National Defence Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[MGen Erick Simoneau]

All grievances are equal except the sexual misconduct-related grievances that have been prioritized. We're talking 21 in the system.

For all the other ones, as they come in, they enter the system and we treat them per the timeline of the system. The initial authority has four months to see what they can do for a grievance, at which point they can ask the griever if they would allow more time than the four months. It rests with the griever to decide whether they allow the initial authority more time or not, or they can go to the final authority directly, at which point we're not time-bound but are trying hard to adjudicate grievances and solve them for our members.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

We hear often that the federal government has outdated information systems. Is the information management system at National Defence contributing to a delay in ATIP responses?

[Bill Matthews]

It is, and it is multiple systems across the department.

When we receive an ATIP request, it will get farmed out to the various entities that might have information. We have systems that are not integrated. Many times manual records are still being sought. When the minister spoke earlier about digitizing, there are really two flavours to that. One is digitizing and automating the ATIP process. The other piece of it is automating and modernizing some of our basic information systems across the department. This is everything from finance to human resources to procurements to human resources on the armed forces side.

If you look forward, once these changes are done—and it will be a long road—you'll see a world with more automated information and easier access. Hopefully it should streamline process, but that broader digitization is a long way away.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Just to clarify, then, are those information management systems upgrades in the process of happening at all departments or multiple departments?

[Bill Matthews]

It's not all, but multiple. There are plans under way. There are already some tools in place for ATIPs through the corporate secretary's team, but we plan on rolling out additional automated tools. As to the modernization of some of the other corporate systems that I referred to, some are in the works and have started; others are being planned but I wouldn't say are officially projects yet.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay, so you have some in the works; you have some planned. Can you give a rough estimate to the committee of when some of that stuff beyond digitizing will be implemented?

[Bill Matthews]

If we look at the ATIP process itself, we are hoping that if we standardize the process and then roll out the software, you'll see improvements within the next three to six months, in advance of new tools being added. This is just process standardization. For the actual automated software, it will probably a year or so away before it's rolled out in any detail.

In the broader corporate systems, like our finance system, you might hear the term “DEFENCEx”, which is one of our projects. It is a multi-year project that is still in the planning phases.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Madam Normandin, you have two and a half minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Since the beginning of the meeting, we have been told that transparency seems to be lacking at National Defence, to say the least. The corollary of transparency is sometimes the protection of privacy and personal information.

Last November, there was a report according to which National Defence and other departments had used Cellebrite, a tool that extracts personal data. They were doing so without having complied with the obligation to conduct a privacy impact assessment, an obligation set out in the Privacy Act. In terms of transparency and privacy, it seems that the rules are quite elastic.

Has this situation been brought to your attention? If so, what does the department intend to do to ensure that privacy is respected?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you for the question.

First, we need to do an impact study on the software we use.

The way it should work—this is the theory—is that when the chief information officer's branch becomes aware of a new software product, they look at it from a security perspective—the first tension point—and then from a privacy perspective. If they believe that a privacy impact assessment is warranted, it would then come over to the corporate secretary's team to action.

The reason a privacy impact assessment might not be warranted is it is possible that, in some cases, the assessment would have been done by another government department. Shared Services Canada, for example, might do something on behalf of the whole government, so it's possible there is already one in place from a government-wide perspective.

With the testimony that I've seen in the last couple of weeks on some of these issues, we are going to check and make sure that people are indeed respecting the need to do a privacy impact assessment. Sometimes it takes longer than we would like, but the question of.... Do the security assessment and the impact assessment at the same time. That's the way the process should work.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

What I understand is that you currently cannot guarantee that an impact study is done every time this tool is used.

Is that correct?

[Bill Matthews]

That's correct. I can't say with certainty today that it's done all the time. However, I will check our process to confirm that everything is going well and that all the measures we have put in place comply with that process.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Madam Mathyssen, you have three and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

My gosh, it's like my birthday.

As you may know, my NDP colleague, MP Blaney, has initiated a study at the veterans committee. It's the first that has ever happened on the experience of women veterans, and I know it has certainly meant a lot to those women. I certainly hope we don't allow for what often happens, that siloing of information, in terms of when the Department of National Defence can look at those recommendations and really act upon them.

The veterans committee heard from Stephanie Hayward. She's a veteran. She suffered severe complications because of the sexual assault she experienced while in the military. She has had to fight for over a decade to get access to benefits and coverage for her treatment of injuries and has faced major barriers in accessing the evidence she needs, which was from her medical files. Those medical files were sealed in an area of her basic training centre, and they were never attached to her VAC documentation.

Of course, Stephanie is not the first incident I have heard of where sexual misconduct trauma survivors have had to fight for access to their own medical files from the department in order to prove their claims for trauma, which they need for Veterans Affairs Canada.

Can you explain why you don't provide all CAF members with a copy of their medical and personnel files upon their release and why they wouldn't be attached to their Veterans Affairs files?

[Bill Matthews]

I will start, but I will need some help from my colleagues to my right.

Number one, on the transfer of medical information from the Canadian Armed Forces over to Veterans Affairs on release, we have been working to improve the flow of that information. Privacy considerations have been a barrier and making sure that we respect that law is.... I think we've made some good progress; it's better than it was.

As to why a military member cannot get their records on release, I'm going to turn to my colleagues.

[BGen Rob Holman]

I don't think General Simoneau or I have the answer to that question either, but we'll take it on notice and make sure we get back to you.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay. I would certainly appreciate that.

Finally, because of my extra whole minute—it's amazing—I'll say that all of these changes you're talking about.... Oftentimes, when we talk about culture change, that takes a lot. Are you receiving any push-back or any problems with those changes you see?

[Bill Matthews]

Are you talking about changes related to ATIP or culture change in general?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Well, I mean the access to information.

[Bill Matthews]

No, not yet. You basically have a discussion. People are busy. You remind them of their obligation. From the discussions I have had with my leadership team, I know they're all keen to standardize the process and to improve. Some are going to reprioritize resources to help cut through the backlog.

Nobody is resisting this at all. It's an obligation under the law, and it is not new.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan, you have five minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just following up on Mr. Kelly's questioning around the litigation from the Information Commissioner against National Defence in court.

You are aware of subsection 67(1) of the Access to Information Act. It says:

No person shall obstruct the Information Commissioner or any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's duties and functions under this Part.

Subsection 67(2) goes on to say:

Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.

Why continue to obstruct by going to court? How many people within National Defence are going to be paying the fine?

[Bill Matthews]

There's a difference between obstructing, which is willfully blocking, and dealing with too many files and too much information and needing more time. I don't—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

On that point, you say it's too much information and not enough time. I'm looking at salaries and the number of person years. You have over 71 people assigned to access to information, and over $5 million dedicated to dealing with it. National Defence is one of the biggest departments in the Canadian government.

How can you not deal with this information with that many dollars and that much manpower dedicated to dealing with access to information requests? Why does the Information Commissioner have to resort to litigation?