# Andre Marin, CF Ombudsman, and beyond (merged)



## bossi (19 Jun 2000)

Just in case you missed it, here‘s an article from the Ottawa Citizen today on the CF Ombudsman:

Double duty at DND

The Ottawa Citizen

The 59,000 members of Canada‘s Armed Forces seem to have found a friend in Andre Marin, the military‘s ombudsman. After just two years in the job, Mr. Marin has even earned an endearing nickname from the troops: "Budman." Still, his success at resolving complaints raises serious questions about who should be responsible for putting things right. 

The ombudsman‘s office received nearly 1,300 complaints last year from serving members, their relatives, civilian employees at the defence department, reservists, cadets and retirees. Mr. Marin‘s staff of 34, which may double in size this year, closed 855 of those cases, and 80 to 90 per cent were resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. 

It‘s not surprising that in a tight-lipped profession such as the military, many people contact Mr. Marin‘s office with allegations of mistreatment. The rigid chain of command that marks any successful military is not geared toward easy complaint resolution. "Taking care of the troops" is a duty that seems to have fallen to a young ombudsman in a civilian suit. 

But is that his job? Why, for example, is Mr. Marin, whose civilian rank is equivalent to a lieutenant-general (the second-highest rank in the military), using his resources to help admit a soldier to hospital for medical care that his immediate supervisors didn‘t think was warranted? In another successful case listed in Mr. Marin‘s annual report, "an investigator was able to ensure that the complainant received all his moving benefits." These are important issues to the individuals involved, but generals or their equivalent usually let junior commanders do junior commanders‘ work. How many of the 1,300 complaints should have never even gotten to Mr. Marin‘s desk? 

In a meeting last week with the Citizen‘s editorial board, he hinted that many concerns should have been resolved by military commanders. "But there seems to be a strange and disturbing trend that when (our office) gets involved, the complainant‘s target of mistreatment is happy that we are," he admitted. Those who could have resolved an issue "just didn‘t know what to do ... they seemed to want (the ombudsman) to solve the problem." 

In other words, the existence of an ombudsman has become an excuse for officers to avoid making dicey decisions or solving conflicts, even simple ones. That, presumably, is the opposite of the military culture Canada wants. 

The rapid expansion of his office to deal with minor issues isn‘t Mr. Marin‘s fault. But he is also taking on other tasks that we are not sure should fall to him. For example, he believes 11 complaints of discrimination against women made to him in one year justify a major investigation to find out whether a larger trend is occurring. Given that the military is already doing a related probe, it isn‘t clear why he needs to launch one. 

Still, he is confident that he is accomplishing the two goals set out by Defence Minister Art Eggleton: "To contribute to an open and transparent military, and contribute to the fair treatment of all military personnel." The recent scandal surrounding the lacing of a commander‘s coffee by his own soldiers suggests there is plenty for Mr. Marin to do. He told the Citizen that six major cases currently under investigation may be just as serious as the tainted coffee scandal. These kinds of cases should be the main focus of his efforts. 

Mr. Marin‘s office budget grew from $1.3 million in year one to $2.6 million in year two. It could double again this year if his request for 30 more full-time investigators is accepted by the minister. A fixed budget would force tougher choices about which cases to accept and which, regrettably, must be refused. The military has the means, and the duty, to resolve many of its internal complaints itself. It shouldn‘t just slough them onto Mr. Marin. For his part, the ombudsman should focus on his core mandate. He can‘t be everyone‘s Bud. 
- 30 -


----------



## bossi (22 Jun 2000)

And, here‘s another article (this time from the National Post):

Canadians encouraged to give a soldier a hug
Re-establish pride in Forces, ombudsman says

Kelly Cryderman, Southam News 


Let soldiers know they are appreciated, Andre Marin says.


OTTAWA - Members of the Canadian Forces need a little more love and respect from the public, according to Canada‘s military watchdog. 

Andre Marin, the Canadian Forces ombudsman, appealed to Canadians to let the military know they are appreciated. 

Mr. Marin suggested that to re-establish pride in the military, Canadians must teach their children about the military‘s role in missions around the world, write to troops overseas and even pat them on the back when they see them on the streets. 

"If we are feeling really outgoing, we can stop a Canadian service member on the street or in the mall just to say thanks," Mr. Marin said. 

Canadians have to ask themselves how they‘ve contributed to an environment where some members are too ashamed to publicly acknowledge they‘re a part of the military, Mr. Marin said. 

"A member of the Canadian Forces told me that even though his office was right across from the Rideau Centre [in Ottawa], he didn‘t go shopping there on his lunch hour because he didn‘t feel comfortable wearing his uniform in the mall." 

Mr. Marin contrasted the mood in Canada with that in the United States, where Canadian members stationed at Norad headquarters in Colorado Springs comment on how nice it is to walk into a store and get a discount just because they are members of the military. 

"We the public have to recognize that we can‘t have it both ways," he said. "You can‘t refuse to support the Forces because we don‘t like the idea of war, and then in the next moment turn around and expect our military to rush into places where we wouldn‘t dream of going." 

Canadians have a feeling of "ambivalence" toward the military, he said, which in part stems from media coverage the military has received over the past several years. Negative stories "barrage us on all sides." 

