned, because those legislative amendments hadn't been done for eight years with Chief Justice Lamer.

The minister himself said to me in a letter that we need to close this once and for all, and when I saw that it was not in Bill C-41, I saw this opportunity to close it right now. This is why I said it has to be in legislation: because if we don't do it, we'll wait another six years to find the proper way of doing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci. Thank you.

I will give the floor to Mr. Braid--no, it will be Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through you to our witness, are you aware that there is a working group set up at National Defence to review this matter, which has not yet completed its work?

[Pierre Daigle]

Mr. Chair, I'm aware that the group met six times. They're going to meet a seventh time. The working group is looking at everything surrounding the redress grievance process, not just this particular issue, but I know they took note of our report because the minister told me that this working group is working on the issue.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

So after this review was completed and a solution was presented, did that not require a statutory change, and would it be acceptable?

[Pierre Daigle]

Again, all I'm saying is that after all the people we met, the investigation we did, the report we read, the legislation we read, this could have been done eight years ago, so what means should be used to do that?

I really took advantage of the fact that all the committee members here--and I read some of the earlier deliberations--are working towards helping the Canadian Forces and the members to be treated fairly. I'm saying now that this issue was raised by Chief Justice Lamer and that the Minister of National Defence agreed that we need to move on this, so it's whatever means he's been thinking of. I thought that now is probably actually the right time to deal with it, because Bill C-41 addresses this kind of issue.

How are you going to make the redress process, the grievance process--as the Minister of National Defence said to this committee--efficient, transparent, and fair, if right now there's unfairness in the CF and the Chief of the Defence Staff doesn't have the authority to give remedy to a soldier who has been wronged financially?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

If a solution was presented that achieved your intent but did not involve Bill C-41, would this be acceptable to you?