Statement to the Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN)

Opening Remarks

26 February 2024

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

---

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY 

Good morning, Committee members. As you know, our office was established over 25 years ago. During that time, every Ombudsman has called for our office to be entrenched in legislation. We have advanced to this committee copies of four (4) reports we prepared on this subject during that time. 

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 of 2021, at the height of the misconduct crisis, I held a national press conference to address some of these issues head-on. It was about improving accountability, and this remains an issue today.

Various crises have eroded trust in the DND and the CAF. Many recourse mechanisms are not seen as being “truly” independent of those institutions. I would hope that the consensus around this table would be that legislating our office would serve as a cornerstone in the rebuilding of trust and faith in the institution.

Mutual Oversight

Without legislation, my organization has been subjected to mutual oversight and investigation by the Department I am mandated to oversee. The institutional conflict here is obvious.

In the past, this has resulted in problematic investigations of this office that 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 that the process was being abused. For one implicated member of our staff, the Federal Court was categorical, the individual QUOTE “…was denied procedural fairness in the investigation and in the decision-making process.” END QUOTE.

No one has yet been held accountable. There is nothing to prevent this from happening again.

Mandated Responses

The Minister of National Defence has no legal requirement to individually address recommendations contained in our evidence-based reports. These reports aim to tackle systemic issues facing the Canadian Defence Community. 

In fact, responses to our reports are increasingly months late, and 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 Fall 2023, I published a report pertaining to the identification of mental health needs and support for 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 2nd, 2024, I will release a report that will address issues relating to CAF complaint mechanisms. Will we have to wait months again for a response? Is this how you wish accountability to work?

Escalation beyond the party in power

Three weeks ago at this committee, I indicated that the NUMBER ONE reason people are leaving the Canadian Armed Forces is due to family issues. Logically, fixing these issues would help CAF retention. Our office has been vocal on issues facing military families for more than a decade.

As members of Parliament, you are not unaffected by issues facing military members and their families. That is precisely why, in the estimation of myself and 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 are outside of the accountability of DND/CAF and could be matters of national security. 

Ministerial responses to previous governance reports have usually been “things are fine, and if they are not, pick up the phone and call me.” But, as my predecessor faced in 2018, what happens when that 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 and recommendations? 

We have fully legislated oversight for federally incarcerated inmates—those who commit serious crimes. Why do those who proudly wear a 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 to have legislated military oversight. You can change that.

Thank you.