He says CF-18 pilots were described as "too fat to fly" by the media, and stories about rusting toilets on Hercules aircraft -- which was attributed to the poor aim of some in the crew -- seemed to be a source of "great amusement" to the media. 

In Somalia, he said, stories of bravery and dedication were overshadowed by the scandals that plagued the mission. 

However, Mr. Marin said some of the negative coverage resulted in positive changes in the military, and even still there is a "profound shift in attitudes" needed within the Canadian Forces itself. 

The ombudsman‘s office, created two years ago, has the power to investigate any allegations of misconduct within the military. 

In the spirit of recognizing the good work the Forces does, Mr. Marin said he is creating a new Ombudsman Award for Excellence, to give public recognition to those members who display exemplary ethics.
- 30 -

Dileas Gu Brath
Mark Bossi, Esquire


----------



## garb811 (17 Dec 2004)

Although nothing is on the DND nor on the Ombudsman's own website, it appears he is stepping down on 1 Apr 05.   

Love him or hate him, he certainly knew how to bring an issue to the attention of the public at large and while I thought some of the issues he addressed were more flash than bang, he did some definite good with some of the other issues.

The new Ombudsman will be...?

Toronto Star Article.



> Dec. 16, 2004. 01:00 AM
> 
> Marin to be Ontario ombudsman
> Spent five years as military watchdog
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Dec 2004)

> The new Ombudsman will be...?



Scott Taylor?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2004)

Great! So I suppose all the initiatives he was investigating will now be shelved and forgotten, till the new guy dusts them off, redoes them and....... oh wait, time for another NEW Ombudsman. We'll never get anything settled at this rate.


----------



## bossi (18 Dec 2004)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Although nothing is on the DND nor on the Ombudsman's own website, it appears he is stepping down on 1 Apr 05.   ... The new Ombudsman will be...?



It's interesting that we have to find out stuff like this in the media, vice official sources ...
(i.e. last item in the Media section of the Ombudsman's website is dated 29 Sep 04 ...)

Actually, the math doesn't add up ... (from the Ombudsman section of his website):


> André Marin was appointed the first Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces (DND/CF) on June 9, 1998. He officially took office on June 15, 1998 for a three-year term and was re-appointed for a period of five years, effective on June 15, 2001.


----------



## Sapper6 (29 Dec 2004)

What do you think about the CF Ombudsman's imminent departure as reported by Scott Taylor?


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

I'll take D for $1000    ;D


----------



## Horse_Soldier (29 Dec 2004)

How about a more relevant poll:

Who gives a flying fuck about this in the first place? >


----------



## MikeM (29 Dec 2004)

I like that poll better


----------



## Sapper6 (29 Dec 2004)

That's it Horse, now we've got the juices flowing!  Obviously, you're not one to sit on the fence.  

S6


----------



## Laps (29 Dec 2004)

Ombudsman...  Never had to deal with him so I don't really care.  

Maybe that is because I never had anything to complain about, except: equipment (or lack thereof), late pay raise, lack of funding, lack of flying hours, being away 7 months out of the year...

Best of luck with your future endeavors Mr Marin


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2004)

I have mixed feelings about the Ombudsman's office, as I ended up being under investigation from same.

The circumstances were as follows: I instructed a BOTC course in St Jean, and everything went well. I was respected by my troops and peers, took 2nd, 3rd and a disproportionate number of "top third" candidates in my platoon, and got an excellent PER for my trouble.

Two years later, and totally out of the blue, two clowns from said office show up to "investigate" the conduct of the platoon staff due to one of my former candidates having "broken" in RMC. It seems this person had issues which caused him to wash out, and having exhausted the normal avenues of recourse, seemed to be trying to find someone to pin it on (i.e. me).

I wasn't about to have any of this nonsense (and it only became clear after I began asking them some pointed and detailed questions of my own), and my responses to their questions and my commentary thereafter either closed this mess, or at least convinced them I wasn't the one going to take this lying down.

My point? IF there was a problem, then the chain of command had plenty of time to observe and correct on the spot at CFLRS (and they were on us like hot glue, so it wasn't like they had no idea what was happening). They were satisfied with my work, The Ombudsman's office should have been aware of this with their inquiries at CFLRS, but the Ombudsman's office was being used like some ambulance chasing lawyer to _find_ a ground for complaint IMO.

Cheap tricks like this just demean the purpose of the office, and I for one would much rather see the chain of command be shortened and strengthend rather than try to weave a series of parallel "1-800" chains of command...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Dec 2004)

(first post in a while) Frankly, good riddance...

What grated with me was the "equivalent to LGen" talk that came out of his office, the huge salary, and the number of witch-hunts his staff engaged in (a_majoor's war story is a good example).   

