Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Appearance before the Standing Committee on National Defence (February 26, 2024)

On this page

  1. Opening remarks
  2. Statistics
  3. Financials, budget and costing
  4. Recommendations from 3rd Independent Review of the NDA that impact MGERC
  5. Bios of the Standing Committee on National Defence Committee Members
  6. Governor in Council appointment process and MGERC workforce breakdown
  7. 2023 Performance Report (taken from 2023 Annual Report)
  8. Statistics provided by the MGERC following the May 20, 2022 report from the honourable Louise Arbour
  9. Case summaries related to Arbour report

A. Opening remarks

Mr. President, members of the committee, good day. Thank you for inviting me to this important session.

I am Vihar Joshi, the interim president of the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

For the sake of clarity, I will refer to the Military Grievances External Review Committee as the MGERC throughout.

The MGERC is an external yet integral component 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: review all grievances referred to it by the Chief of the Defence Staff and provide its findings and recommendations to the Chief of the Defence Staff and to the member who submitted the grievance. While the Chief of the Defence Staff is not bound by the MGERC’s findings and recommendations, to the extent that the Canadian Armed Forces does not act on any finding or recommendation, it must provide 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 Armed 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 assessment to both the Chief of the Defence Staff and grievors on how a grievance should be resolved. The MGERC provides its annual report to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence. Online, it publishes its annual report, case summaries and systemic recommendations, thereby further strengthening transparency.

Although the regulations only require that certain types of grievances be referred to the MGERC for review, all grievors should benefit from an external, independent review before a final decision is made on the grievance. Not only has this notion been highlighted by several Independent Review Authorities, including by Mr. Justice (Retired) Fish in his recent 3rd Independent Review, but, until recently, it has also been a Canadian Armed Forces best practice for the past thirteen (13) years. To ensure that all grievors benefit from this review, this best 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 and 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 (5) years, MGERC responded within the prescribed deadlines to an average of 116 Parliamentary questions, three (3) formal access to information requests and nineteen (19) informal access to information requests per year. In the interest of efficiency and to reduce the administrative burden on those making the requests, it is MGERC's standard, best practice to respond quickly and without the need to initiate the 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 grievors 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 grievors and the Chief of the Defence Staff that the quality and thoroughness of our reviews adds value to the process.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you and will gladly answer your questions.

B. Statistics

Access to information and Privacy
Received in FY ATI formal Completed within timelines ATI informal Completed within timelines Privacy Completed within timelines
2023-2024
(so far)		 4 100% 20 N/A (informal requests have no deadline) 6 100%
2022-2023 2 0%Footnote * 13 10 100%
2021-2022 0 N/A 32 1 100%
2020-2021 0 N/A 24 1 100%
2019-2020 0 N/A 18 2 100%
2018-2019 1 100% 7 0 N/A

Reasons for not releasing documents or redacting them:

ATI act

Privacy act

Operational Statistics

Note: most averages and percentages are rounded and not all files received in 2022 and 2023 are complete, which can affect statistics. Files ‘in abeyance’ were not excluded.

How many files are active right now? What is your backlog? (as of Feb. 8)

How many grievances did the Committee receive and how many F&R reports did the Committee complete?

  2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 10-year average
Received 214 327 230 169 151 308 226 322 345 168 246
F&Rs issued 171 328 250 140 96 174 263 341 142 215 212

Note: For 2024, 53 received, 13 issued as of 7 Feb.

What is the average number of months to review a grievance at the Committee and how long does it take to review when there is no IA decision?

