Statement to the Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN)

Opening Remarks

6 April 2022

Mr. Gregory A. Lick
National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

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 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 these issues based on the evidence we have found.

While this is my first appearance before this committee in the 44^th 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 wanted 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 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 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, prospective members of the Canadian Armed Forces should know that if they face an issue during their time in uniform, they can call on a system in place that works. Currently, they cannot trust this will be guaranteed. This situation does not help keep 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 arms-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 their reaction to 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.

Last year, my Office embarked on a historical review of all military and departmental initiatives involving employment equity groups dating back over twenty years. In particular, we examined whether these initiatives had made any headway in terms of changing the culture of the Defence community. My Office will submit this report to the Minister for her consideration in the near future.

What we have concluded is that despite these numerous initiatives, the Canadian Armed Forces continue to face challenges and barriers to the recruitment and retention of diverse groups. Robyn and I can provide a more detailed breakdown of these challenges and barriers during the question and answer portion of this meeting. In addition, we will endeavour to send the full report to the committee once the Ministerial hold of 28 days expires.

Absent of the findings of this report our Office, myself, and my predecessors have often found that many personnel policies are not inclusive. For example, from a regional perspective policies that are applied in Canada’s North were never written in consideration of the unique operational and cultural landscape in which members live and operate.

Finally, the last theme: Family Matters. The government’s defence policy, Strong Secure Engaged places its commitment to its people – military and defence civilians alike, first and foremost. Unfortunately, nearly five years after the publication of this document, there are still major challenges facing members of the Defence community on the home front.

First, from a mental and physical health perspective those members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have suffered an illness or injury followed by a lack of timely access to resources, especially mental health resources, are at greater risk of negative health outcomes. This can place great stress on them and their families, and affect retention.

Overall, I have heard good reports about those transitioning to civilian life in the new process. However, our Office continues to intervene in cases where a member is days if not hours from release and lacking appropriate preparation. Additionally, if the member is to be released medically and is awaiting an adjudication for benefits and services from Veterans Affairs, the situation can be quite dire.

Family matters can also have an impact on retention of Canadian Armed Forces Members when it comes to military postings.

Imagine a Regular Force member of the Canadian Armed Forces working in Edmonton whose partner is also employed. That member is now posted to CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick. What if the partner can’t find meaningful work? Or what if the partner’s work is dependent on provincial or territorial certification and is affected by a seniority system? Such as a nurse. Will they make the move? Or will they reside in two different provinces to preserve their employment income? Or will the member release?

What if they have children? The education curriculums in provinces vary and often children, especially those in High School, must complete various additional courses in order to meet the requirements to graduate.

What if the couple has a child with special needs? It takes months, if not years, of waiting on one or more priority lists to receive diagnosis and referrals to numerous specialists. Changing jurisdictions can and do put you right back at the bottom of the list. Some members release to keep their child in the care they need.

These are particular problems that are in the domain of responsibility of the provinces and territories. I believe this situation requires discussion at the Premiers’ table with the Prime Minister and First Ministers.

Now, if a member faces hardship, including aging family members who require urgent care, or other deeply personal and unique circumstances, they can apply for what is called a compassionate posting. This means that an individual can remain in situ or move to an area where those personal circumstances can be addressed.

However, compassionate postings can be hard to come by. Moreover, the considerations made in the face of these posting applications are often inconsistent and therefore unfair. This is the theme of a second report I will be sending to the Minister in the near term. When a member is denied a compassionate posting, they sometimes feel they have no choice but to release. This will not only impact them and their families, but it will also impact the Canadian Armed Forces and its readiness. The initiative titled the “Journey” or “CAF HR Strategy” announced a few years ago shows promise on paper. Unfortunately, the progress or evolution of the strategy is not being communicated to CAF members.

If Strong Secure Engaged is really about putting “People First”, it needs to be real and not just words. It may be difficult for serving members to see this in the policies, some of which date back to the 1960s and are not compatible with how the world has evolved and family demographics have changed.

There was some progress made in order to advance family issues and make them right by way of the Comprehensive Military Family Plan. When National Defence first briefed us about this Plan in 2018, we were very much supportive. However, we have yet to see any iteration of this Plan publicly announced, sufficiently resourced, or implemented.

Committee members, it is these issues and more that have led to the significant recruitment gap that the Canadian Armed Forces now face. We have thousands of vacancies in the regular and reserve forces. How we treat those currently in uniform, how we fix the culture that surrounds them, and how we create and interpret policy in a fair and inclusive manner will determine how many of them stay within our ranks, and how many join them in the future. We need to act decisively.

Thank you. I am ready to respond to your questions.