IMHO, the office was a good idea at the outset but became a sounding board for the usual collection of complainers and "poor me" shirkers that we see from time to time.     :crybaby:

BTW - Loved Scotty Taylor's idea for a replacement!     :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Dec 2004)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> (first post in a while) IMHO, the office was a good idea at the outset but became a sounding board for the usual collection of complainers and "poor me" shirkers that we see from time to time.   :crybaby:



But I wonder if it isn't worth catering to the 99 whiners, if it means catching 1 genuine case of a really terrible officer or NCO who is ruining careers, stealing, or other reprehensible acts?   If the Ombudsman is on the ball, then he will see the whiners for what they are.   You're going to have those 99% types with or without the ombudsman; having a seperate entity saying "too bad, so sad" (as long as they do that) is probably a good thing, at least as far as deflecting criticism from the Forces.  I wish I would have had access to an Ombudsman many years ago, for legitimate concerns that I felt were not being addressed by my chain of command, despite redress of grievance letters and even parading before the Adjutant and CO.


----------



## KevinB (30 Dec 2004)

I have wondered recently how many of the whiners started off as a legitmate complaint that were ignored for so long that they simply became malcontents?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Dec 2004)

Good points, but take a look at his recent trip here to Kabul as an example...    I wasn't in theatre for it, but he created a s**tstorm simply by listening to "overworked" people complaining.  Good photo/media op though...

I agree that there's always going to be a few people getting shafted by a system as complex as the CF, which is why I thought the original idea was decent.  Some sort of vetting process would be in order, though.  For example, personnel are not supposed to take issues to the Ombudsman until the normal courses for redress have been utilized.  I can cite specific examples (but won't here) where this hasn't been the case and the Ombudsman's office has become involved immediately - acting as an advocate for a member's complaints.


----------



## Bartok5 (30 Dec 2004)

Teddy,

Exactly!   If the Ombudman's office simply becomes yet another "alternative" avenue for pursuit of "ÃƒÂ¯ndividual beefs", then it's value becomes significantly degraded.   The baseline concept of an Ombudsman is to mediate issues that cannot be adequately resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned parties through normal military processes.   In the case of the CF, those would be individual or collective issues that have not been addressed to the aggrieved's satisfaction through the normal chain of command, the formal grievance system, or the harassment investigation/mediation process.  

Unfortunately, what we have instead of the above is a grand-standing "do gooder" supporter of the "downtrodden ranks", trumpetting every single issue of nebulous substance, while at the same time applying a bureaucratic civilian's perspective to the military environment.   It is a recipe for disaster, not to mention untold wastage of taxpayer's money.   

I am all for a CF Ombudsman as a recourse of last resort for those who truly feel that they have been short-changed AFTER pursuing all available MILITARY means of redress.   Where I have a problem is with a system that sets itself up as a "Parallel alternative" to the existing military mechanisms for redress.   And the latter is precisely what the outgoing Ombudsman did.   He trumpeted himself as being external to the military system, and thereby established himself as a magnet for the failed shite-disturbers who could not obtain the time of day from a rational (and generally fair) system of adjudication.   Unfortunately, when you attract a deluge of whining and baseless crap, the legitimate cases tend to get lost in the overall mix.   In other words, I am convinced that by setting his office up as an "alternate" avenue rather than a "court of last resort", Marin immediately lost all legitimacy.   His staff have simply become a 3-ring circus, deluged by accusations where grievors who knew they wouldn't stand a chance in the face of extant miiltary processes immediately sought the "civilian route".     What is missing is the requirement to "go through these steps first" in order to winnow out the abject flakes and "straw-graspers".   The Ombudsman should be reserved exclusively for those who have not achieved success through the military processes, and believe that a "second look" is warranted.   Instead, we now have a parallel chain for grievances right from the outset.   No good can come of that.

Just my thoughts on the matter.   I've met Andre Marin, and was underwhelmed by his grasp of military matters (to say the least).   In fact, when I first met him a couple of years ago during a mess function featuring numerous other civilian "big wigs", I did not recognize him.   He and I had a rather "colourful" conversation where I distinctly recall (quite unwittingly) voicing a few rather unfavourable opinions about his very office and the civilian DND bureaucracy as a whole.   As best I can remember, we parted company with Mr. Marin in a rather wide-eyed/taken-aback posture.   It was very shortly after the fact that a friend of mine brought to my attention whom I'd been talking to.   I never lost a second of sleep.   At the end of the day, if you don't want to hear the truth (as I see it) then don't ask me.

Bottom line?   I think the CF can benefit from an Ombudsman.   However, that office needs to be a "court of last resort".   Not a parallel grievance chain, nor a "do-gooding" crusader organization.   The latter (which are the present case), simply undermine a very functional chain of command that has already withstood the test of time.      