  2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 10-year average
Once assigned (2.0 to 4.1) 4.3 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.9 11.4 4.9 4.8 6.3 9 5.8
Date received (1.1 to 4.1) 4.6 4.2 4.7 5 7.2 12.3 11.2 10.9 10.6 16.3 (168) 7.3
Files with an IA decision 4.4 4.1 4.7 4.9 7 12 11.1 10.8 10.4 15.4 (124) 8.5
Files with no IA decision 5.2 4.4 4.5 5.4 7.8 14 11.5 11.4 11.1 (153) 17.8 (44) 9.3
Extra time when no IA decision +0.8 +0.3 -0.2 +0.5 +0.8 +2 +0.4 +0.6 +0.7 +2.4 +0.8

Note: files assigned to a grievance team are completed within 6 months and files with no IA decision add almost a full month of review time (from start to finish).

How many mandatory and discretionary grievance referrals did the Committee receive?

  2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 10-year average
Mandatory 132
62%		 205
63%		 127
55%		 69
41%		 76
50%		 173
56%		 141
62%		 186
58%		 273
79%		 159
95%		 154
62%
Discretionary 82
38%		 122
37%		 103
45%		 100
59%		 75
50%		 135
44%		 85
38%		 136
42%		 72
21%		 9
5%		 90
38%

Note: prior to 2022, 44% of our referrals were of a discretionary nature.

What are the most common types of discretionary files?

Remedial Measures (183), Promotions (123), Career actions/removals (86), Training (86) and Other (124). Vast majority fall under the main category of Careers.

What category of grievances referrals did the Committee receive?

  2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 10-year average
Careers 81
38%		 109
33%		 114
50%		 97
57%		 74
49%		 144
47%		 84
38%		 110
34%		 224
65%		 84
50%		 112
46%
Harassment 12
6%		 10
3%		 9
4%		 7
4%		 8
5%		 12
4%		 11
5%		 26
8%		 19
6%		 15
9%		 13
5%
Medical and dental care 2
1%		 13
4%		 3
1%		 6
4%		 5
3%		 13
4%		 12
5%		 15
5%		 7
2%		 4
2%		 8
3%
Others 10
5%		 18
6%		 10
4%		 4
%2		 1
1%		 6
2%		 17
8%		 8
2%		 9
3%		 4
2%		 9
4%
Pay and benefits 90
42%		 161
49%		 80
35%		 48
28%		 51
34%		 108
35%		 93
42%		 158
48%		 80
23%		 56
33%		 93
38%
Releases 19
9%		 16
5%		 14
6%		 7
4%		 12
8%		 25
8%		 7
3%		 10
3%		 6
2%		 5
3%		 12
5%

Note: 84% of our grievances are related to pay and benefits, and careers.

How many sexual misconduct and sexual harassment files has the Committee received?

How often does the Committee find the grievor aggrieved or not aggrieved and how often does the FA agree or not agree with the Committee’s recommendations?

  2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 10-year average
Committee found aggrieved 53% 55% 52% 52% 54% 56% 39% 44% 42% 61% 51%
FA agreed that grievor aggrieved 69% 72% 75% 79% 88% 85% 88% 98% 95% N/A 83%
Committee found not aggrieved 47% 44% 48% 48% 46% 43% 61% 56% 58% 39% 49%
FA agreed that grievor not aggrieved 88% 85% 81% 79% 79% 90% 86% 91% 79% N/A 84%
Cases withdrawn at the FA level 11% 15% 18% 17% 27% 9% 14% 8% 3% N/A 14%

Note: these stats only apply to files where we got the FA decision back, MOST years are incomplete. Not enough data for 2023 (only 7 files) so did not include.

Conclusion: The Committee finds grievors aggrieved and not aggrieved equally, and the FA agrees with the Committee 84% of the time. 14% of cases end up being withdrawn (reasons not provided).

How many months does it take for the Final Authority to make a decision on a grievance after receiving the Committee’s F&Rs?

  2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 10-year average
Elapsed Months 13.2 8.2 9.5 12.2 14.1 14.4 9.7 13 21.2 37.9 15.3
Decisions / Withdrawals received 131 243 263 240 113 95 142 267 276 55 173.5

Note: based on FA decisions AND withdrawals returned that calendar year and on time elapsed between 4.1 and date FA decision entered (4.2 task) – this is approximate and includes the time lapse for the CAF to send them to us and for us to enter them in the system.

