National Defence committee  Once an ATIP request comes in, anyone who is mentioned on it has to be engaged. The writer of some of this information also has the privilege to say, “No, I don't want it released.”

National Defence committee  Each case in and of itself is different. Some of these things are very minor issues that need to be dealt with. For some, it was a clerical error. For others, you would almost think it was a planned way forward not to release the information. Each and every case is different, and it depends on the circumstances of the case.

National Defence committee  It all depends which documents you're looking for. If you're looking for access to personnel records, that's fairly easily done, but it would depend on what documents they were searching for.

National Defence committee  The answer is yes to all of the above. Again, not to be flippant, but if it's something that has to do with a member's personnel file, it should be in their file. If it is something to do with an accusation of inappropriate behaviour or sexual misconduct, whatever that may be, it may not be captured in a personnel file and would end up being an ATIP request.

National Defence committee  I think it comes back to what Patrick has already said: We need to talk about accountability. If we keep rewarding poor behaviour, we're going to get poor behaviour. This is an accountability issue. I would say—and you're asking me in my jaded old age—that these types of things should all be outside of the military chain of command, but that's not going to happen.

National Defence committee  Absolutely.

National Defence committee  I'll liken that to when they set up the sexual misconduct response centre. We learned very quickly when it was rolled out that it reported through the chain of command to the chief of the defence staff and then, functionally, to the deputy minister. There was a lot of reluctance among members who had experienced this type of behaviour to come forward because there was no thought of independence.

National Defence committee  I think it opens up a venue where the concerns would be heard by a broader audience. It doesn't come down to an ombudsman going hat in hand looking for some money. It changes the ground, and it makes it different for everybody who would use the office.

National Defence committee  There's been incremental improvement. It would be unfair to say they haven't tried to do their best. I do believe, as Patrick has said, there has been some acceptance in the environment and people feel that, yes, they can come forward a bit more. I don't know if we've gotten down to the ground on this yet.

National Defence committee  Absolutely.

National Defence committee  Absolutely.

National Defence committee  In my opinion, it absolutely opens the door for more interference. If you say on paper who reports to the minister.... I had to go hat in hand to the deputy minister to get the money and authority to do staffing. If we put them in the same situation.... I don't know how or in what world you think you're increasing transparency if you start bringing everyone into the house and putting them under the same set of rules.

National Defence committee  It got worse. As an ombudsman, part of your role is to advise the minister and seek guidance on files that cannot be solved at the lower level. You have to go to the minister with issues, and sadly, a few of them are at the end of their life. If you can't get to the minister and if you get shut down, the doors are closed.

National Defence committee  I would have to ask, “As compared to what?”

National Defence committee  I can only speak from a personal perspective. I would absolutely say it's gotten worse. I went through a process at the end of my career that wasn't pretty. I referenced it in my opening comments, and I suggest you go back and look at the transcript. There were about eight or 10 people involved in that whole—I have to be careful here; I'm too old to be sued—situation.