WarningThis information has been archived for reference or research purposes.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

Human Resources

Naval boarding party.

Canadian Forces Combat Camera photo IS 2003-2323a by Sergeant Frank Hudec

Members of HMCS Regina’s naval boarding party checking suspect vessels in the Gulf of Oman, April 2003.

The DND/CF Ombudsman: Five Years Later Commentary And Questions

by André Marin

Print PDF

For more information on accessing this file, please visit our help page.

The Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces (DND/CF) was created in June 1998. Since its creation, the status of the Office and its mandate have endured their fair share of discussion and debate. Some would have preferred the creation of a strictly ‘organizational’ type of Ombudsman, operating as an extension of the human resources section of the Department. In contrast, others would have preferred that an Office of Inspector General be created, reporting directly to Parliament. A compromise resulted, positioning the Office between these two extremes: an independent civilian Ombudsman. Although a handful of other democratic countries also have in place similar mechanisms for their militaries, the Office of the DND/CF Ombudsman is, by nature, unique to Canada.

In five years, the Office has worked hard to build an institution capable of achieving long term and systemic improvements for DND employees, CF members and their families, as well as the DND/CF as a whole. We have also worked hard to resolve problems that affect individuals, particularly where those problems have robbed them of their sense of belonging, self-worth and lessened their commitment to the organization. To achieve these goals, we have negotiated and re-negotiated our mandate with DND management and the CF chain of command. We have also refined our processes so that we are able to deal with complaints we receive as effectively and as consistently as possible.

Since I was appointed to the position of Ombudsman, the DND management and CF leadership have assured their overwhelming support for the Office. However, some sectors within the DND/CF still question our existence and remain openly reluctant to submit to the jurisdiction of a civilian Ombudsman.

Some issues that have arisen concerning how our Office carries out its mandate are substantive, as opposed to strictly philosophical or obstructionist in nature. In that context, this article discusses these issues that confront an Ombudsman’s Office within the DND/CF and how we have faced these challenges. This article provides an overview of the Ombudsman’s role and mandate, and how we help those who turn to us for assistance. The Office complements the existing DND/CF complaint review mechanisms. We are not in competition with them. An explanation follows as to the process a complaint goes through when received by the Office.

Photo - André Marin

DND Photo

André Marin,
the DND/CF Ombudsman.

A “Fixer”: Creation And Mandate Of The Office Of The Ombudsman DND/CF

I would prefer not to think that the creation of the Office of the DND/CF Ombudsman was merely a response to the incidents in Somalia,1 but rather that its creation was a recognition of broader societal trends toward openness and transparency in government – and in the military in particular.

In recent years, society has recognized that dealing with issues informally may be more effective in resolving problems than approaching them with a litigious or confrontational attitude. Private corporations, banks, universities, hospitals, and all levels of government have looked for ways to ‘fix’ or resolve problems rather than letting them fester or be drawn into the wake of a formal confrontation in court. Bringing in neutral third parties has emerged as one of the best alternatives to court. Alternative Dispute Resolution programmes, mediation programmes, and Ombudsman Offices were created as such alternative methods. Arguably, the creation of the DND/CF Ombudsman’s Office is part of this global trend to create less formal, less adversarial dispute resolution mechanisms.

In addition to their dispute resolution function, Ombudsman Offices also draw on a tradition of being the voice of the ‘little guy’ in the face of bureaucracy. As bureaucracy has grown, so has the need for the Ombudsman.

Is there a contradiction between these two roles? How can we represent the ‘little guy’ and yet maintain neutrality? I do not believe that these two functions conflict, because they both serve the overall goal of ensuring a positive, healthy DND/CF environment. The reality is that bureaucracy can be imposing, and the ‘little guy’ with a valid issue may not be heard. The Ombudsman’s Office can listen to the complaint, impartially assess the issues, and, if it is shown that there is room to improve the environment of the organization as a whole or for one specific person, then we will do what we can to help.

The Office of the Ombudsman for DND/CF was structured over a laborious 18-month period with the purpose of meeting the specific needs of Canada’s military, not to cause conflict with the CF chain of command. The Office and its mandate were structured by taking into account the Ombudsman’s roles and functions, the relationship of the Office with the chain of command, and a fair resolution of the problem.