How many oral hearings has the Committee held?

Five total. In 2005, 2013, 2014 2016 and 2018 – an average of 0.2 per year since 2000.

What is the average number of files completed per Committee Member (FTEs)?

  2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 10-year average
Members (FTEs) 2.55 3.06 1.96 1.39 3.86 4.52 4.4 4 2.7 3 3.14
F&Rs Issued 171 328 250 140 96 174 263 341 142 215 212
Average output per Member 67.1 107.2 127.55 100.7 24.9 38.5 59.8 85.3 52.6 71.7 67.5

Note: the FTE stats were only available by fiscal year. We need at least 3 full time Committee Members to issue over 200 files, we would be able to work on reducing backlog if we consistently had 4 FTEs working for multiple years, considering complexity of files, passage of time.

Departmental Plan / Results: Indicators, results and targets

Findings and Recommendations on all referred military grievances are provided in a timely manner

Indicator Target 2020-21 result 2021-22 result 2023-23 result
% of written F&Rs that are issued within 4 months of receipt At least 75% of findings and recommendations issued within 4 months of receipt 16.26% 21.71% 5.56%

The Committee provides F&Rs to the FA that are clear, complete, and useful in the military grievances decision-making process.

Indicator Target 2020-21 result 2021-22 result 2023-23 result
Achievement of a rating by the FA of at least 4 / 5 on each of the following attributes related to F&Rs: usefulness, clarity, and completeness A cumulative minimum average of 4 out of 5 for each attribute.
  • Usefulness: 4.94/5
  • Clarity: 5/5
  • Completeness: 5/5
  • Usefulness: 4.27/5
  • Clarity: 4.27/5
  • Completeness: 4.26/5
  • Usefulness: 4.15/5
  • Clarity: 4.15/5
  • Completeness: 4.15/5

C. Financials— Budget— Costing

The cost can vary from one year to the next due to the number of files completed (several variables can explain the variation such as file complexity, employee turnover, delays in appointing Committee Members, etc.) Also, the budget varied over the years (e.g. there were years where the Committee received funds for retroactive payments).

  2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average
Completed files (Calendar Year) WebCIMS 174 263 341 142 215 227
Budget (including EBP, CS and Ops) Annual Reports ($ thousands) 6,171 6,853 7,452 7,082 7,263 6,964
Cost per file ($ thousands) 35 26 22 50 34 33

D. Recommendations from 3rd Independent Review of the National Defence Act impacting the Committee

#89: If FA fails to provide decision within 90 days of receipt of F&R report, the F&R report becomes the final decision

Recommendation #89. The National Defence Act, the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces and DAOD 2017-1, Military Grievance Process should be amended to prescribe that a Final Authority must consider and determine a grievance within 90 days of the receipt of the findings and recommendations of the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

When the Final Authority fails to meet this time limit, the findings and recommendations of the Military Grievances External Review Committee should be deemed to constitute the decision of the Final Authority.

#90: All grievances should be referred to MGERC for a F&R report

Recommendation #90. The National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces should be amended to provide that all grievances referred to the Final Authority should be reviewed by the Military Grievances External Review Committee before the Final Authority considers and determines the grievance.

#96: MGERC should have power to issue subpoena duces tecum

Recommendation #96. Section 29.21 of the National Defence Act should be amended to allow the Military Grievances External Review Committee to compel the production of documents or things without the requirement to hold a hearing.

#97: Strike a working group to determine whether FA should be replaced by an independent tribunal

Recommendation #97. A working group should be established to evaluate the appropriateness of providing grievors with recourse to an independent tribunal. The working group should consider whether all grievances, or only certain categories, should be subject to the jurisdiction of that tribunal. It should also consider the integration of this route in the current grievance process and the remedies available pursuant to that recourse. The working group should include an independent authority, representatives from the Military Grievances External Review Committee and representatives from the Canadian Armed Forces. The working group should report to the Minister of National Defence.

