Evidence of meeting #94 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 office.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I call this meeting to order.
It's 11 o'clock. We have quorum.
For information purposes, before I call upon our witnesses, Minister Blair will appear before the committee on the 20th to talk about the supplementary estimates.
11 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Chair, with the minister's appearance on supplementary (C)s, will they be deemed to be reported back, or will it be in time for us to report them back?
11 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Wilson
We don't know yet, because of the complicated process for when they're deemed to be reported back. It's three sitting days before the end of the supply period, which is the 26th—the following Tuesday—or three days before the last allotted day, which hasn't been allotted yet.
We won't know until that week, unfortunately.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay.
We have one familiar witness appearing before us, who looks a little beaten up, and one witness who is not quite as familiar to the committee.
I'm going to ask Mr. Lick and Ms. Hynes to speak for the first five minutes, and then ask Mr. Joshi to speak for the second five minutes. Then we'll go to our rounds of questioning.
Welcome, Mr. Lick. I was going to say something about licks and he keeps on ticking, but that would be a lame joke.
11 a.m.
Gregory Lick Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman
Good morning, committee members.
Over our history, every ombudsman has called for our office to be entrenched in legislation. We have advanced this committee copies of four reports we've prepared on this subject. Legislating this office and having it report to Parliament is both symbolic and practical. Most importantly, it would place the fair treatment of our constituents above politics.
In June 2022, at the height of the sexual misconduct crisis, I held a national press conference to address some of these issues head on. It was about improving accountability, which remains an issue to this day.
Various crises have eroded trust in National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Many recourse mechanisms are not seen as being truly independent of those institutions. I hope the consensus around this table will be that legislating the Office of the Ombudsman would serve as a cornerstone in rebuilding trust and faith in the institution.
Without legislation, my organization is subject to oversight and investigation by the same department it is mandated to oversee. The conflict here is obvious. In the past, this has resulted in problematic investigations of this office that completely lacked credibility. In one case, the department investigated my predecessor and staff in a process so riddled with procedural defects and unfairness that it raised concerns the process was being abused. For one implicated member of our staff, the Federal Court was categorical that the individual “was denied procedural fairness in the investigation and in the decision-making process”. No one has yet been held accountable. There is nothing to prevent this from happening again.
The Minister of National Defence has no legal requirement to act on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Office of the Ombudsman. Our reports, which are evidence-based, are aimed at eliminating systemic issues facing the defence community.
In fact, responses to our reports are increasingly months late. They contain no tangible implementation details despite the fact that we know the department has developed them. Where is the choke point?
Let me be clear, on an individual file level, our organization is tremendously successful at achieving fair outcomes for our constituents.
However, with our systemic recommendations, the department and the CAF have not progressed sufficiently. We have historically lacked evidence on the implementation of these recommendations. Consequently, we regularly follow up with the department and the CAF and issue report cards based on what we see. This is a best practice in oversight, but the results are often not promising.
In the fall of 2023, I published a report pertaining to the identification of mental health and support needs of reservists participating in domestic operations. Five months later, I have still not received a response from the minister.
Before I leave this post on July 2 of this year, I will release a report that will address issues related to CAF complaint mechanisms. Will we have to wait months again for a response? Is this how you wish accountability to work?
Three weeks ago at this committee, I indicated that family issues are the number one reason people are leaving the Canadian Forces. Logically, fixing these issues would help the CAF retain members. Our office has been vocal on issues facing military families for more than a decade.
As members of Parliament, you are not unaffected by these issues facing military members and their families. That is precisely why, in my estimation and that of my predecessors, this office needs to report to the people's House—this House—and not just one member of it, especially when the issues involve more than the Department of National Defence and could be matters of national security.
Ministerial responses to previous governance reports have usually been that things are fine, and if they're not, pick up the phone and call them. However, as my predecessor faced in 2018, what happens when this person is the source of the problem or refuses to listen? If I cannot get the attention of the minister, should I set up more meetings with members of all parties? Should I resort to using the media? How does Parliament want to ensure ministerial accountability if it does not have a completely independent body providing it with advice or recommendations?
We have fully legislated oversight for federally incarcerated inmates, those who commit serious crimes. Why do those who proudly wear our military uniform, on whom we depend for national security, not have the same?
It makes no sense.
Canada is the only member of the Five Eyes to not have legislative oversight. You can change that.
Thank you.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
Col Vihar Joshi Interim Chairperson, Military Grievances External Review Committee
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to this important meeting today.
My name is Vihar Joshi. I'm the interim chair of the Military Grievances External Review Committee.
For brevity's sake, I'll refer to the Military Grievances External Review Committee as the MGERC throughout my presentation.
The MGERC is an external component that's an integral part of the Canadian Armed Forces grievance system. It was created in June 2000 under the National Defence Act. The MGERC is an independent quasi-judicial body with one mandate: to review grievances referred to it by the Chief of the Defence Staff and to provide findings and recommendations to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the CAF members who filed the grievances.
The MGERC's findings and recommendations are not binding upon the Chief of the Defence Staff. However, if the CAF decides not to adhere to one of the findings or recommendations, they must explain their reasons in the final decision.
Although the MGERC does not have decision-making power, its role is nonetheless pivotal in maintaining transparency and confidence in the Canadian Armed Forces grievance system.