For what its worth.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Dec 2004)

Mark C said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, what we have instead of the above is a grand-standing "do gooder" supporter of the "downtrodden ranks", trumpetting every single issue of nebulous substance, while at the same time applying a bureaucratic civilian's perspective to the military environment.   It is a recipe for disaster, not to mention untold wastage of taxpayer's money.
> 
> I am all for a CF Ombudsman as a recourse of last resort for those who truly feel that they have been short-changed AFTER pursuing all available MILITARY means of redress.   Where I have a problem is with a system that sets itself up as a "Parallel alternative" to the existing military mechanisms for redress.   And the latter is precisely what the outgoing Ombudsman did.   He trumpeted himself as being external to the military system, and thereby established himself as a magnet for the failed shite-disturbers who could not obtain the time of day from a rational (and generally fair) system of adjudication.   Unfortunately, when you attract a deluge of whining and baseless crap, the legitimate cases tend to get lost in the overall mix.   In other words, I am convinced that by setting his office up as an "alternate" avenue rather than a "court of last resort", Marin immediately lost all legitimacy.   His staff have simply become a 3-ring circus, deluged by accusations where grievors who knew they wouldn't stand a chance in the face of extant miiltary processes immediately sought the "civilian route".     What is missing is the requirement to "go through these steps first" in order to winnow out the abject flakes and "straw-graspers".   The Ombudsman should be reserved exclusively for those who have not achieved success through the military processes, and believe that a "second look" is warranted.   Instead, we now have a parallel chain for grievances right from the outset.   No good can come of that.



All good points, and hence the need for a self regulating profession governed by statute and uniformly enforced by those with long standing service, and not those from the outside. I have met Mr. Marin as well, and I agree about the look on his face when reaility sinks in, but lets not forget that he never once suggested he was going about his job from the perspective of military experience. I got the impression he didn't know what to expect when he arrived, and I strongly suspect he will leave not fully assured that he knew the consequences of what he was doing all along. This is not enitrely his own fault, since it was my understanding the OMO was frequently  engineered into issues of questionable merit by gripers as well as the CoC.


----------



## Sapper6 (2 Jan 2005)

Devil59,

Well put, I too was not impressed when Mr Morin came and visited us on Op APOLLO.  I found him woefully out of synch with what we were doing as soldiers on that particular mission and in general.  Although, I believe some of his investigations have produced some good for the soldier, I can't help but think he was more interested in 'looking good' and ensuring his office got the accolades he thought were deserved.  Finally, no one should go to the ombudsman until he/she has shown that the Chain of Command has been given a reasonable chance to resolve the issue.

DevilEcho29


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (2 Jan 2005)

How about Rick Mercer for ombudsman??


----------



## Sapper6 (15 Jan 2005)

Well, the jury is back in, although far from being a scientific poll, the response was overwhelmingly in favour of a "who cares" attitude.

Interesting, indeed.  We'll see how the next guys does.

S6 out.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 May 2005)

Reading this document, especially paragraph 143, I have nothing but contempt for the government of Ontario, especially the senior bureaucrats who are running the show.

"Between a Rock and a Hard place" http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/pdf/FINALSPECIALNEEDSREPORT.pdf

143 
All of this seems like déjÃƒÂ  vu all over again. I do not want to suggest, however,
that these initiatives are not being undertaken in good faith. This generation of
studies may well bear fruit, but it is evident that there is reason for concern and
despair. It is just that while the last round of fruitless studies was being vaunted
as evidence of progress, J. B. developed post traumatic stress disorder
trying to cope with Wesley. While all of this study was going on J. C.
was threatening members of his family and making their home life intolerable
while he languished on a waiting list. While all of this study was going on
B.M. and her husband were working different shifts, rarely seeing
each other, and living under virtual house arrest so that they could care for their
son. While all of this study was going on D. N. was being locked in his
room so his family could sleep and K. P. was being taken to a
psychiatric facility after refusing to cross the school threshold to go home.
While all of this study was going on T.G. was taking her young
children into the bathroom with her to protect them from their brother. While all
of this study was going on these and many other families have had to look to the
child welfare system to help them when the relevant agencies could not. We
may not know the final trend analysis of the studies that have been done and we
may be left with incomplete data but there is a reality we do know beyond
question. It is that this matter has been studied to death while real problems,
known problems, are being ignored or glossed over, and while the crisis that
was addressed with stopgap measures in 2001 has been allowed to recur.
Enough study. It is time for action.

Solutions
144 
There is a manifest crisis. It is immediate for those families who are in the child
welfare system - they should not be there. There is an immediate crisis for those
who require residential care but who are on waiting lists - they should not be
there. An immediate crisis calls for an immediate resolution. 


*******************************************************************************************

My heart goes out to the families who have children with such serious disabilities and are forced into the welfare system due to our inept system of laws. It is absolutely disgraceful that this is happening in our country.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 May 2005)

Whiskey,
Working tonight, have lots to say but no time right now.
Later


----------



## c4th (20 Jun 2005)

_Forces' ombudsman candidate under fire
Minister's pick for rights watchdog once fought to limit powers of office
  
a journalist 
The Ottawa Citizen 


June 20, 2005


Defence Minister Bill Graham's choice for the new Canadian Forces ombudsman was the legal representative for senior brass as they fought to limit the powers of the independent watchdog agency in its infancy, according to documents obtained by the Citizen.

But Mr. Graham is standing behind Yves Cote as his candidate for the ombudsman's job, arguing that the former legal adviser to the generals and Defence Department bureaucrats is an excellent choice for the position.

The leaked records show that in 1999, Mr. Cote was acting as the lawyer for the military's senior hierarchy in negotiating the mandate of the first Canadian Forces ombudsman, Andre Marin. But the negotiations, over 14 lengthy sessions, which at times also involved members of the Judge Advocate General's office (JAG) and senior defence staff, became deadlocked after Mr. Marin complained he was receiving little co-operation.

