National Defence Committee on Feb. 4th, 2013

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, grievances due to relocations.

[Pierre Daigle]

There are many about relocations that have to do with door to door, for instance. People are grieving the fact that in order to.... When you move from one house to another, when you are posted across the country, the system allows you to do it within five days. If you take more than five days, you have to show reasonable effort that you have done the door to door. A lot of people are incurring additional costs out of pocket because the system does not allow that, and they have to justify why it took so long.

We know at this stage that 1,500 claims are in a backlog with the director general of compensation and benefits, 1,500 claims that have to do only with door to door, people claiming they incurred more expense. There's a backlog to address that.

We know that when the decision is taken, some of those claims will eventually go to a grievance, because people will grieve the decision. Right now we have about 215 grievances at the first level that have to do with moving.

You're right that the grievance process has evolved over the years. It's better than it used to be. It used to follow the chain of command, from the captain up to the CDS. Now it's only two layers, the immediate authority and the final authority. There has been a lot of improvement in the authority levels, and there has been a lot of improvement in the delays. The director general of the Canadian Forces grievance authority has now changed the delays. Redress should not stay at a level too long.

We know there is a big backlog, and I am doing a mini-systemic—I call it “mini” because its more drilling down to the details on all those backlogs and the delays with the director general of compensation and benefits. A lot of them have to do with financial issues. A lot of them have to do with moves across the country.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

We are going to continue to try to improve the system. Part of the reform of the grievance system is part of Bill C-15 in response to recommendations made by Chief Justice Lamer.

As ombudsman, you undertook a study on the grievance system and you've spoken publicly a number of times about it. Can you tell us, sir, the role that the ombudsman plays in the grievance system? Perhaps you can also outline some of the other types of complaints and investigations you undertake and if the proposed legislative changes would assist in resolving some of those complaints.

[Pierre Daigle]

As we mentioned at the beginning, we try to help people navigate existing mechanisms to resolve their issues. We provide a lot of information and do a lot of education and referral, but at one point we also try to open doors to put people in contact with the proper office to resolve their issues.

As I said, we do not replace the chain of command. We encourage people to use existing mechanisms, the redress of grievance being the last one that someone can resort to. We're a bit of a last resort on this particular issue. When the member has exhausted his process and a decision has been taken by the Chief of the Defence Staff as the final authority, they can come to us if they still feel that they've been treated unfairly, and we will review the full process of the redress of grievance and in the end make some recommendation to the Chief of the Defence Staff.

This is in itself a complex issue because, without offence, when it becomes too legalized, we feel that the system becomes a bit heavier than it should be. When you think about it, this is an administrative process to help resolve a decision that created some wrong. If we review the process because we find out that some element was omitted and ask the Chief of the Defence Staff whether he would have changed his mind if he had known of this particular issue, he might say yes, because it's a decision that he made. Right now, we are still confronting some resistance. I hate to use that word, because I've hated to hear that word for a long time.

It's ex officio. It's because a decision has been taken and cannot be reviewed, but this is not a court or a legal decision; this is an administrative decision that someone took. If you're told that this is what we found out and you said, “If I had known that, I would have changed my mind”, I would assume you would be able to change your mind because you could correct the mistake.

In redress of grievance, we review the entire process and make those recommendations, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

The time has expired.

Mr. Brahmi, you have the floor.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Daigle for appearing before us today.

According to your 2011-12 report, the vast majority of complaints made during that period had to do with benefits.

Could you explain the reason behind such a difference as compared with other grounds for complaints?

[Pierre Daigle]

Since the office first came into being, in 1998, we have been putting out an annual report. And over those 15 years, the most common complaint, the one that always ranks at the top of the list, has to do with benefits and compensation. That's not necessarily negative. I spoke to the Chief of the Defence Staff. In fact, we advise people within the chain of command. It helps for them to know what those in uniform are concerned about. What's more, I would say that personnel, compensation, benefits, salaries and so on account for—and my figures are not necessarily precise—at least 51% of the department's total budget.

Naturally, any change to a regulation or act has consequences for personnel. Our job is to serve members of the defence community. We're talking about a human element. So anything that affects their finances has consequences for them, their families and so forth. So it happens a lot. In the office's 15-year history, that has been the number one reason for people's complaints or dissatisfaction.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

The people who seek you out have already gone through the grievance process and are not satisfied.

How is it that so many complaints are tied to something that should be more or less automatic, the payment of a salary?

[Pierre Daigle]

I'd like to clarify something, if I may. We receive, on average, 1,500 complaints per year. About 85% are settled at the first level of intervention. We help people select the appropriate resolution channels. We refer them to the appropriate mechanisms. About 15% of those complaints will be the subject of an investigation. Those are individual complaints. If I observe a pattern, since I have visited 16 bases around the country, I can decide, on my own authority, to conduct a systemic investigation. In those cases, that is what we do. Indeed, we are seeing that grievance redress still entails an element of dissatisfaction and unfairness. People come to us.

