National Defence Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[Gregory Lick]

At the time—and perhaps I'll ask Robyn to supplement this—they brought up the ethical issues of a treating doctor providing that decision. There are ways to get around that. They could have a separate group within the organization do it, separate from the treating doctor. That was the issue they brought up at the time.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Does an injured forces member take any comfort from that explanation?

[Gregory Lick]

I wouldn't say so. I think the point is that we want to see retiring members get the benefits they deserve as quickly as possible, and, in fact, get the adjudication decision before they leave the forces so they have every piece of information and all the benefits and services in place before they leave.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

That's right, because we are sometimes talking about members discharged for medical reasons—it's a medical discharge—who are unable to access benefits for the injuries that were the source of the discharge.

[Gregory Lick]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Madame Lambropoulos, you have six minutes.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

My first question is going to Mr. Lick. Thank you for being here with us today.

You mentioned that five months ago, you sent a letter to the minister regarding mental health. I know you said you haven't heard back in five months. I'm wondering whether prior to this you had similar experiences or you wrote and received responses in a timely manner.

Perhaps you can comment further on other times you tried to communicate with the minister's office.

[Gregory Lick]

I would say that, since I started in 2018, we've experienced the same problems and delays in getting information from the department—in this case, the minister and minister's office—with respect to our systemic recommendations. We know the department, through our discussions with them, has been working on these recommendations—whether or not to implement or action them. However, for some reason, we can't get an answer from the department—officially, the minister and the minister's office—in a timely manner. This affects more than anything the transparency of the whole institution.

We made a recommendation. They have the right to not accept it, absolutely. That's fine. At the same time, our defence community deserves an answer—yes or no—but we're not getting it in a timely manner. We don't understand why.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

You also mentioned that Canada is one of the only countries without legislated military oversight. I'm wondering whether you could go into a little detail as to how this would be helpful, in this case or in general, for improving transparency.

[Gregory Lick]

We can provide this committee with a chart of that information for all places in the world we have that information for. In the area of the Five Eyes—the most closely linked communities and countries we work with—we are the only one that does not have a legislated mandate for its ombudsperson, inspector general or whatever they might be called.

What I've said and what my predecessors have said in numerous reports is that, more than anything, it is sometimes the perception of interference or real interference occurring that causes our inability to action some of the investigations we carry out. It is also about being able to raise or escalate issues to Parliament, beyond the minister or the government in power at the time. I can use the media, absolutely. I can talk to all the different political parties. However, is that how ministerial accountability should work? I don't believe so. I think I'd need to bring these issues to Parliament, whether it's at a committee or in other ways. Ultimately, it is that.

The other aspect is that legislation provide protection from a witness being compelled in a particular case. That is important. The Correctional Service investigator, as an example, has that. I do not. I will fight back if I'm asked to do that. I'll fight it in court if I need to. Really, that should be in the legislation in order to protect the confidentiality of the services we provide to our constituents.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much.

My next question will go to Mr. Joshi.

We heard about the military grievance process. We know that to improve the culture of the CAF, we need to improve the grievance process and make sure people are getting a fair and timely response.

I'm wondering whether you can suggest any specific improvements that you think would help us as they relate to access to information.

[Col Vihar Joshi]

One of the big things I would suggest, as I mentioned before, is having all of the grievances come to us as discretionary or mandatory, as we call them. How does this help? First of all, with access to information, it would give all grievers the disclosure they need to have their grievances properly considered. It would give an impartial and independent review back to the chief of the defence staff.

While it may look as if it would take more time to send all those files to the grievance committee, at the end of the day, it saves time in the process. Why is that? What the Canadian Armed Forces and the member get back is a fully analyzed file with all the information contained in it and the logical flow of how we arrived at a recommendation or conclusion. When it gets back to the final authority, they have a complete file. They can review it. They have an independent opinion on it. It also explains to grievers why we feel their file should be decided in a certain way. That gives us some transparency and boosts confidence in the system.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Currently, you have to go through regular access to information requests, I imagine, which takes longer.

[Col Vihar Joshi]

We do not. In the National Defence Act, there's a provision that says when the chief of the defence staff refers a file to the committee, the chief of the defence staff is required to provide us with all relevant information. To the extent that we don't get a full file or there's information missing, we have lines of communication with the Canadian Armed Forces that allow us to get that information.

Of course, sometimes it takes time, because as we know, grievances are not necessarily the priority of the organization in that way. They have an operation to run. However, we do have a system in place to get the information back.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you both very much, and Ms. Hynes too.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much to all the witnesses.

Mr. Joshi, I'm going to start with you because I want to follow up on Ms. Lambropoulos's questions.

You mentioned that not all grievances are referred to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. I would like to know on what basis some are and others aren't. What are the criteria? Do you have any idea why some are referred to you and others aren't? Could there be a lack of transparency in the selection process that's hiding something specific?

[Col Vihar Joshi]

With respect to referrals to the committee, there are two types of referrals: mandatory and discretionary.

The classes of files that must come to the committee are prescribed in regulation. They are administrative action that affects finances, so forfeitures or deductions from pay; Canadian Armed Forces policies related to political activities, harassment, pay and allowances, and entitlement to medical and dental care; and decisions the CDS has made that are personal decisions.

Those are the mandatory cases they have to refer to us, but other types of cases are discretionary.

With careers, for example, the chief has a decision to make based on whether he or she feels there would be value with the committee and whether he or she feels we have the capacity. That is completely discretionary. How they choose in between, I'm not entirely sure.

We receive all the mandatory files and, up until last year, all the discretionary files. We're receiving far fewer of them this year.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

About the discretionary files that are referred to you, can the fact that they're discretionary become a political tool, in a way? I'm curious about your views on that.

[Col Vihar Joshi]

Yes, it's possible, if people have something to hide.

I don't really think that is the issue. For me, it's more in the workflow of the files and where the belief of efficiency lies. However, as I have mentioned before, to ensure transparency and confidence in the system, it certainly would be more preferable that we get all the files.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lick, I'd like to talk more about how your recommendations are acted upon. As things stand, the committee has no power to compel action. From a legislative standpoint, how can action be compelled? Do you have any recommendations in that regard for our report?

[Gregory Lick]

In legislation, it could be as it is with the Auditor General. In its legislation, the mandated timelines for responses are a way of making sure departments respond in a timely manner. That's one way it could be imparted in legislation. However, I would come back to the other part of it: It doesn't mean that they have to accept those particular recommendations.

We are pretty good at the work we do and the recommendations we put forward. The vast majority are accepted. The implementation is just much slower than I think we would all like to see.

The other part of it is that the way we impose transparency on the organization is through producing progress reports. Every year, those are updated by the departments. We analyze the evidence and show whether the recommendations that have been accepted have been fully implemented, partially implemented or not implemented. That is all public. That's actually a best practice that I would like to see in the rest of the public service.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Now let's talk about response times to your reports. You specifically referred to the one about reservists' mental health, which you submitted five months ago. You still haven't received a response.

Would it be possible for the response time to be legislated and for the minister to have an obligation to explain why he's not responding if he can't respond within the allotted time?

[Gregory Lick]

Exactly.

We're not naive. Sometimes it does take a longer time to analyze and assess the recommendation and so on. That's absolutely true.

I would expect at least an acknowledgement of the report. I would expect at least, if there was an issue with getting a response back in time, that we receive an explanation. We have received none.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

The committee received the comparative charts detailing the mandates of federal public sector ombuds. Parts of the mandates of other ombuds differ from yours and might make you jealous. Can you tell us about elements in the other mandates that you would like to see in yours?