Mr. Marin detailed in a March 25, 1999 letter how he expressed concerns to then-defence deputy minister Jim Judd, Mr. Cote and a ministerial aide, that the terms of reference the military leadership wanted him to accept meant his office would lack control over investigations and how they were reported. He noted in the letter to Mr. Judd that the draft terms of reference showed "the apparent abandonment of commitments made by or on behalf of the Minister in respect of the office."

Mr. Marin also pointed out he continued on in negotiations with Mr. Cote, but to no avail. Another draft report produced after Mr. Cote met with the JAG and the chief of the defence Staff was profoundly disappointing, according to Mr. Marin.

It rejected recommendations put forward by Mr. Marin and his staff and failed to ensure methods were in place to deal with retaliation and reprisals against those making complaints to the ombudsman.

In a June 2, 1999 letter, Mr. Marin wrote then-defence minister Art Eggleton to complain that negotiations were deadlocked and the Defence department was being unco-operative. The letter detailed his "growing concern over the resistance encountered during the negotiations."

In addition, Mr. Marin accused department officials of reneging on issues which had already been negotiated and said they produced a document which "unilaterally seeks to impose the will of one party."

In later interviews, Mr. Marin acknowledged the senior brass and the JAG's office, the military legal branch, attempted during this period to limit his powers. The JAG's office has consistently denied that.

Mr. Marin was named ombudsman in 1998 in the wake of the Somalia scandal and concerns the military needed an outside watchdog to investigate complaints from the rank-and-file.

Mr. Cote did not respond to requests for comment.

But Mr. Graham's spokesman, Steve Jurgutis, said he saw no conflict of interest in naming Mr. Cote as ombudsman, despite the lawyer's role in representing the generals and Defence Department during negotiations in determining the ombudsman's mandate. Mr. Jurgutis dismissed concerns Mr. Cote, currently the Privy Council's lawyer, wouldn't be objective in the job and reiterated Mr. Graham considered him an excellent candidate.

"He was involved with the drafting of the parameters of the (ombudsman's) office," Mr. Jurgutis confirmed. "I'm not going to speculate to what his thoughts on that were or his involvement with that." But Mr. Jurgutis added that Mr. Cote started his career as a captain so he knew the type of problems people might face and be able to deal with those.

The Commons defence committee recently rejected Mr. Cote as ombudsman. Some Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs on the committee questioned Mr. Cote's close ties to the senior military and government leadership and worried he would not be able to properly represent the lower ranks. Others raised concerns about his job as a federal co-ordinator during the Somalia inquiry and whether he had any role in the Liberal government's decision to shut down that independent civilian probe, which was examining the killings and cover-up during the 1993 Somalia mission.

Mr. Cote told the defence committee he was not involved in the government's decision and that as ombudsman he would be independent and make it a priority to represent the lower ranks. Mr. Graham is under no obligation to accept the committee's rejection of Mr. Cote.

Mr. Marin, now Ontario's ombudsman, was not a favourite of the military's leadership since his high-profile reports often highlighted their failure to take care of their soldiers.

When Mr. Marin was first hired, Judge Advocate General Jerry Pitzul warned him against speaking to the media and taking an adversarial approach in his new position.

Gen. Pitzul told Mr. Marin about the case of the Australian military ombudsman, someone he described as controversial and adversarial. The military and government rode out that ombudsman's term and then hired a more conciliatory candidate, Gen. Pitzul noted. "We should look at their experience," the JAG told Mr. Marin, according to records previously released under the Access to Information law.

Mr. Marin rejected Gen. Pitzul's advice.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005_


----------



## thesaurus (20 Jun 2005)

Lest not be afraid. I believe that The Honourable Bill Graham made the right choice for Ombudsman. I have reviewed all the legal cases that confronted past Ombudsmen and I see nothing wrong with how they were defended and decided upon. And that includes those of brought to civil and criminal courts. Unless there is a blatant miscarriage of justice, the courts will decide upon them with reasonable care, carefully weighed and without blatant disreagard for justice. My experience has been that no matter how corrupt a lawyer or a judge is, he cannot blatantly decide upon cases to the prejudice of a man seeking redress by doctoring evidence,or illogical conclusios. They cannot fool or escape the ire of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Canada. Even the penurious party to the case can get justice. And unethical practices have not been left unpunished as I surveyed them. My very very poor mother is witness to that. We all are in Canada. Not in Cuba or Colombia.


----------



## thesaurus (21 Jun 2005)

And to one isolated case of miscarriage, one Supreme Court Justice of USA declared: It would be far better to mistakenly acquit one guilty person than convict a thousand innocents. The communist in Havana declared and acts otherwise. Hence, I am very proud to practice law under democracy. Hail USA!!, a bastion of democracy and the rule of law. Hail UK!! Hail Canada too. Hail Justice Lamers!


----------



## pbi (21 Jun 2005)

> I have reviewed all the legal cases that confronted past Ombudsmen and I see nothing wrong with how they were defended and decided upon



Very interesting. I wasn't aware that the Ombudsman dealt with legal cases. I had thought that was the job of the Court Martial Appeals Court and ultimately the Supreme Court. I understood (perhaps mistakenly...) that the Ombudsman dealt with significant personnel issues other than legal cases, and only after the chain of command and the grievance system had failed. What was your capacity when you conducted this review? Can you cite a few of these cases so I can get an idea of what you're talking about?



