National Defence Committee on April 17th, 2024

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Would you say that delay is endemic in the access to information system?

[Patrick White]

Absolutely.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Do you get feedback or reasons why they won't give you the information?

[Patrick White]

Sometimes you do get an occasional response from the department saying that they're going to exceed the time limit. I know that an article came out recently saying that they weren't doing that. They started doing that. They've now stopped doing that again.

I often follow up with them via email, because I know that attempting to resolve the problem is a prerequisite of going to the Information Commissioner or Privacy Commissioner. However, complaining to the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner is not an exception to getting the information. It is part of the process. You will not get your information unless you make a complaint.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Fisher, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.

Naval Lieutenant White, thank you for being here and sharing your story. Thank you for your continued service to your country.

Mr. Walbourne, Gary, it's nice to see you again. We've had many conversations over the last several years. I can't believe it's been six years since you've been gone from the position of ombudsman. I'm glad to hear you are enjoying retirement in Prince Edward Island on your farm, cleaning up the damage from Fiona.

Gary, you touched on some of this in your opening five minutes, and it probably revisits an awful lot of things you've said to this committee and to individuals around the table in the past, but upon reflection, what tools or supports would have enabled you to better fulfill your duties in your time as an ombudsman? Again, I know you've touched on some of these things individually, but I'd like to get them on the record.

[Gary Walbourne]

There are two areas of restriction that really bear down on the ombudsman's office. One is financial control. The other one is human resource control.

It was ludicrous behaviour. It got to a point where I wanted to travel as the ombudsman and had to get approval to do that. It would be things along the lines of being asked to submit my claim and do the factoring four places beyond the decimal point. It got to be such a laborious process to go through to get anything done.

We once wanted to staff a position, and we determined the attributes and assets that this person needed. Then, when we sent them to the department for posting—because they have the authority—they changed what we put on the bulletin. It changed into the type of individual they were recruiting and not what we were recruiting.

Having those things always in someone else's hands was really restrictive to the ombudsman doing his job.

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

I remember meeting with you one time in Centre Block. As frustrated as you were, you were also clearly very proud of some of the work you were able to get done—things you were able to accomplish on behalf of individual members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Can you talk a little about some of those successes and things you were able to accomplish as ombudsman? Again, as frustrated as you were at the time, you had some major successes and were very proud of some of the work done.

[Gary Walbourne]

A lot of what the ombudsman does goes unsung. We don't see everything.

During my tenure—I was there for four and a half years—we handled approximately 10,000 personal cases, with a one hundred per cent success rate in getting those people to where they wanted to be. I think that's the bread and butter of what an ombudsman does day to day.

We issued 14 reports in four and a half years. There were an untold number of recommendations made. I'm disappointed, though. They haven't all been implemented, but there's been some work towards most of them.

Retaining members was something we were very proud of. They weren't going to release a member until all benefits and services were in place from all sources. Now I see that is starting to slip. We are starting to release members again before having them prepared for what city streets look like.

I think we made some great strides while I was there. We raised some very good points about the reserve force. We did several reports on the reserve force that hadn't been done before and opened up access to some benefits for them. We met with the rangers in the north. Something as simple as putting a report out in their language, they were receptive to that. I'm very proud of the Valcartier report and the benefits that came out of it.

I think there was a lot we accomplished. I will go back and say again that I think what we did on a day-to-day basis was tremendous work—the actual grunt work, as I call it, on the ground, when we were there on the bases meeting people face to face and listening to the widows.

I used to enjoy getting out of Ottawa. I still enjoy it, I have to tell you. I enjoyed talking to the people. The men and women who make up the Canadian Armed Forces are unsung heroes every day. These people get up and do their best. They come to work and do the job Canada asks them to do. That's where the real truth lies. I think that's where we made a lot of headway. We built a lot of trust with that community and got some engagement.

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

I'm not sure how much time I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have one minute.

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

I'll finish off, Gary, by saying that you made yourself available to us, not only as committee members but also as members of Parliament, on a regular basis. I can remember how flexible you were when we were trying to meet with you. I want to thank you personally for that.

I know we met several times. I've learned an awful lot from you. I'm very thankful for the work that you do.

[Gary Walbourne]

I think part of the ombudsman's role is to make sure he's educating all communities about what's going on so they can seek help, input and assistance to help move the portfolio forward.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you to both witnesses for being here.

My first question may concern both witnesses, but they may not have the answer. I'll open this up to both of them.