The mandate is set out in Ministerial Directives Respecting the Ombudsman of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.2 The most recent revisions to the mandate were completed in September 2001. The mandate makes it clear that the Ombudsman reports to the Minister of National Defence who is responsible for all national defence matters and is independent from the departmental management and the military chain of command. The mandate is very broad, allowing the Ombudsman to serve many roles for the DND/CF community. It provides that the Ombudsman is to act as a neutral and objective sounding board, mediator, investigator and reporter on all matters related to the DND/CF. As well, the Ombudsman serves as a direct source of information, referral, and education to help individuals in accessing existing channels of assistance and redress within the DND/CF. All of these roles help to serve our ultimate goal, which is to contribute to substantial and long-lasting improvements in the welfare of employees and members of the DND/CF community. It must be remembered that the Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations; he has no power to order anyone to do anything. Recommendations may be accepted or rejected by the organization.

Top of Page

One scholar described our mandate as like a “platypus”. The platypus, one of the world’s most unusual animals, appears to merge characteristics of several animals that normally would not be found together. Similarly, our mandate merges principles that on the face of it should not be capable of merging together and, as a result, seem to spell failure. However, just like the platypus, the Ombudsman’s mandate miraculously manages to hold together. We are neutral and objective in our approach to all complaints that are received by the Office, yet we provide assistance to individuals where and when it is needed.

Given our varied roles, we have developed a process of review that a complaint or matter follows when received by the Office. This is in order to determine what our role should be for each particular matter. There are three stages: Triage, Investigation and Recommendation.

Process Of Review: Triage

All cases received by the Ombudsman’s Office begin at the ‘triage’ stage. At this point, it is determined what course of action is required. Intake Officers complete this stage of review. When a case is received, we make the necessary inquiries to determine if the person falls within our mandate. We must also determine if the person has availed him/herself of existing review mechanisms. We need to find out what exactly the person is seeking by turning to the Ombudsman. Does the person need information or a referral elsewhere for assistance? Has the person presented an issue that, on the face of it, might be resolved through low-level diplomacy or mediation? Or, does it appear that a thorough investigation of the matter may be required? Our goal, as set out in the mandate, is to try to resolve matters at the lowest possible level at which they can be successfully resolved.

Process Of Review: Investigation

If the person is seeking more than information, then the case will require some kind of review by the Ombudsman’s Office. Initially, we must verify the information received by the person. If it appears that there is some substance to the complaint, then it must be determined whether the complaint can possibly be resolved through informal channels. Accepting a case for review does not necessarily mean that a full investigation will follow. Our annual reports highlight the ‘Success Stories’ where the Office has been able to resolve cases through informal channels.

However, some complaints cannot be resolved informally. For example, if a complaint appears to involve conflicting evidence, or larger, more complicated issues – such as systemic issues that may affect a large number of CF members – then a full investigation may be required.

At the investigation stage, the Office conducts a thorough review of the case in a neutral and objective manner. This is to ensure that all the necessary information is gathered and reviewed before any conclusions are drawn. We do not represent the complainant during the course of an investigation, nor do we represent the management and leadership of DND/CF. We are a neutral third party. Our goal is to determine the facts, and, if appropriate, make recommendations to alleviate the problems.

Process Of Review: Recommendations

Once an investigation is completed, and the facts and information gathered during the investigation are analyzed and assessed, it may be appropriate that ‘recommendations’ be made. As investigators begin to get a sense of the events or systemic issues that gave rise to the complaint, they may start to think about possible solutions. Investigators are the ones in our Office who speak to the individuals involved and officials at DND/CF, and therefore are in the best position to suggest solutions. However, as investigators are human, they may become too close to the issues. That is why recommendations are put through a rigorous internal review before they are finalized and presented to DND/CF. Again, any recommendations we make will be at the lowest level of authority at which they can be implemented most effectively.

One of the Ombudsman’s roles is to make recommendations that will achieve long-term improvements to the welfare of DND employees and CF members. Recommendations may suggest systemic changes that will benefit the entire Canadian military community. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s Office must be able to provide the Minister with meaningful and appropriate recommendations in order that the Minister is able to fulfill his role in national defence matters.

The Ombudsman, despite having broad powers of investigation and the ability to make extensive recommendations, is devoid of executive power and uses moral suasion to achieve his objectives. The Ombudsman’s only power is to make recommendations. He cannot order anyone to do anything. Therefore, it is imperative that all recommendations are legitimate and can be implemented.