> It would be far better to mistakenly acquit one guilty person than convict a thousand innocents.



Could it also be: " _It is better that a thousand guilty men go free than that a single innocent man be punished?"_

Cheers


----------



## Acorn (22 Jun 2005)

Methinks "thesaurus" has been consulting himself a tad too often.

Acorn


----------



## thesaurus (22 Jun 2005)

The Ombudsman recommends all his findings to the Court Martial. Court Martial decide on the merits of the case. Ombudsman is there to provide and refute evidence. Ombudsman who necessarily must be and presumably  cognizant of the laws including the binding precedents hence, should be lawyer or legal assistant and appear before court martial. Although rarely do cases have be elevated to civil courts or criminal courts, when they do, he appears before them. Personnel cases are also have to be resolved applying laws and precedents on administrative law (civilian employees of Canadidian Forces. NO offense, but what I was trying to emphazize was the beauty of Canadian law and the justice system. That nobody can fool or escape the wrath of the scrupulous Members of the Supreme Court of Canada. They are morally upright and cases of abusive Ombudsmen or abusive litigants, either employer or employee, will not remain unpunished. Every case shall be carefully scrutinized and filtered of of irrational arguments until the Highest SC justice renders judgmentt; and hence the final say.I am proud to be a Canadian. Not Cuban, Iraqi under Saddam or Vietnames or Chinese. Hail democracy. Hail those CF generals and Ombudsmen of a Canada Forcew dedicated to the rule of law! Hail all those law-abiding members of these website. Hail freedom of speech and the press! (Decision of the courts will remain binding for all litigants and citizens to observe and respect.Again I hope nobody gets offended. I might also stand to be corrected. Thank you for the comments. I will die for all of you!

Democratic law is best compared to communist law. It far surpasses communist law in terms of perfection.And to those critics from  communistcountries, I say, it would be better to "acquit one guilty person than acquit a thousand innocents"."One billion" innocent victims of communism have attested to that. The innocent victims of Stalin and Mao were witness to that. I stand behind this quote.Ask any lawyer.(There have been resolved cases that can easily be reopened especially upon public clamor)


----------



## thesaurus (22 Jun 2005)

"It would be far better to mistakenly acquit one guilty person that convict a thousand innocents. Democratic law perfectly suits civilized society composed of men of reason.


----------



## thesaurus (22 Jun 2005)

May I add to your "Liberal societies....herbivores". I was diagnosed by my doctor to be an idiot.So my apologies if I did not get it. My addendum: "The future is a race between education and catastrophe"...."Education is the process by which a society attempts to instill achievement-oriented values in all students, regardless of their background. Millions of today's middle and even upper class people were born into poverty but used education as a ladder to where they are today. While most Canadians have access to our educational system, there are many who refuse to apply the effort, even though they have the latent ability to take advantage of this resource. In spite of our best efforts, there will always be some students (and teachers) who cannot or will not become achievers and who become very abusive of those who are. To continue to warehouse these misfits in public schools out of a sense of misguided egalitarianism is a major error, as it not only makes them more resentful, but they severely interfere with those who are eager to learn"-Donald Bunker, PLUNDER, The Looting of Canada By The Welfare State.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jun 2005)

Hat talker, are we?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jun 2005)

thesaurus said:
			
		

> I might also stand to be corrected. Thank you for the comments. *I will die for all of you!*



Could you commence now, for all of us, please.


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Jun 2005)

> I was diagnosed by my doctor to be an idiot



Restores my faith in the medical profession. I don't see much value in a 2nd opinion....


----------



## Acorn (23 Jun 2005)

Oy vey. 2000 years of suffering and now this?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

Opps, my fault - this crackpot was banned last year and, in some admin cleanup, I must of loosened the restraints on his straight-jacket.  I've since restrained him and upped the dosage on his medication....


----------



## pbi (23 Jun 2005)

Whew! That was a live one! Yikes. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that diagnostic session:

"Good morning Mr Thesaurus"

"Hail, Doctor! Hail all doctors! Glorious, non-communist doctors! And morally upright Ombudsmen too.."

"Yes, that's very nice. Please get off the table and sit down. And take off that foil hat..."

" Hail my foil hat! Hail the table! All of these things will be reviewed by the Court Martial! And possibly by a legal assistant!"

"Right. OK, then. I have some news for you. Put that lamp down, please..."

"What glorious and beautiful announcement do you have for me, Doctor?"

"I got your lab results back."

"Aha! And was the evidence provided or refuted? Will I die for you?"

"It says here that you're an idiot."

Cheers.


----------



## c4th (23 Jun 2005)

As an experiment, Mike should consider opening up a "Banned Members" only forum.  It would be interesting to see what the results of more than one idiot in a topic could produce. 

Unfortunately, I doubt the server could handle the extra traffic.


