The
Canadian military grievances system is rooted in pre-confederation British
military law and our own colonial Militia Act, which is based on British
tradition. One such tradition is the historic Right to Grieve given to
soldiers, for the better governance of the armed forces. The right to grieve
has its legislative origins in the Articles
of War, published in 1717. Since then in Britain, Canada and elsewhere,
the operation of a military grievances system has been taken as an indicator of the wider
health and effectiveness of the military justice system.
A
significant backlog in the number of grievances awaiting resolution, for
example, may be symptomatic of a more general dysfunctionality of the military
justice system, because the right to file a grievance, and have it dealt with
expeditiously, is a significant element of an efficient military administration
and the proper operation of a military justice system.
Maintenance of morale
Students
of military history will understand that Maintenance of Morale is a dominant Principle
of War which, to a large degree, is dependent on a military grievances system which not
only works properly, but is seen and perceived to work correctly and, as
importantly, in a timely manner.
Delays
measured in years to resolve simple grievances would likely have long term deleterious
effect on military morale and performance. It also impedes the realisation of a
just and fair outcome to a valid grievance. For these reasons, to the degree
possible, delays should be avoided at all costs, as low morale is a primary
contributor to military failure.
A
broken military grievances process
In 2003 whilst conducting a five-year
review of the National Defence Act, then retired Justice Antonio Lamer assessed,
inter alia, the performance of the Canadian
military grievances system. The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Canada concluded that significant systemic reforms were required to ensure that
a soldier’s Right to Grieve be respected by the military bureaucracy.
‘Soldiers are not second class citizens. They are entitled to be treated
with respect, and in the case of the grievance process, in a procedurally fair
manner. This is a fundamental principle that must not be lost in a bureaucratic
process even a military one. ‘
Given
the title of this piece, the reader can only wonder: Have things changed over
the past decade? Absolutely. However, it changed for the worse. Consider.
A 2010 investigation conducted by the
Defence Department Ombudsman indicates that he was very
concerned about the length of time that it is taking to process a grievance. The delays, he wrote, were having a negative financial
impact on members who must wait a minimum of 12 months to have their grievances
adjudicated at the very first level of the grievance process. The Ombudsman
further warned that:
“These extended delays are not in line with the principles of
procedural fairness and must be remedied as soon as possible.”
Two years later, the Military
Grievances External Review Committee advised Parliament that:
“A considerable number of grievance
files reviewed by the Committee indicate that the Department is experiencing
significant difficulty in responding to grievors within the 60 days
provided for in the National Defence Act. Currently,
it is taking anywhere from 10 to 20 months to adjudicate grievances at the initial level.”
So much so that: “When a grievance is received, the grievor is informed of the backlog situation and is asked to grant a standard 12 month extension.”
So much so that: “When a grievance is received, the grievor is informed of the backlog situation and is asked to grant a standard 12 month extension.”
Twilight Zone
The truth is that grievances currently grind through the Canadian
military grievances system for years; it is quite common for many grievances to languish there between
two to four years awaiting determination by the Final Authority.What should be
alarming is that in spite of rumblings in the ranks it appears that
there is no urging to address the multitude of problems plaguing the military grievances system.
Is Canada alone
with such a systemic failure to address military grievances.
United States military personnel can seek redress of wrongs under art. 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but these complaints rarely lead to meaningful relief. (The same is true of complaints sent to congressional offices.) The services also have civilian boards for the correction of records. These are supposed to act within ten months from the time the application is complete. Their decisions are subject to judicial review. For more information on these boards: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Fidell_Boards_of_Correction_13.pdf
ReplyDelete