Evidence of meeting #16 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was issues.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Christian Leuprecht  Professor, Royal Military College, Queen’s University, As an Individual
June Winger  National President, Union of National Defence Employees
Gregory Lick  Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman
Robyn Hynes  Director General, Operations, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

4:40 p.m.

Professor, Royal Military College, Queen’s University, As an Individual

Dr. Christian Leuprecht

I can provide some material to the committee. I would encourage you to engage Brigadier-General Brodie, Major-General Bernard, as well as the military personnel generation hierarchy, because those are the people who are ultimately responsible for the entire HR system. I think those people are doing yeoman's work here and could certainly benefit from the sort of attention you are heaping on these policies, because they're ultimately in charge of making these components work for the Canadian Armed Forces.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you very much.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

That ends our first hour.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank Dr. Leuprecht and Ms. Winger for their contribution to this study with, as always, their excellent observations.

I'll reiterate the point you raised, Dr. Leuprecht, about the study you referenced during Ms. Normandin's question. If that could be made available, that would be appreciated.

With that, we're going to suspend and bring in the witnesses to assemble our next panel.

Thank you again.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

We'll bring this meeting back to order.

For our second panel, we have Gregory Lick, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, and Robyn Hynes, director general, operations. Welcome.

I'll ask you for your five-minute opening statements.

I'll start with you, Mr. Lick.

4:45 p.m.

Gregory Lick Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I want to thank the committee for inviting me here today to discuss recruitment and retention in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am joined, as you said, by Robyn Hynes, my director general of operations, and we are pleased to be with you over the next hour to provide you some sense of those issues, based on the evidence we have found.

While this is my first appearance before this committee in the 44th Parliament, I have already had the pleasure of meeting many members of this committee in person one-on-one, and I look forward to meeting the remaining members in the near future.

As you have likely already heard, the issues surrounding recruitment and retention have many factors affecting them.

From a recruitment perspective, there are a number of reasons why individuals choose or choose not to join the Canadian Armed Forces. There are also a number of reasons why the Canadian Armed Forces cannot connect with and recruit certain Canadians into their ranks.

Additionally, aside from medical release or release for disciplinary purposes, an individual member of the Canadian Armed Forces may leave the forces for any number of reasons. But when you group these reasons together, patterns begin to emerge, and issues of a systemic nature begin to reveal themselves. Over the last 23 years of this office's existence, we have followed these issues closely, and have made recommendations to the Canadian Armed Forces on how they can address these issues moving forward.

I want to take this time to discuss some of the themes that we are currently examining and plan to examine in the near future that directly affect recruitment and retention.

Last June, I held a press conference addressing the ongoing issues surrounding misconduct in the military and the department. During that press conference, I stated that the Canadian Forces grievance system is broken. I will hold that position until I see that there is a long-term solution to what are clearly some deep issues that revive the long delays every time after a quick fix to address the backlog.

As I have told many of you, our office is in a unique position to make this determination. We are sometimes called an office of last resort. This means that we typically refer people back into the grievance system until those mechanisms have been exhausted, or unless there are compelling circumstances. What I can say firmly is that we are intervening in more cases earlier in the grievance process, and this is a troubling trend.

The grievance system is the principal recourse mechanism that a Canadian Armed Forces member has to address unfairness or seek a resolution to a variety of situations. However, members can face significant delays in the grievance process. For some, these delays can lead to financial hardship, physical and emotional stress, relationship breakdown and worse. Recently, I have had to involve myself in two grievance files, one that was over nine years, and another over four years. My office has since received a response to our query related to all grievances that are delayed, broken down by grievance type and length of delay. This response provides a clear picture of the number problem, but it does not reveal the reality of why this is occurring.

As I stated to the chief of the defence staff in two letters sent in late 2021, I strongly believe that the fix to the grievance system is both people and process. Unfortunately, many of the fixes we have seen thrown at the system over the decades have only provided a surge capacity of people to bring down the backlog.

The underlying problems in the grievance system are daunting, but failure to act on them in a meaningful way will only continue to erode trust in the system. Like many before them, many more CAF members with promising careers ahead of them will walk out the door as a result of inaction. It is discouraging that some of the issues we continue to identify with the chain of command were raised by the first ombudsman between 1998 and 2005. The cycle continues.

Simple fixes, such as addressing the fact that the chief of the defence staff has very limited financial authority to address an unfairness for a CAF member, makes absolutely no sense.

From a retention perspective, any prospective member of the Canadian Armed Forces should know that, if they face an issue during their time in uniform, there is a system in place that works. Currently, that cannot be guaranteed, and this will have an impact on keeping people in the armed forces.

Following this theme of trust, we also need to ensure we are making the institution stronger by guaranteeing the independence of its arm's-length bodies. The sexual misconduct response centre, SMRC, our office and other military and civilian authorities need to be protected against the possibilities of outside influence and even the perception of it. Without additional measures put in place to solidify this independence, trust will continue to erode.

On a second theme, we are all aware of the culture crisis that the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence now suffer. Stories about misconduct continue to drive the news cycles. As a result, we know that talented, well-trained people have left the Canadian Armed Forces because they were directly affected by these stories, or as a result of how the military responded to them. Though difficult to measure, this has likely impacted recruitment as well. The overall culture in the military, including its initiatives to promote inclusion and diversity within its ranks, continues to suffer.

Though we have seen promising organizational changes, such as the standing up of the chief professional conduct and culture, we are far from seeing the results of anything that would constitute substantial change on the horizon.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Ombudsman Lick, we're well over the five minutes for your statement. I wonder if you could wind it up, and then we can get to questions with members.

4:50 p.m.

Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Gregory Lick

Okay. Very good.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Thank you.