----------



## pbi (23 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> As an experiment, Mike should consider opening up a "Banned Members" only forum.   It would be interesting to see what the results of more than one idiot in a topic could produce.
> 
> Unfortunately, I doubt the server could handle the extra traffic.



I'm all for this.This would be a lot like the old lunatic asylum in 18th century London-St Mary's of Bethlehem- ("Bedlam") where the upper classes could visit and watch the nutters go at it from behind the safety of iron bars.  Perhaps they would just neutralize each other. Or maybe an evil genius would be synthesized from the collective madness? Hmmmm...maybe we better not.....

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jun 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Whew! That was a live one! Yikes. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that diagnostic session:


   etc.


I see it's another slow day on the prairies.


----------



## pbi (23 Jun 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> etc.
> 
> 
> I see it's another slow day on the prairies.



Hmmmm. Let's see:

"It was another slow day on the prairies when suddenly......"

OK-just kidding.

Cheers.


----------



## GO!!! (23 Jun 2005)

Sorry to hijack the thread back to it's origional point, but I'm interested in the opinions of some of the more senior members here.

Is the ombudsman another level of civilian bureaucracy designed to further corrode and civilianise the authority of the senior levels of the CF, or a necessary response to those senior officers neglect of their troops?

Thoughts?


----------



## bossi (8 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Sorry to hijack the thread back to it's origional point, but I'm interested in the opinions of some of the more senior members here.
> 
> Is the ombudsman another level of civilian bureaucracy designed to further corrode and civilianise the authority of the senior levels of the CF, or a necessary response to those senior officers neglect of their troops?
> 
> Thoughts?



I've forgotten the proper/technical name for your "loaded question", but ... you presuppose neglect by an unspecified number of senior officers (but you conveniently overlook neglect of discipline/respect on the part of insolent underlings who in fact are a disgrace to the very heritage of Canada's Army ... hmmm ... I'm getting off track a tad ...), you also cast the Ombudsman in the role of a civilian, and portray him as corroding/civilianising ... ah, the heck with it - there are a couple of "red herrings" in here ...

An ombudsman is supposed to be a fair and impartial person, able to hear complaints without fear of rebuke or retaliation by "higher-ups/management/etc.", and deliver "sobre second thought" (e.g. many newspapers have an ombudsman who entertains complaints of bias/whatever against the editor/s - and, the editor is not supposed to be able to fire the ombudsman).   In a nutshell, "an honest broker".

So, returning to the theme of a CF Ombudsman ...
It's another offshoot of the Constitutional imperative "Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done" - the buzzword everybody uses is "transparency".
Having an Ombudsman demonstrates that there is an additional "check and balance" against systemic mistakes - kinda like having an external auditor.
Does the Auditor-General corrode the authority of the federal Liberal party ooops the corrupt government ... ooops ... the senior levels of whatever?

Personally, I'd be much happier if we had a military Inspector-General with some teeth, who could receive and act upon "brown envelopes", correct some inefficiencies/deficiencies and let the rest of us get on with our work.

On a parallel theme, I'd also like to see the RCMP do our policing - then we wouldn't have to constantly jump through hoops to prove the Provost Marshal isn't just a corrupt stooge of the CDS, etc. ... but, I digress ...

The powers-that-be have blessed the CF with the office of an ombudsman - so be it.   If he rectifies even a small number of injustices, it's worth it - equally, if he shuts down a few posers/whiners, then we all benefit, too.


----------



## S McKee (8 Jul 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd be much happier if we had a military Inspector-General with some teeth, who could receive and act upon "brown envelopes", correct some inefficiencies/deficiencies and let the rest of us get on with our work.
> 
> On a parallel theme, I'd also like to see the RCMP do our policing - then we wouldn't have to constantly jump through hoops to prove the Provost Marshal isn't just a corrupt stooge of the CDS, etc. ... but, I digress ...



Just cruising through the topic and I thought you were doing really well until POW! Now you got me going. I love you guys who think all would be a bed a roses if only the Mounties would do our policing. Please explain to me how, just how having a civilian organization; an organization who can barely police the areas that they are responsible for now, ( and who are no strangers to allegations of political scandal and interference)  would provide the police service that the CF wants? May be this should be another thread altogether.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Please explain to me how, just how having a civilian organization; an organization who can barely police the areas that they are responsible for now, ( and who are no strangers to allegations of political scandal and interference)  would provide the police service that the CF wants? May be this should be another thread altogether.



Agreed, and I have added some thoughts there, but: _"... constantly jump through hoops to prove the Provost Marshal isn't just a corrupt stooge of the CDS ..."_ is, it seems to me, a valid point to make in this thread.

I find your reaction, Jumper, to a suggested change in the _empire_ refreshingly normal - no one wants too much light shone in the dark corners of their patch lest they look up and find themselves reorganized right out of business.


----------



## geo (3 Apr 2008)

don't know if anyone else has seen this yet - newly released by the CF Ombudsman's office

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/sr-rs/rc-str/index-eng.asp


----------



## Yrys (3 Apr 2008)

Sorry for the necro, but it's the same subject : article on Ombudsman saying (the person in the post has change)


Ombudsman says military must improve health care, benefits for reservists



> OTTAWA - The Canadian Forces should improve health care and benefits for reserve soldiers, sailors and flyers and treat everyone the same, the military ombudsman
> says.
> 
> In a strong report issued Thursday, Mary McFadyen says the Canadian Forces have different standards for regulars and reserves and that this is simply unfair."While reservists
> ...