My understanding, based on what military members have said, is that it's extremely easy for anyone with the necessary security clearance working at the Department of National Defence to access any given member's file.

The problem is that, when someone accesses a member's file, there's no record of who accessed it, no notes, nothing. That means anyone can access a file without the knowledge of the person concerned. That's not how it works in, say, the health care field. When someone accesses a medical file, there's a record of that. The information is there.

Are you aware of this situation?

[Gary Walbourne]

Since it's about access, I'll give it to you, Patrick.

[Patrick White]

When it comes to a lot of the cases and information, I appreciate the highlight of this struggle.

One of them, I can tell you, related to the grievance file and was exactly that. One of the first steps when you file a grievance is they give you a consent form that gives the department permission to access everything about you. They don't necessarily tell you who's accessing it or the totality of things they're considering. I understand members can then ATIP again, but remember that anytime I say “ATIP”, there's a delay involved. Members can ATIP their grievance file to see what's in it. That's supposed to be the totality of what's considered. If something is missing from the grievance file, members should have an ability to say, “No, I'm adding additional documentation.”

Since the recent article about Officer X in the newspaper, I've been receiving anonymous, harassing emails from someone who claims to be associated with National Defence headquarters. I've asked my chain of command to look into who may have accessed my personal email, because it's coming to my personal email. However, they don't seem able to tell me who's been pulling up my file and accessing it.

I would certainly hope they're able to do that. There's a group of people you would expect to have accessed my folder, but if someone—whom I very clearly don't know—who doesn't have any reason to access it did so, I'd say the military police owes them a visit.

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

Thank you very much.

Are you saying that you'd recommend updating the computer system so there's a record of who has accessed a military member's file?

[Patrick White]

I think that would certainly be welcome. The problem, of course, is effectively how that would be rolled out. As an example, in a naval reserve division, you have a ship's office, which is our administrative cell. It handles all those things, like the personal files and the administration of a member. You could perhaps integrate some means of allowing members to access that information. I imagine the department would probably provide an excuse and say they'll add it to their list of a hundred things to do, and by next century when we've all forgotten about it, they'll take it off and no one will notice.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. White, the committee has received some of the recommendations you made.

Would you tell us more about records being destroyed when someone retires? Can you tell us what that's about and why you recommend retaining the records for a longer period of time?

[Patrick White]

Part of the concern is that members can use retirement to escape justice. I believe there was a case in CFB Halifax where an officer was placed under harassment investigation, resigned from the military and started work as a civilian the next day, at which point the military threw up its hands and said, “Well, I guess the matter is closed. The member is released.” Having access to information that allows us to dig into the files of people who have retired means we're not in a situation where important decisions are made, members are able to release from the forces and their emails or other documents are destroyed.

I was very surprised that the system relies on an honour system. If I come up with a list of five names and, in the process of filing a request, they go to those five people and one has retired, they will throw up their hands and say, “Well, the member is retired. We can't get their records.” Are you telling me that the day after they retire, we have no backups and have nothing saved, and no one is able to say, “Hang on. The IT team didn't actually delete their records. That's scheduled for next week”?

If there are records worth preserving, an obligation of members before they're released should be to ensure that they are properly preserved, or we need appropriate backup systems in this case. In my mind, when I say that, I mean there could be emails, drafts and correspondence, because honestly you can rely on what's on the page, but the real decisions are probably hidden in emails or correspondence.

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

Thank you very much.

I don't have much time left, but we can pick this up again in the next round of questions.

One of your recommendations is to pause the time limit to submit a complaint, including a grievance, if an information request has been made and disclosure of that information would be relevant in drafting the complaint.

I'd like you to tell me about time limit issues in relation to complaints. I'll keep that in mind for my next turn because you won't have time to answer my question this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm sure you want to answer that in a fulsome way, and Ms. Normandin will have further time.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

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

I too want to thank both witnesses for appearing here today.

Mr. White, I want to acknowledge the strength that you bring to this study and all that you do. I appreciate that.

Mr. Walbourne, your breadth of experience is something very important to this committee as well, so I'm grateful for that here today.

Mr. White, you have referenced often the story that came forward in the Ottawa Citizen about Officer X. The internal report from the integrated complaint and conflict management team found, as you referenced, that they had bundled up the information and all the allegations. Over 14 years, there were multiple allegations, but despite all of that, no action had been taken. It wasn't until all that information was leaked to the media that we knew about that.

You also talked about that connection between transparency and accountability. Can you elaborate a bit more on that, but also on the recommendations you have specifically to ensure justice for survivors throughout all of this?