If you look at the numbers, you see that the top five categories have held steady over the years, the top category being compensation and benefits. There are also cases related to military release, recruiting, medical issues and harassment. Those are always the top five categories for the 1,500 complaints we receive.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Very well.

If we look at the past three years according to the table we have here, we see that the number is always changing. How do you explain that change every year, say between 2008 and 2010?

[Pierre Daigle]

Are you referring to a change in the number of complaints?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm referring to the number of complaints.

[Pierre Daigle]

We focused on our awareness program. I mentioned earlier that I had visited 16 bases so far. There are 28. I don't think I'll have time to make it to all of them. People are more aware of what we do. For instance, when I was hired, they called me the military ombudsman. And because of that, many of DND's civilian employees were under the impression that the office was only for military personnel, not civilian employees. So we did a great deal of education, through base visits, kiosks and such. We educate people on what we do and we listen to what they wish to share with us. Anytime I return from a base, I always have 30 or so more complaints. The people who submitted those complaints may not have contacted us by phone.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

When it comes to benefits, what is the main complaint? Does it have to do with unpaid salaries?

[Pierre Daigle]

It doesn't really have to do with salaries. It's more of a compensation issue. That's one of the reasons we decided to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the impact of military life on families. It covers everything having to do with a family's moving all over the country and the effects of those moves.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brahmi.

Mr. Chisu, you have the floor.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Daigle, there was a considerable debate at second reading as to what should be the composition of the grievance authority. It was proposed that at least 60% of the board should not have any military background.

Mr. Daigle, you are a former member of the Canadian armed forces. Do you think that having a military background is helpful in positions such as the grievance board? Would you agree that the board should be composed of the best candidates regardless of whether or not they have, or ever had, a military position?

[Pierre Daigle]

Mr. Chair, this is outside my jurisdiction. I know the composition of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board has been debated at this committee. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board is part of the National Defence Act. It's not appropriate for me to discuss composition of the board.

I am ex-military as the member mentioned, but as far as the ombudsman's office itself is concerned, we look for the best possible candidate. I've been there since 2009, and we've been through some important restructuring. We've increased the bar to a standard high enough because we're serving the community. I have a mix of expertise with ex-military, outside the police force, social workers, any expertise that can help us best serve the constituency that we're serving.

However, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is not within my jurisdiction, and I will not comment on that.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I would like to ask you also about the time it's taking for a grievance. Do you ever look at the time from when a person files a grievance until it is resolved, or a decision is made?

[Pierre Daigle]

If you don't mind, I will ask Alain to give you the details. There were major changes. You're quite right, if I understand the spirit, because in the past it took too long, a very long time, years in fact, to get a final decision. There was a lot of effort to streamline the process to help with that. Alain can give you more detail on that.

[Alain Gauthier]

Mr. Chair, one of the complaints we still receive quite a bit is about the delay in the grievance process. It is still significant at times. On average we're talking about two years for a decision.

This is why we launched a mini-systemic study on director general compensation and benefits. There are 200 grievances stuck there, not moving forward, holding the decision where people are asking for reimbursement of money that is potentially owed to them. We're expecting to conclude this mini-systemic investigation within the next month and a half and produce a report for the minister.

It is an issue, the delays within the grievance process.

[Pierre Daigle]

Perhaps you can provide some detail around initial authority and final authority.

[Alain Gauthier]

As the ombudsman mentioned before, within the grievance process there are two levels: initial authority and final authority. Based on existing data within the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, there are well over 1,000 grievances awaiting a decision at the initial level. For the final authority, between 200 and 300 grievances are also awaiting a decision.

From discussions with Justice LeSage that it should be legislated forcing the system to produce a decision within 12 months, I think that would be a sage decision. It would make sense based on the significant delay that exists today.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a final question, if I may, regarding the Canadian Forces grievance process ex gratia payments. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. Is there any financial limitation on the Chief of the Defence Staff? For example, I note that in the infrastructure vote, the commander can decide to spend $1 million for something, but here I don't see anything.

Do you think there's any limitation, $1 million, $2 million, or something like this?

[Pierre Daigle]

Obviously, in terms of what we were provided with and what our office received from the minister's letter, there was no number attached. We know that the process that seems to have been adopted used the ex gratia route. I'm sure normally there are numbers attached to that, which essentially we don't have access to.

This is also part of an issue that we are having difficulty with, that it's getting more and more difficult to have access to documentation, particularly if it's deemed to be a cabinet confidence. It is difficult for me, accountable to a minister and making recommendations to the Minister of National Defence, to make proper recommendations if I don't have access to the whole of an issue.

For this particular matter, since it's cabinet confidence, we do not have access to the details.