4:50 p.m.

Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Gregory Lick

I think I'll just focus, then, on the last theme, family matters.

The government's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, places its commitment to its people. There are still major challenges facing members of the defence community on the home front. Overall, I've heard good reports about those transitioning to civilian life in the new process of transition; however, our office continues to intervene in cases where a member is days, if not hours, from release and lacks appropriate preparation.

In conclusion, we need a system in which people trust that they'll be treated fairly. We need a culture of respect for every individual within the Canadian Armed Forces and in the Department of National Defence, and we need support for our families, because they are the backbone of the members who serve us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

I see Mr. May.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

I'm sorry for the interruption, Mr. Chair.

During the introduction, the English translation was coming through at the same volume, which made it very difficult to hear. Hopefully we can fix that moving forward.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

It appears to have been something to do with the witness selecting a particular button on the particular console, which is now, apparently, fixed. I hope it's working now. Thank you.

Colleagues, since there's only one presentation of five minutes, I think we can go to a six-minute round, starting with Ms. Findlay.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ombudsman. It's good to see you again.

I'm obviously concerned about what you're saying about the grievance system when you talk about something taking nine years. Can you expound on the problems with the grievance system a little more?

4:50 p.m.

Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Gregory Lick

The major problem with the grievance system that we are hearing—and one of the reasons that we do intervene more often and earlier in some of the complaints because of compelling circumstances—is those delays. Certainly what we're hearing is that there's a resource issue, in not having sufficient resources in order to be able to support the grievance system.

I truly and firmly believe that there are more systemic issues underneath. For one, are people accountable for supporting the grievance system, whether that's in the chain of command, at the initial authority level or at the final authority level? There are deep issues in there, and it's one of the reasons we have decided in our systemic investigation plan to look at these recourse mechanisms next year, the following year, to determine what those deep issues are that are causing this cycle of delays to occur over and over again. Every time resources are thrown against it, the backlog comes down but the delays keep reoccurring.

There are some systemic issues there and we need to find out what they are.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

I imagine it would also be hard on the mental health of the members and their families, because uncertainty is never good when there's an issue.

DND has been sitting on a comprehensive military family strategy. Can you elaborate on that issue and what it means to military families?

4:55 p.m.

Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Gregory Lick

Certainly on the comprehensive military family strategy, when it came out and we were briefed on it about three years ago, we were very, very supportive of it. Any way we can support our military families, who are, as I said and as it is commonly termed, the “backbone” of the military members in order to support them while they're serving.... If there's anything we can do to be able to support them better, that is vital.

The issue we've seen with this particular strategy is that it's supported in principle, but it needs to be resourced and it needs to be implemented. That hasn't occurred yet.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

When was it initially put forward?

4:55 p.m.

Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Gregory Lick

I believe it was in 2018, but I'll ask Robyn if she has an update on that.

April 6th, 2022 / 4:55 p.m.

Robyn Hynes Director General, Operations, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Thanks. It was originally called the comprehensive military family plan, which has since kind of morphed into the comprehensive military strategy as they took the initiatives from within the plan and put some implementation steps to them. As the ombudsman said, although the report has gained approval and endorsement from the chain of command, it is also my understanding that the resourcing has not been approved for the implementation of the strategy.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

My husband often says to me, a good—

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Ms. Findlay, just a second.

Ms. Hynes, the microphone, I'm sure, is causing the translators grief. I think it has to do with the position of the microphone.

We'll see if that works.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

I was going to say that, as my husband often says, a good plan in action is better than a perfect plan on the drawing board. It seems to me that three and a half or four years is plenty of time to get something moving.

For the ombudsman, why do you think people are leaving the military and why are they staying, in your view?

4:55 p.m.

Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

Gregory Lick

As I said in my opening remarks, I think there is a crisis of trust within the military around whether people are going be treated fairly. That is the core part of our mandate. When people come forward to us, they're looking for fair treatment and we try to help them get that.

The other element, though, is that the misconduct crisis that is clearly in the news and continues to be in the news is certainly causing people to lose trust. When they do come forward when there's a situation of misconduct—whether it is sexual or some other abuse of power—they want to know that they will be treated fairly. They want to know that they will be heard. [Technical difficulty—Editor] to deal with that particular situation.

The other one is that, as I go around to various bases and wings, I hear from families and members who are having a difficult time being able to afford housing. We are seeing policies, as some of the other witnesses have said, that are outdated and not agile enough to keep up with the economic factors that are affecting not only the military, but of course all Canadians, with respect to housing, inflation and so on. Some of those policies, like the post living differential, have not been updated. The rates have not been updated since 2008. The economy and the economic situation across the country have changed. That has created very much a situation of unfairness for a lot of members and a lot of families across the country.

There's a whole variety of reasons why people have decided to leave, but I truly believe it comes down to the basics. There's a lack of trust that the system will treat you fairly. There needs to be a change in the culture of respect and more respect for the individual. We need to help the military families and support them better in supporting our members.

Seamless Canada is an initiative that is trying to help deal with that with the provinces and territories, but this is an area that I strongly believe the Prime Minister and first ministers need to deal with quite directly with the provinces and territories.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

We have to leave it there. Thank you.

Ms. O'Connell, you have six minutes.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you very much.

Thank you both for being here.

I want to pick up on that grievance process as well. You spoke about [Technical difficulty—Editor] in some of these cases and the backlogs, but I have a question around whether all grievance cases are treated equally. I mean that in the sense of whether there is a prioritization of, say, a sexual harassment grievance versus a pay grievance. [Technical difficulty—Editor] very challenging for the individual involved, but a grievance around, say, harassment might pose an imminent physical danger as well.