Overview of Complaints

In the past five years the top categories of complaint have remained consistent. Benefits (such as pay and pensions), harassment, releases from the CF and postings to different locations constantly generate the most complaints.

Top of Page

Common Questions And Comments

In my five years as Ombudsman, I have commonly received the following questions and/or comments from the management and leadership of the DND/CF.

  • When the Ombudsman decides to review a complaint, does that mean a failure on the part of the CF chain of command?

The answer to this question is yes and no. Sometimes it does mean the chain of command has failed by not recognizing an individual’s situation and dealing with it. In other cases, the chain of command is not at fault. The fact that the Ombudsman’s Office has made a determination to review a complaint should not automatically be seen as failure by CF management to deal internally with a situation. It is human nature to be uncomfortable when faced with criticism, especially when it may seem to bring into question whether we have done our job well. Ombudsman investigators often face this reaction when making inquiries on cases.

The Ombudsman has a duty under the mandate to accept complaints, objectively look at them, and determine if any further action should be taken. We have the unique duty and ability to act on matters independent of the chain of command, independently of the complainant. The Ombudsman is a neutral third party, with no vested interest in the specific outcome.

  • If the case appears frivolous or without merit, why not just say so and reject it outright?

At the triage stage, the Ombudsman’s Office determines whether the case raises a prima facie issue that needs to be looked at. The mere fact that the Office has decided to review a case does not mean the Office has already determined that the case has merit. We need to consider the matter and look at all of the facts. Then we will determine whether there is merit to the allegation.

Our mandate allows us to refuse to deal with a complaint if the Ombudsman considers it to be frivolous or vexatious. However, these terms should not be used lightly. We owe it to every individual who has taken the time to contact the Ombudsman’s Office to be sure that we have considered all aspects of their allegations before we make a determination about whether the issues raised have merit. The people who contact the Ombudsman’s Office often feel they have nowhere else to turn, as they have usually been unsuccessful in having their matter resolved through existing channels of redress within DND/CF. Therefore, individuals must feel that they have been given an opportunity to be heard, and that someone has taken the time to listen to their concerns. That was one of the purposes of creating an Ombudsman’s Office.

  • How does the Office determine that it will conduct investigations into some complaints and resolve others by informal resolution?

In all cases, we initially determine if informal resolution is an option. The Ombudsman’s mandate calls for resolution of matters at the lowest level possible. Each case is reviewed on its own merits, and it is apparent on the face of some cases that informal resolution is not an option. If a case involves conflicting information and/or facts are in dispute, it is obvious that an investigation will be required. This is necessary in order to verify what information is correct, and eventually to determine if recommendations are appropriate. As well, if the complaint raises an issue that affects a number of CF members or raises ‘systemic’ matters, then a more thorough investigation may be needed to determine if general recommendations suggesting a change of policy are appropriate.

Once the Ombudsman’s Office determines that an investigation is necessary, our mandate requires that we investigate the complaint thoroughly. This may involve going out into the field, gathering documents, and/or interviewing witnesses. We must gather all the facts, objectively and neutrally, before we determine whether recommendations are needed to improve the situation. This is when we need the cooperation of the DND/CF leadership and management and of those responsible for implementing the existing review mechanisms. This cooperation is imperative so that we can assist the Minister of National Defence in attaining the objective of transparency and efficiency within the existing review processes. It is important that, when the Ombudsman’s Office receives a complaint, we have the opportunity to verify the facts submitted by the complainant.

  • If the complainant wishes to withdraw his case during the investigation stage or even later, why does the Ombudsman continue to pursue the matter?

Sometimes, a complainant raises an issue involving his or her own personal situation, which also affects or has implications for a large number of the DND/CF community. Such a complaint may raise systemic issues. So, if the complainant decides to abandon his or her case while it is under review by the Ombudsman’s Office, we may still decide to continue with it, given the broader systemic issues. Our goal is to make long-lasting improvements to the DND/CF community, so we are obliged to deal with any important systemic issues brought to our attention.

However, the personal aspects of a complaint are respected, and the Ombudsman’s Office will not pursue such matters without the consent of the complainant. In the past, I have made recommendations after investigating a complaint. One of those recommendations was personal to the complainant, who, after the recommendations were received by DND/CF, did not wish the matter to be pursued. We respected those wishes.

