Military lacks the power to address many soldiers’ complaints about pay, benefits: report

A new report from Canada’s military watchdog says the leadership of the Armed Forces is often hamstrung in its ability to address grievances from within the ranks.

The report by Gregory Lick, the Canadian Forces ombudsman, also says many of the complaints clogging the system relate to federal Treasury Board policies over which the military has little control.

“While Canadian Armed Forces members have the right to grieve compensation and benefits decisions, the Canadian Armed Forces may not have the authority to provide redress,” Lick wrote in a report released Tuesday.

The slow pace of the military grievance process has been cited repeatedly as one of the biggest problems for those in uniform. Some Armed Forces members can wait years for their complaints to be addressed, only to be told by senior brass that there’s nothing that can be done about federal guidelines and regulations.

A recent review of the military justice system by retired Supreme Court justice Morris Fish singled out the grievance process as a major source of tension and reminded the federal government of its responsibility.

“It is bound to provide them with a better system of redress than its unacceptable grievance system now provides — nearly 20 years after its grievance system was found unacceptable by Chief Justice Lamer,” Fish wrote, adding the system’s perceived unfairness has a profound effect on those serving.

“Delays of this sort undermine discipline, exemplify inefficiency and sap morale,” he wrote.

Lick himself has raised the issue on a number of occasions. During a 2021 news conference to address the sexual misconduct crisis, he warned that the grievance system was about to “collapse under its own weight.”

In 2023, it took 1,155 days to resolve grievances within the military, says Lick’s report. Over a four year period, starting in 2019, the ombudsman received 300 complaints, most of which had an average resolution time of 815 days.

Statistics from the Department of National Defence (DND) show that during the same period, the military recorded receiving 4,717 grievances, 2,852 of which related to career management, benefits and compensation — matters regulated by the federal Treasury Board.

The ombudsman noted that the Armed Forces are subject to Treasury Board policies but “cannot override the intent or the interpretation of those policies.”

And soldiers, sailors and aircrew often use “the military grievance process to express disagreement with Treasury Board policies, compounding issues within the military grievance process,” Lick wrote.

Long waits, no closure

Grievances within the Armed Forces are ultimately reviewed by the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority and the chief of the defence staff.

Members often wait years for a response to their complaints, only to be told that the military has “no authority to depart from Treasury Board-approved policy” and the defence department has no financial discretion to award financial compensation outside Treasury Board guidelines even when circumstances require it.

The ombudsman says the federal government policy “leaves little room for finding solutions to the unique problems CAF members face because of operational demands.”

Other parts of the federal civil service have access to something called the National Joint Council (NJC), made up of representatives of the Treasury Board and union bargaining agents. Unlike foreign service officers, members of the military do not have access to the NJC grievance system.

Lick’s report doesn’t recommend the military be allowed into the NJC, but it does say the defence minister should fight to get military decision-makers the authority to interpret federal Treasury Board policy the way the joint council does.