Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2018

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

How...?

[Jody Thomas]

I can't speak to the people who were in my job before me, and I know that upsets people.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I understand that, and I respect that completely. There are lots of things that I can't speak to for previous governments, etc., even governments of my own persuasion.

At the end of the day, you're not here representing yourself. You're representing the department. When I look at this, it is.... We track these things in our daily lives that are so simple, yet we can't track something that is so clearly important when the Supreme Court identifies a timeline to say this is a timeline in which justice can and should be served. We can't track, in the department, how long it's taking to do that overall—it takes the Auditor General's office to do that—and then we can't track each step of the process to say where we're falling short, where we need to do better, and where we have already hit the targets. We come in 2018 and say that we're going to put new systems in place; we have this great system we're going to put in place.

I don't think it's a new system that needs to be put in place in terms of what you're talking about here. I think that this is straight-up discipline of personnel to hold them accountable and to hold the people below them and above them accountable. The fact that we're talking about discipline related to the Canadian Armed Forces justice system is mind-boggling.

It should be the gold standard.

[Jody Thomas]

Right. I don't disagree with a thing you've said. It's not that we can't. It's that we haven't. There isn't a systematic method across all aspects of the judge advocate general's organization to direct things in the same way. When people are doing things manually, they slip and they don't all account for things in the same manner.

I don't think there is an assumption that we haven't been able to do it. It's that it hasn't been done consistently. Why we're putting a system in is that it's 2018, and we think these things should be done in a case management system. We should be able to track data, and we should have various data points that we're not doing handrolically, that we're doing through a sophisticated methodology so that we understand where there are bottlenecks in the system and where we need to do better. At this point, if the judge advocate general were to look into systemic weaknesses, she's guessing. We need data to do that.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

You're changing the technique by which that data is processed. You're not changing the.... It doesn't say here that we need to change not the personnel but their training to make sure they actually follow through on it. You're talking about the systems rather than about the failures and where people need to do better. It's nice to say, “Hey, there's a big shiny thing over here that's going to change everything,” but that's only if the input is good.

[Jody Thomas]

Right. There will be reporting that compels people to enter information in the system. If we find weaknesses in personnel who are not doing what they're supposed to do, the judge advocate general, obviously, will have to deal with those people.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Maybe they've never been trained to do so. Maybe the requirements haven't been there in the past to do so. It sounds like the targets weren't in place to train somebody to meet them in order to have the data put in. It is so simple that anywhere, in the smallest business in Canada, they would have these things in place.

[Jody Thomas]

We agree completely, and that's why we're changing the process.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Okay. I'll just end with this. This is where I wanted to dive into.

The report states:

We found delays throughout the various stages of the military justice process. We also found that the Canadian Armed Forces did not set time standards for some steps of the process. In our opinion, it...took too long to decide whether charges should be laid and to refer cases to prosecutors. Prosecutors did not meet their time standards for making decisions to proceed to court martial. Where they did proceed, it took too long to schedule the court martial.

In that one paragraph, there is a lot of work that can be done, very easily, to fulfill the requirements, both the requests of the report and also the commitments you're making in this response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Nuttall. We'll have an opportunity to come back to you again later.

In the meantime, we now go to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here, in particular, Deputy and Commodore.

I spent a few months as my party's defence critic. One of the things I came away with was a better understanding that esprit de corps in the armed forces is everything. It is so critical.

I have to admit that as I was going through this, my emotion was one of sorrow more than anger. I was saddened that we, you, the department, let our forces down so severely in an area that is so crucial to Canadian values, and that is a fair justice system. For the most part, when you sign up, you pretty much turn your life over to the department, and there is an obligation.... It's disheartening to think that an important part of our defence department could be operating so poorly and so incompetently.

There are two pieces to this, as I see it. One is the deputy minister being accountable for the implementation of policies overall. There's a failure here. That's at your doorstep, Deputy, and that's partly why you're here. That's part of the accountability process. That stands alone. You and your minister carry the can for that.

Now, drilling down and being a bit more fair-minded, I can appreciate that you and the minister and the chief of the defence staff would rely on JAG for legal advice and the legal system within the department, so I'm putting a lot of the details for responsibility on the part of JAG. If I put myself in the shoes of the minister, that's who you rely on to give you the expert advice, that's who you rely on to make sure that the fundamental rights of Canada are being upheld.

To me, Commodore, you're a bit on the spot here. I don't want to leave the deputy's responsibility, but I do want to talk about the audit.

The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Canadian Armed Forces administered the military justice system efficiently. Under “Conclusion”, it says, “We concluded that the Canadian Armed Forces did not administer the military justice system efficiently.” Deputy, overall you own this.

However, when I go to page 14, headed up “Overseeing the administration of the military system”, and I quickly look at 3.62, “Context”, it tells me, and this is from the AG's report, “The Judge Advocate General is responsible for ensuring that the military justice system operates efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with the rule of law.”