  • Why does the Ombudsman continue to investigate a complaint, when the CF chain of command has informed you that the complaint has no substance?

The Ombudsman is independent from the management and chain of command of DND and CF and reports only to the Minister of National Defence. It is important that the neutrality and independence of the Office is accepted by both the management and chain of command, as well as by the complainant. We must conduct an independent review of the complaint and make that determination ourselves. This independence is vital if our findings and recommendations are to be taken seriously and have any legitimacy.

This independence also allows us to recommend changes that someone more intimately involved in a situation might not consider or might not be in a practical position to suggest.

Top of Page

  • When you request information from DND/CF, do you understand that the DND/CF management and chain of command are subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and therefore we must delete information before it is provided to the Ombudsman’s Office?

My investigators commonly hear this used as the excuse in rare cases when cooperation becomes an issue. Our mandate is very clear that DND/CF are obligated to provide information and cooperate with our Office during an investigation.

The Ombudsman is a delegate of the Minister of National Defence, appointed by the Governor-in-Council under Section 5 of the National Defence Act. Therefore, I perform certain powers and functions of the Minister. I act on the Minister’s behalf in fulfilling my duties as an Ombudsman. The DND/CF, when requested, must provide full and complete information to the Minister on any matter. The same should hold true for the Ombudsman, as the Minister’s delegate, when the request relates to a matter within the mandate of the Ombudsman’s Office.

The Ombudsman’s Office is bound by the same Privacy Act and Access to Information Act as the Department. Any information we receive is treated accordingly. We always obtain the complainant’s consent to the release of their personal information to us before we launch an investigation. Before we disclose any personal information, we ensure compliance with those Acts.

Another explanation advanced for withholding information from the Office is that such information is subject to solicitor-client privilege. Solicitor-client privilege protects communications between lawyers and their clients for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice, meaning that those communications are ‘privileged’ from disclosure or production to other parties. Under the Ministerial Directives, the Ombudsman’s Office does not have direct access to documents in the possession of DND/CF officials that are protected by solicitor-client privilege. In order for the Ombudsman to obtain documents that would normally be protected by solicitor-client privilege, DND/CF must waive its privilege. For the purposes of some investigations, DND/CF has waived solicitor-client privilege and provided such documents to the Office, allowing us full access to all relevant information required to investigate a complaint thoroughly. I would encourage the DND/CF management and leadership to follow that practice more in the future, allowing the Ombudsman’s Office access to all documents that are needed to get a better sense of the issues, or of the rationale for a specific action, resulting in the most balanced investigation possible.

  • How can a civilian Ombudsman, with no military experience, have the expertise to make recommendations on the welfare of the CF community?

Some countries that have a military Ombudsman have appointed civilians to the position, while others have appointed people with military careers. For the Canadian military, the Governor-in-Council (Cabinet) and the Minister of National Defence considered this question and determined that a civilian Ombudsman was appropriate. It was envisioned that an oversight mechanism, separate from the chain of command, would ensure independence and impartiality.

As a civilian Ombudsman for DND/CF, I am in a unique and enviable position. I have the ability to work outside of the chain of command, while having access to all levels within DND/CF. The Ombudsman’s Office has the ability to go where the military expertise is within DND/CF and use that knowledge and expertise to help us understand the issues and raise possible solutions. It must also be remembered that I do not work alone. I have the assistance of a team of investigators who are fully-trained in methods of fact-finding, investigation, and mediation. Some of my investigators are former CF members, who are always available to guide other investigators as to where they should go within DND/CF for information and expertise.

Once we have gathered all of the necessary information during the course of an investigation, we make an assessment to determine what conclusions should be reached, and what, if any, recommendations should be made. In so doing, we apply common sense. That is one of the strengths a civilian Ombudsman can bring to the DND/CF. We can apply common sense to resolve issues, and have the independence, impartiality, and distance from the chain of command needed to be able to do so.

  • How do you decide what your recommendations will be?

Once a thorough and independent investigation is completed, we look at whether it is appropriate to present solutions or make recommendations to the DND/CF, and at what level. Our Office makes recommendations only after careful scrutiny and consideration. Many members of the Ombudsman’s staff review reports and recommendations and provide input. Our goal is to make recommendations that are reasonable and attainable.

