Letter to members of the Standing Committee on NDDN and FEWO on the Independence of the Ombudsman’s Office
12 April 2021
Dear Committee Members:
This is further to my appearance before your committees on 25 March 2021 at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and on 6 April 2021 at the Standing Committee National Defence on the subject of sexual misconduct in the military.
The need to address sexual misconduct in the military has once again captured the attention of the nation. I am of the view that all efforts to bring systemic dysfunction to light and address it are positive steps toward a much-needed culture change.
I am aware that the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence are rethinking their approaches, and would like to reiterate that, as ombudsman, I cannot participate in those ongoing deliberations. Doing so could place me in a future conflict position where my office may be called upon to review any new processes put in place should they become the subject of a complaint.
The testimony before Committee has exposed part of the problem as an ingrained belief on the part of victims that it is better to remain silent than to come forward and risk reprisal and other career consequences. While this is true of sexual misconduct, it is equally true of other systemic abuses such as racism and other forms of discrimination. I urge all who are involved in developing new processes or systems, to address the more deep-rooted issues of lack of trust and fear of reprisals.
The testimony has also revealed a general consensus that there should be an independent body reporting to Parliament that is external to both the CAF and the Department. My office is well placed to perform that oversight role to ensure fairness and to be part of the overall solution.
My office has been operating as an independent and objective oversight body for 23 years and has the trust of its constituents. We have repeatedly called for legislative permanence, including full independence from the administrative delegations of the Department and a direct reporting relationship with Parliament. My office is already well established and fully operational in terms of administration and corporate structures. We have the requisite knowledge of CAF and departmental systems and policies, and are trusted by the defence community. All that is required is the benefit of promised legislation with appropriate reporting functions.
It is untenable that another sexual misconduct scandal had to happen to serve as a catalyst for institutional change. Yet here we are. Other nations, faced with similar issues, opted to give their military oversight-bodies proper legislated authorities, ensuring that their recommendations have sufficient teeth to be actioned. I suggest that it is a disgrace that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes not to have done so. I have attached a comparative chart for your information.
Whether restructured with greater authorities or retaining only the authorities of a classical ombudsman, my office requires legislation and a permanent existence in order to better serve the defence community. As mentioned at Committee, my office, if properly resourced, can take on greater operational functions to support victims and survivors of sexual misconduct.
I am happy to make the expertise of my office available to assist as needed. I am also attaching for your reference a recent report calling for legislation and full independence for this office.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Lick
Ombudsman
Enclosures (2):
- International Ombuds Institutions
- Ombudsman Report, The Case for a Permanent and Independent Ombudsman Office, March 2017