E. Bios of the Standing Committee on National Defence Committee Members

F. Governor in Council appointment process and MGERC workforce breakdown

Governor in Council Appointment Process – Privy Council Office response

Private citizens are free to make political donations or undertake other political activities, within limits set by the Canada Elections Act and any other applicable statutes or regulations.

The Government of Canada is committed to filling Governor in Council (GIC) positions with highly qualified candidates who reflect Canada’s diversity, are committed to the principles of public service and embrace public service values. Candidates must be able to perform their duties with integrity and the highest levels of ethical behaviour and professionalism.

To that end, in 2016, the Prime Minister announced the Government's policy to identify most GIC appointment candidates through open, transparent and merit-based processes.

Specific statutes and guidelines govern the conduct and actions of GIC appointees while in office. Each of the following links to a more detailed description:

The Conflict of Interest Act establishes conflict of interest and post-employment compliance measures for public office holders. The Act is administered by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Open and Accountable Government defines the Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders, including:

  1. The Ethical Guidelines and Statutory Standards of Conduct outline four ethical principles that must be adhered to by all public office holders.
  2. The Guidelines for the Political Activities of Public Office Holders are based on the general principle that public office holders should not participate in any political activity which might impair, or be seen to impair, their ability to discharge their duties in a politically impartial manner or cast doubt on the integrity or impartiality of the office.

The Public Service Employment Act also establishes that Deputy Heads may not engage in any political activity other than voting in an election.

Specific positions may also be subject to other guidelines or restrictions.

For more information on Governor in Council appointments, please consult the following link: Governor in Council appointments - Canada.ca.

MGERC workforce breakdown

February 2023

Committee members

Employees

G. 2023 Performance Report (from 2023 Annual Report)

With regards to review of grievances, the Committee provided 215 F&Rs to the CDS and the CAF members who filed grievances. What remains paramount to the Committee is the calibre of our work. We are gratified by the fact that throughout this period of recruitment and training, the quality of our F&R reports remained top notch.

The Committee has a well-established step-by-step grievance review process; however, adapting to new ways of working is essential to continued productivity. The temporary shortage of staff in Legal Services in 2023 led to a slight modification to their involvement in the process without compromising the production of or quality of the F&R reports. Additionally, the variety and depth of subject-matter expertise nurtured year after year lent itself well to further efficiencies in the review of grievance files.

We arrived at the end of 2023 feeling optimistic that we will be able to address a significant number of grievance files within the next few years. We fully expect that the newly onboarded employees and the anticipated appointments of a Chairperson, a full-time Vice-Chairperson and additional Committee Members will bear fruit.

How many grievances did the Committee receive and how many F&R reports did the Committee complete?

  2023 2022 2021
Grievances received from the CAF 168 345 322
F&R reports delivered to the CAF 215 142 341

What is the average number of months to review a grievance at the Committee?

  2023 2022 2021
From the date assigned to a team to the date the F&R report was delivered to the CAF 9.72 5.35 4.75
From the date received at the Committee to the date the F&R report was delivered to the CAF 16.29 10.56 10.91

What category of grievances referrals did the Committee receive?

  2023 2022 2021
Careers 84 (50%) 223 (65%) 110 (34%)
Harassment 15 (9%) 19 (6%) 26 (8%)
Medical and dental care 4 (2%) 7 (2%) 15 (5%)
Others 4 (2%) 9 (3%) 8 (2%)
Pay and benefits 56 (33%) 80 (23%) 158 (48%)
Releases 5 (3%) 7 (2%) 10 (3%)

Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

H. Statistics provided by the MGERC following the May 20, 2022 report from the honourable Louise Arbour

How many sexual misconduct and sexual harassment cases has the Committee received?

Additional Stats

I. Case summaries related to Arbour report

In this section

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Page details

2024-08-20