We do not make recommendations on a whim or without reflection. We look at all implications, including the costs of implementing such recommendations. As well, we have turned to DND/CF and asked the appropriate parties to review our draft recommendations and provide us with input. For example, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources – Military) has offered assistance to the Ombudsman’s Office in assessing the costs of implementing recommendations. Again, we are trying to achieve appropriate and attainable improvements to the DND/CF community. We will ask for assistance wherever it is within the Department to carry out our mandate.

  • After you have made recommendations, is your job finished, or do you feel that part of your job is to get those recommendations implemented at all costs?

I do not see the role of an Ombudsman as simply making recommendations, with no concern as to whether they are implemented. What would be the point of having an Ombudsman if that was his or her only role?

Top of Page

An important part of the Ombudsman’s role is the ability to follow up on the implementation of recommendations. For example, on 13 August 2001, I issued a report on allegations against the CF concerning cover up, harassment and reprisal. In that report, I made certain recommendations. In December 2001, I wrote to the Minister of National Defence with respect to the implementation of the outstanding recommendations in that report. Although one recommendation that specifically concerned the complainant was not pursued at his request, I did restate to the Minister my desire to follow up on the remaining recommendations that had been made to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Those recommendations were eventually implemented. I questioned whether they would have been if I had not had the ability to follow up after my initial report.

The Special Report, Systemic Treatment of CF Members with PTSD, released in February 2002 made 31 recommendations. In that Report, I specifically committed to re-assess the issues nine months later to see what progress the CF had attained in implementing those recommendations. On the day marking the nine-month anniversary of the first report, I delivered my follow-up report to the Minister. My commitment is to improve the way DND/CF treats its members who suffer from operational stress injuries. My vigilant approach was proven right when we had to produce our report on the Crazy Train in March 2003 to expose the deep-seated cultural malaise that allowed members with operational stress injuries to be mocked at an event sanctioned by the chain of command.

Two Griffon helicopters.

Canadian Forces Combat Camera photo IS 2002-9030 by Jacek Szymanski

Two CH-146 Griffon helicopters practising removal of non-combatants from a hostile area during an exercise at CFB Borden, April 2002.

In my view, the Ombudsman’s responsibility does not end once a recommendation is made. I believe in setting concrete, measurable targets where possible, so that at a future date the implementation of a recommendation can be assessed. If the Ombudsman sees an issue as important enough to make a recommendation, there should be some obligation for the Ombudsman to follow up on its implementation or to take whatever measures are needed to ensure their implementation. I deliberately draft recommendations that, while identifying a problem and broad solutions, give the CF considerable latitude to create practical solutions that can achieve the desired result. Having said that, once I make a recommendation, I am open to input from the chain of command if I think it will accomplish the same goals.

  • If someone has had a complaint made against him or her, and that complaint is found to be without substance, how do you assist that person to restore his or her reputation?

My first duty is to assist those who have been treated unfairly, and the role of the Office is to review all complaints received independently and in a neutral fashion. We have a duty to review all the complaints we receive. However, that does not necessarily mean that upon review, all complaints will be substantiated. After a review of all of the relevant information, we find that many are not substantiated.

During an investigation, we have internal procedures we follow that are designed to protect someone’s identity or reputation. However, I am aware that in some cases a complaint can, even if eventually found to have no substance, have adverse effects on the person against whom it is made. In these cases, it may be appropriate for us to recommend a course of action to address this issue. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. Often, the publication of a report rejecting the complaint can repair some of the damage, but the Office does not have the powers or the remedies of a court.

  • As a leader who has been in the military for 30 years, I find your comment that the CF does not take care of its people to be “a knife through my heart.” What gives you the right to make that comment?

I am often asked this question. Bluntly, my job is to tell it like it is – to help the organization identify problems and solve them. The position of Ombudsman was created to promote greater accountability and transparency within DND/CF, as part of the continuing commitment of the Minister of National Defence and CF leadership to improve fairness and openness in the CF.

In large organizations, it is understandable and sometimes unavoidable that individuals’ needs may get overlooked or ignored as a result of rules and policies. Part of an Ombudsman’s role is to look out for individuals or the ‘little guys’, identify shortcomings in the organization and in its rules and policies, and to make suggestions as to how the situation might be improved. The purpose of making findings and recommendations is to improve the organization in order to benefit all individuals. I do not believe my goals are at odds with those of the CF, and my recommendations are never intended as personal attacks, nor should they be taken as such.