----------



## GAP (2 Jun 2010)

André Marin left dysfunction and discontent as military ombud
Published On Wed Jun 02 2010
Article Link
David Bruser & Moira Welsh Staff Reporters

André Marin, in his previous job as Canadian military ombudsman, created a dysfunctional workplace rife with complaints and 150 staff departures from the small office during his tenure, a federal report says.

Marin, who has served as Ontario Ombudsman since 2005, was re-appointed for another five-year term yesterday.

The Toronto Star obtained a workplace assessment conducted by the Department of National Defence (DND) months after Marin left the job he had held for seven years.

The assessment shows Marin’s former workplace experienced some of the same problems as those who have worked and currently work in his downtown Toronto office.

In a section where some information was cut out for “privacy” reasons, the federal report said there were “damning comments (from federal staffers) about shortcomings in the office.”

Marin’s spokesperson Linda Williamson, who said the report never mentions Marin by name and was completed many months after he left the federal office, said it is not clear how the issues raised in the report apply to Marin. A government official told the Star the report is about Marin’s tenure.

“He made sure (the military ombudsman’s office) was fiercely independent,” Williamson said. “He completed 26 special reports. They were handling about 2,000 complaints a year. The Canadian Forces transformed the way it treats families of fallen soldiers because of him.”

The federal report, commissioned by Marin’s successor Yves Coté, and based on interviews with 46 staffers, found that staff expressed an “overwhelming relief . . . to see the new leadership take its place.”

The human resources department was a “failed” and “woefully inadequate” system that “may actually be contributing to inefficiency in the organization.” There was confusion surrounding job descriptions due to few standards or policies. “People have real difficulty not knowing what is expected of them in the workplace.”

The lack of standards is also a problem in Marin’s current job as ombudsman for the Ontario government. A half dozen current and former employees have told the Star that policies and standards were shelved when Marin took over and that staff no longer had rules to guide job performance. Some have said they were condemned for actions that others were applauded for. The sources say this lack of standards allowed managers to criticize and fire employees on a whim.
More on link


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jun 2010)

Apparently all was not well during Mr Marin's tenure as the DND/CF Ombudsman.  The Star is reporting on a rather dysfunctional organization.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/817766--andre-marin-left-dysfunction-and-discontent-as-military-ombud?bn=1



> André Marin, in his previous job as Canadian military ombudsman, created a dysfunctional workplace rife with complaints and 150 staff departures from the small office during his tenure, a federal report says.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Legarty (12 May 2015)

Former DND Ombudsman, Andre Marin is the current Ontario Ombudsman. He has been in this role for 2 terms (10 years) and is gunning for a 3rd. Much has been written about his time as Ontario Ombudsman: extravagant spending, human rights and labour complaints, bullying behaviour and lack of real results.

However, not much is know about his terms as DND Ombudsman, other than a few similar stories that appeared in the Toronto Star in 2010:

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2010/06/02/andr_marin_left_dysfunction_and_discontent_as_military_ombud.html

If you have anything share, you have a few options:

A reporter from a major newspaper is interviewing current and former employees, you can contact her at:  ombudsman7777@gmail.com

Warren Kinsella has an open thread on his blog to post anonymously:  http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/05/kid-kodak-open-thread/#comments

And you can help fill in the Wikipedia page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Marin


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2015)

So, basically, you're _muckraking_, right?


----------



## Legarty (12 May 2015)

Not at all.  Looking to balance the story. He has written his own history while on the public purse. He has no oversight by any agency or official so public scrutiny is the only oversight available. Public money, public scrutiny.


----------



## Loachman (12 May 2015)

Legarty said:
			
		

> Looking to balance the story



Why? Are you a reporter?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 May 2015)

Legarty said:
			
		

> A reporter from a major newspaper is interviewing current and former employees, you can contact her at:  ombudsman7777@gmail.com



That email address for a major newspaper reporter doesn't seem fishy at all.


----------



## Loachman (12 May 2015)

The OP's e-mail address on his/her profile is different, however, but, yes, I smell something, and it's not the cosmetics department.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That email address for a major newspaper reporter doesn't seem fishy at all.


Here's one more reference elsewhere to the OP's e-mail address posted in this thread, from a posting on a partisan commentary web page - no word on who the author of the specific piece in question is:


> [UPDATE: I’ve moved this forward because of the comments – you have to read the comments.  And, hopefully, people at Queen’s Park read the comments, too.]
> 
> [ANOTHER UPDATE: I have heard from a very responsible and ethical National Post reporter, one I can vouch for.  She wants to hear from some of the folks who have been commenting on this post. What you have been revealing is newsworthy.  You can reach her at ombudsman7777@gmail.com.]
> 
> ...


This isn't the only Marin article on the site in question - more here.

Care to share more with us, *Legarty*?  If you are a scribe of some sort, you may want to read this about how things are done here.

Anyone wanting to respond to this person, do your research, and caveat responder ....


----------

