Evidence of meeting #94 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was office.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Commissioner Maynard, do you believe that what's happening at National Defence—you have three court cases against the minister—is systemic? Is this the new modus operandi? Are they going to continue to try to block you rather than be compliant with the legislation?
12:55 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I really hope not.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
We'll have to watch and see what happens.
Commissioner Solloway, you talked about people within departments who are coming forward with information and complaints and the reprisals happening from their higher-ups. At the Department of National Defence, we want to make sure that whistle-blowers are protected, but things like the National Defence Act, the Security of Information Act and non-disclosure agreements are being used now to hush people up.
Does it undermine whistle-blowers coming forward when they see wrongdoing within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces?
12:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
I'm going to defer to Brian to answer that question. Having been here only four months, I have not been around long enough to detect patterns.
12:55 p.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada of Canada
Fear of reprisal is definitely an issue. Perhaps, as alluded to before, when the internal disclosure regime does not work very well, it affects the entire disclosure regime.
We have jurisdiction over the Department of National Defence but not the Canadian Armed Forces. However, we can investigate members of the Canadian Armed Forces alleged to have taken reprisals. The consequences at the end of the process may be a little different for them in that they are not public servants under the act, but indeed it adds to the fear of coming forward with information, as does the fear that nothing will be done if they come forward with information.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
A CAF member can come to your office and still get a fair hearing.
12:55 p.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada of Canada
No. A member of the CAF can provide us information, as any member of the public can, with respect to wrongdoing.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada of Canada
They're DND employees with respect to wrongdoing and DND employees with respect to making a reprisal complaint. People alleged to have taken a reprisal can, however, include a CAF member.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Chair, I want to move a motion based on testimony we've heard today. I think it's fairly straightforward. I move:
That the committee extend the transparency within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces study by one additional meeting and invite the Privacy Commissioner to appear.
I think it was an error that none of us had the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on our list of witnesses. We heard today from Commissioner Maynard that some of the questions we asked would be best put to the Privacy Commissioner.
We know that members of the Canadian Armed Forces often have to ATIP their own medical files and that falls under privacy, as does some of the other information that has been requested from the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. I think it is incumbent upon us to request that the Privacy Commissioner appear.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The motion is in order, obviously. I don't think we'll have a debate, but for the committee's information, we've already invited the Privacy Commissioner. It's just a case of negotiating a time. We've extended an invitation.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Mr. Chair, I want to understand this. Mr. Bezan has brought in a motion and you're saying this particular individual was already on the list of witnesses.
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
You already suggested that he should be coming, or this organization is—
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We have a superior chair and a superior clerk here, and we always anticipate every need of the committee.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
We always believe that, Mr. Chair. You're well supported by a wonderful clerk.
The invitation was sent. Is that what I'm hearing?
1 p.m.
An hon. member
No, we're on debate.
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I would argue that we should probably still have the motion go forward, because the invitation may be sent, but a further request from the committee would be valuable.
I would actually like to amend the motion.
1 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
It would read, with my amendment included:
That the committee extend the transparency within the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces study by two additional meetings and invite the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the former National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, to appear.