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.