At arm's length from the Canadian Forces, the MGERC has developed considerable expertise over the past 23 years and is well positioned to undertake in-depth investigations into grievance matters and provide impartial and independent assessments to both the chief of the defence staff and grievers on how a grievance should be resolved. The MGERC provides it's annual report to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence. It publishes it's annual reports, case summaries and systemic recommendations online, thereby further strengthening transparency.
Although the regulations only require that certain types of grievances be referred to the MGERC for review, all grievers should benefit from an external independent review before a final decision is made on the grievance. Not only has this notion been highlighted by independent review authorities, including Mr. Justice Fish in his recent third independent review, but until recently, it has also been a Canadian Armed Forces best practice for the past 13 years. To ensure that all grievers benefit from this review, this practice should be entrenched in legislation.
Justice Fish also made a number of other recommendations to enhance the transparency and efficiency of the Canadian Armed Forces grievance system. The MGERC looks forward to working with the Canadian Armed Forces to improve the grievance system for all soldiers, sailors and aviators.
With regard to access to information requests and parliamentary questions, I can confirm that in the last five years, the MGERC has responded on average to 116 parliamentary questions, three formal access to information requests and 19 informal access to information requests. In the interests of efficiency and to reduce the administrative burden on those making requests, it is the MGERC's standard best practice to respond quickly and without the need to initiate a formal access to information request process.
The MGERC's specific role in the Canadian Armed Forces grievance system is valuable and important. In essence, it increases transparency and confidence in the system by ensuring that grievers have full disclosure of all relevant information and that their grievances have an in-depth, independent and impartial review before the chief of the defence staff renders final decisions. We have heard time and again, from both grievers and the chief of the defence staff, that the quality and thoroughness of our reviews adds value to the process.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Joshi.
We'll go to our six-minute round, starting with Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, please go ahead.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you to our witnesses.
Mr. Joshi, in your 2022 annual report, less than two years ago, you said that for three out of the last five years your “ability to deliver” on your mandate “was hampered by lapses in Governor in Council appointees' tenure”. How many Governor in Council appointments have lapsed, and for how long, in the last five years?
11:10 a.m.
Interim Chairperson, Military Grievances External Review Committee
In the last five years, we had two lapses. In 2018, we came up to full complement. In 2022, the full-time vice-chair left the committee, and the chair left the committee in the summer of 2022. Those positions have not been filled yet.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
This is a troubling trend that goes along with the non-appointment of judges. There are delays in the government appointing so these bodies can do their work. Are you concerned?
How about the cuts that are proposed? They're going to cut a billion dollars in the defence budget. We've been promised at this committee that it will not affect operational readiness or direct frontline forces. Are you concerned that it's going to be the transparency mechanisms that suffer under the cuts that are coming?
11:10 a.m.
Interim Chairperson, Military Grievances External Review Committee
With respect to our committee, I do not have any fears or concerns in the sense that our budget at this point is not being affected. In fact, we've been able to increase our budget slightly to increase our staffing levels to deal with the higher number of grievances.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Okay, but you don't have the appointments so that the hearings can take place, and it's slowing down your work, you said.
11:10 a.m.
Interim Chairperson, Military Grievances External Review Committee
We do sill lack numbers at this present time.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Lick, how long does it take complainants to get to the stage of asking your office to assist? They have to go through the MGERC first. How long does it take, typically, before they get to you?
11:10 a.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman
First of all, they can access our services at any point in time—it does not matter—and we will make sure they get on the right path to get the right recourse mechanism, if that's the case, or to get the information, whatever it is. They can access us at any time. It does not matter.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
My office and other MPs' offices have heard from veterans who have filed privacy requests for information on sexual misconduct cases and have ended up having the charges stayed against the alleged offender for a lack of timely delivery of the information necessary to make a complaint and to make a case.
How does the denial of this type of information affect morale and affect serving members and their families when they can't get the information they need from the military to carry out a complaint?
11:10 a.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman
First of all, in the area of law enforcement or judicial proceedings like that, we are prevented from looking at that area in particular and any criminal matters in that regard.
On your question in general of being able to access information to support their lives or their careers, it is morale damaging when they can't get the information in time. One of the roles of our office is to make sure that we can get that information to them in time. They can access our services if they're finding it difficult to get that information, except for criminal matters.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
What about medical information for retiring CAF members?
11:15 a.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman
In some of our previous reports, we outlined some of the issues we saw with getting information for members to access their records and so on or for VAC to make an adjudication on their particular benefits. It is better now. They can access those services and access that information as they release, but they still run into some similar simple problems. Perhaps they give it on a CD, but many people don't have CD players anymore.
They're working through that issue right now. I think it is getting better, definitely. Whatever it is, they can access their information, but maybe not in as timely a manner as we would like to see.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
There are persistent problems, still, among those with service injuries, who have to re-prove their injury once they discharge from the CAF.
11:15 a.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman
Yes. That's one of our recommendations that was not accepted by the department. That was to have the CAF, or the military health services, make that decision on service attribution of an injury. We still believe in that, absolutely, because it seems to be the most logical and most efficient way of doing it, but they've been reluctant to look at that since our previous report.