  • How do you measure your success?

Our success is a result of the work we have done that has contributed to a healthy, vibrant DND/CF community. We do not measure our success by the number of complaints we receive. In part, the Ombudsman’s Office measures its success by the positive comments we receive from those we have assisted in dealing with their problems. We also measure success by the positive comments we hear from all levels of CF leadership during our attempts to solve problems that are brought to our attention.

Recently, I have seen another measure of our success. The Office has achieved the ability to exert its influence and resolve many cases through informal resolution. In my first few years as Ombudsman, almost every complaint we accepted went to a formal investigation and report. However, there has been a cultural change within the DND/CF, and the Ombudsman’s Office has gained more credibility. Now, a high percentage of the cases we take on can be addressed and resolved informally. This is a positive development and proof that the Ombudsman’s Office has gained legitimacy and respect within the ranks of the CF.

Top of Page

  • Do you think DND/CF eventually will no longer need an Ombudsman?

I see the DND/CF Ombudsman’s role as evolving with the organization, always open to fit its needs. One of the roles of an Ombudsman is to be a barometer for trends, and to assist the organization in defusing problems before they escalate. This benefits both the organization and its members, who can focus on doing their jobs effectively rather than being distracted by problems that can, for the most part, be resolved with the help of a neutral third party.

I believe we have already contributed to a change in the culture of the DND/CF, making it more transparent, and ensuring that individuals are treated in a fair and equitable manner. Rules, procedures, and policies are necessary to the functioning of any large organization, and no matter how well intentioned or enlightened the rule, there will always be an argument for a valid exception. I see the role of an Ombudsman as making sure that the organization changes to meet the needs of its members, that the voices of the individuals are heard and considered, and that fair rules are applied equitably to the benefit of all. This is a broad role that leaves room for constant improvement, and I do not believe the need for someone to act in this capacity will diminish.


I believe that the neutrality, professionalism, and integrity of the Ombudsman’s Office has contributed to its growing respect and acceptance within DND/CF. I use the word neutrality and not disinterest, because we do have an interest – an interest in protecting the welfare of DND/CF employees and members, and in ensuring the integrity of the organization. Since our inception, we have been able to help employees, members, and former members with a wide range of personal issues, thus contributing to morale and productivity. We have also made significant recommendations on systemic issues that affect the DND/CF environment as a whole. Our recommendations on issues such as the treatment of CF members suffering from Operational Stress Injuries have been taken to heart by the DND/CF, and their implementation will make the DND/CF community healthier and more responsive to the needs of its members.

The Ombudsman’s Office has also evolved over the past years, growing to meet the demands placed on it by the organization. I am grateful for our ability to resolve problems informally. Constructive collaboration is more productive than confrontation, and allows for more creative solutions that can be more efficiently and effectively implemented. However, the Office must continue to be on the lookout for any systemic issues that an informal approach might mask, and find ways to address them.

DND/CF are coming to accept the presence and role of an Ombudsman. Our role is to provide suggestions and recommendations intended to improve the organization, which in turn will increase morale, confidence and build trust among its members. Happy people are more productive, and this will create positive results for the organization.

Above all, we must be true to our mission, fiercely guarding our integrity, independence, and impartiality, but always keeping our common interest of improving the DND/CF.


André Marin is the DND/CF Ombudsman.


  1. The Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia (Somalia Inquiry) was established by Parliament in 1995, following the killing of one Somali civilian and the wounding of another in March 1993. The Commission looked into a number of topics related to the events and their subsequent handling by the military, and made 160 recommendations in its report of July 1997. One of the recommendations was to create the position of an Inspector General for the CF. In October 1997, the government responded to the Commission’s report, undertaking to implement 132 of the recommendations, but declining to create an Inspector General. Instead, as part of a commitment to “openness, fairness, and transparency,” then-Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Art Eggleton, announced that an Office of the Ombudsman would be established for the DND and CF.
  2. Available online at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/mandate/main_e.asp.
A convoy.

Canadian Forces Combat Camera photo IS 2003-2567a by Sergeant Frank Hude

A convoy of Canadian vehicles passing through a busy street in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 2003.