The subheading, under “Overseeing the administration of the military justice system”, says, “The Office of the Judge Advocate General did not provide effective oversight of the military justice system”. The first point on that page, "Overall message", says, “Overall, we found that the Office of the Judge Advocate General did not provide effective oversight of the military justice system.”

This process here is about accountability.

Commodore, explain yourself and this department's complete failure to ensure that there was a proper justice system in our military system. Please explain how we got in this mess.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

First I want to indicate my full personal commitment to ensuring that all of the management action plan that is described—that has been communicated to the committee—gets implemented. That is crucial for me as judge advocate general.

The second thing that I want to affirm to the committee is that I have responsibility for the superintendence of the military justice system. This is quite right. This is my responsibility. This is my duty. It falls on me. I acknowledge that. It's absolutely right that a military justice system that will respond to the requirements of our Canadian Armed Forces—a system that they have every right to expect will be fair and just and timely—needs to remain such.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Remain? It needs to get there.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

It is a system that, in order to remain legitimate, needs to be transparent, and that's what we're doing today. That's what we're doing every time we're being reviewed by external reviews. This is what we're doing every time the Supreme Court of Canada is reviewing aspects of our military justice system. It's one that needs to remain accountable. That's what we're doing today.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Commodore, I'm sorry to interrupt but you know we have limited time. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm sorry, the accountability is here and I asked you to be accountable. I didn't ask you what you're doing going forward. That's a separate part. This is a committee of accountability. We look in the rear-view mirror to see what's been done.

This department is a mess. You're responsible. I didn't hear an explanation yet.

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

I think to put things in context, we need to nuance what has been said by the Office of the Auditor General. What they have said is that there was not “effective oversight”. The Auditor General has never said that there was no oversight. We fully agree, as the deputy minister said, that this oversight has been fraught with challenges for the last several years, and that's what we're trying to fix.

It's a military justice system that spans across the entire territory of Canada and is even administered overseas. As mentioned in the Auditor General's comments at the beginning, it is one that is administered not only by courts, by service tribunals that are courts martial, but also by units all over Canada.

What the Auditor General has found, and it's completely accurate, is that currently the units are taking stock of how things get done on pieces of paper, on Excel spreadsheets. This data is then communicated to my office in order for us to maintain visibility on the aspects of how many summary trials, what charges, what are the outcomes...so there is performance measurement. There is oversight and monitoring, but that is not sufficient in 2018, and we recognize that.

With the justice administration and information management system that we will put in place and that we're currently developing—it's at stage two of its development, and we're testing every single phase as we go through—that will allow not only me, but every single actor that has a role to play as a decision-maker in the military justice system to see in real time where a case is and whether the time standards that have been defined and included in this computer-based system have been respected. If not, why not? Because they will be required to enter into that system the reasons that time standards were not met.

Then—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're a minute over so we'll maybe come back to that.

We'll now move to Monsieur Massé.

Mr. Massé, you have seven minutes.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Thomas and Ms. Bernatchez, as a follow-up to the questions from my colleague Mr. Christopherson, can you explain to me what prevented the implementation of a case management and information management system?

Given that most departments and most lawyers’ offices have, for a number of years, implemented systems to help them properly manage and administer their files, how is it that such a system has still not been implemented today? How do we explain why the department is so slow in implementing a system of that kind?

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you very much for the question. I'll begin. Certainly, the commodore can jump in.

It wasn't a priority within the department. Other systems were a priority—operational systems for the forces out fighting, systems for the air force, army, navy, to support them as they were conducting operations. This system has now been prioritized as a result of the Auditor General's report—there is absolutely no doubt—and as a result of Commodore Bernatchez's leadership.

One of the reasons we're putting a system in place is, yes, because it's overdue and things should be tracked electronically and through a case management process, but also, we no longer want the priorities, the measurement, the management of the office of the JAG to be individual and personality-dependent. This particular JAG has a very broad interest in ensuring proper oversight of her operations. The next one might not, which is not acceptable. I totally understand that, and I am accountable for ensuring the proper administration of the department, but we want to remove personality from the process and ensure that we have proper data management.

It wasn't a priority previously. It is now.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I understand completely that important military activities have to be undertaken. In an office as important as yours, are finances in issue? If you had had the funds needed to implement such a system, would you have been able to make it a priority before now?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

Thank you.

Let me put things in perspective and explain for the committee.

The military justice system has all the independent participants found in a justice system. By that I mean investigators, prosecutors, defence counsel, judges and upper courts that review cases. It’s a complete criminal law jurisdiction that has to be contained within a self-sustaining system.

Let me go back to the question you first asked. You asked me why we had not implemented a case management system on the scale of JAIMS before now—

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Excuse me for interrupting.

You mentioned the scale of the JAIMS. So that ordinary Canadians can understand, can you tell us in broad terms how many people will be using the system?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

I would not be able to tell you exactly.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Are we talking 100,000 people, 10,000 people?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

It is everyone who has a role. When a complaint is filed in a given case, the person responsible for the complaint has to make an entry in the management system, until the case is completely resolved.

These are the same people I talked to you about earlier. It is difficult to put a number on them. We know—