Response to CDS and DM: Response to Position Paper

24 June 2021

 

LGen Wayne Eyre
Acting Chief of the Defence Staff

Jody Thomas
Deputy Minister

Department of National Defence
Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2

 

Dear LGen Eyre and Ms. Thomas,

Thank you for your letter dated today and your willingness to resolve the outstanding issues. It is important to state that all of these matters have been brought to the attention of either yourselves or your predecessors on multiple previous occasions without response. I am pleased that you have reached out, but disappointed that it takes a crisis in the military followed by media attention to get action.

A number of the issues stem from the mechanics of governance and legislative accountabilities that cannot be fixed without a change to legislation. That said, there are a number of steps that could be taken by the Deputy Head to lessen interference in our business while ensuring appropriate accountability. These are:

• Restore the delegated financial authorities to the office of the Ombudsman to levels that were in effect in 2015.

• Restore the Human Resource authorities to those in effect in 2015, with full access to HRMS so that we are not delayed in managing our own staffing issues.

These and other issues as well as potential solutions, were outlined in two governance reports: The Case for a Permanent and Independent Ombudsman Office – The Defence Community Deserves No Less (March 2017) and A Path Forward – Action Plan for the Office of the Ombudsman (October 2017). If this is insufficient for a complete understanding of the issues, I would be pleased to provide further specificity.

There are also a number of outstanding letters that require a response. The most critical of which is the letter addressed to both of you dated 18 June 2021 related to the interference of your respective staff members in one of the systemic investigations we are currently conducting. At best, the officials from each of your staff have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the role of Ombudsman – at worst, it is interference. This must be addressed.

Also outstanding is the matter of how the Department managed investigations of my staff members despite significant correspondence to the effect that there were issues of unfairness. At this time, one of the individuals has received a judgment from the Federal Court that the manner in which the Department handled the investigation was procedurally flawed and unfair. I am aware that two others have grieved the matter and have prevailed on the basis of an unfair process. I am also aware that the matter remains open with repeated (and ignored) attempts on the part of one individual seeking resolution with ADM (RS). Apart from the unfairness of the initial process, the failure to close this file with a clear statement of no wrongdoing is a travesty.

There are other examples that could be included, but they are past and cannot be resolved by you at this time. I prefer to look forward and take your encouraging words as a new beginning.

Sincerely,

 

Gregory A. Lick

Ombudsman