Response to CDS: Military grievance process Final Authority delays

23 November 2021

 

General Wayne Eyre
Acting Chief of the Defence Staff
Department of National Defence and
The Canadian Armed Forces
NDHQ (Carling), 5T.5
Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2

 

Dear General Eyre,

Thank you for your prompt response to my letter concerning the military grievance process. While your response provided some insight into actions taken to address backlogs at Final Authority grievance level, I am troubled that the Canadian Armed Forces still refuses to hold individuals and processes to account for these delays.

At my press conference on June 22, 2021, I was clear in my assessment that the Military Grievance system is broken. I am not the first Ombudsman to have made this statement over the past two decades. Since 1998, each of my predecessors made overtures to concurrent Chiefs of the Defence Staff related to the grievance system, including unacceptable delays. This includes considerable mentions over the years in position papers, correspondence, and systemic investigations. This was further supported by conclusions contained in consecutive Independent Review Authority reports by former Chief Justices Lamer, Lesage, and Fish over the same period of time.

I know you understand the unique position of my office to see the results of the delays first-hand. We can only intervene as the avenue of last result for the majority of the Defence community. In the case of the backlogged, under-resourced and overwhelmed grievance process—which may now take months, at Initial Authority, or years, if going to Final Authority—facing hardship tends to be the norm now rather than the exception for most members. The hardships can manifest as harm to physical or emotional wellbeing, financial impacts and others. Sadly, we are seeing some of these impacts play themselves out in the public eye.

This fiscal year my office has seen an increase in the frequency and speed of escalation of files where it has been necessary for senior level intervention. Additionally, due to the identified delays at both the Initial Authority and the Final Authority levels, I expect we will be compelled to intervene more frequently, and more than likely, earlier in the process. 

The two cases mentioned in my letter dated October 12, 2021, illustrate the length to which delays can occur in the system. In both instances, it is hard to fathom the hardship faced by members with grievances delayed for extended periods of time. In addition to the statistics provided in Annex A of my letter, a recent request for information from Director General Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management (DG ICCM) by my office yielded further troublesome statistics. Out of the 566 active grievances at the Initial Authority level, 307 have been pending decision for more than four months. As with my predecessors, I believe that these seemingly ever-present delays, whether at Initial Authority or Final Authority level, directly impact the morale of Canadian Armed Forces members. This in turn creates a distrust in a system meant to help, not hurt them, and can negatively impact the CAF culture.

The lack of sustained and meaningful action by successive Chiefs of the Defence Staff indicates to me that solving this critical issue requires more than the usual approach. Tiger teams with temporary personnel will not be enough if processes do not also change. I encourage you and your command team to approach these delays in multi-dimensional, innovative ways to put an end to unnecessary delays.

After reviewing nearly two decades of correspondence between our office and the Minister of National Defence and senior military and civilian leadership, I am convinced that the issue of delays both at the Initial Authority and Final Authority levels are systemic in nature. The CAF has employed too many directives and initiatives that have only served as temporary solutions. At this point, we must hold people and processes to account within the organization.

By way of this correspondence, I am asking you to provide concrete steps and timelines—including the proposed levying of human, financial, and technological resources—you will take to address this systemic problem. I would appreciate a direct point of contact for my office to receive regular formal updates.

In closing, I believe that fixing the grievance system will be a cornerstone in solving the crisis that has befallen the Defence community.

Sincerely,

 

Gregory A. Lick

Ombudsman