# DND Accused of Using Pandemic to Withhold Info- Broad Topic of Clerks+Per File



## EnchantedEng (3 Jun 2020)

Defence Department accused of using pandemic to withhold info from Parliament

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB14Xx4O?m=en-ca&referrerID=InAppShare

OTTAWA — The Department of National Defence stands accused of trying to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to withhold information from Parliament and Canadians.

There has been widespread concern about federal departments failing to respond to access-to-information requests since the crisis first started in earnest in March, but the Opposition Conservatives say the problem is much worse at the Defence Department.

"By far National Defence is the worst offender," said Conservative defence critic James Bezan. "There seems to be a systemic breakdown in being transparent in the department, or there's intentional disregard for what Canadians have been requesting."

The allegation stems from the department's failure in recent months to respond to a large number of questions on the order paper, which are one of the primary means for members of Parliament to get information about the inner workings of federal departments.

Departments have 45 days to respond to order paper questions, which include everything from the number of veterans receiving government-subsidized Viagra to how much the government spent on advertising to the number of RCMP officers by province.

Yet in more than a dozen recent requests, the Defence Department did not respond. One of those asked how many government ships had broken down in the last year. While the Canadian Coast Guard provided a response, the Defence Department did not.

"During the unprecedented COVID-19 situation, public servants are required to work remotely and have limited access to the tools and files requested," the department wrote in response to a recent request by Conservative MP Lianne Rood.

Bezan also flagged concerns about testimony from parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux to a House of Commons' committee last week about the watchdog's request for updated information on the government's plan to invest billions in new military kit.

"We were supposed to get the information on time to provide parliamentarians with an update," Giroux told the standing committee on government operations and estimates on Friday.

"May was the target date for us, but we didn't get the information on time. ... We were told it will be delayed by a couple of weeks, but we have not received it yet."

The Liberal government's defence policy unveiled in 2017 promised $553 billion in defence spending over the next two decades, though it has been slow in getting that money out the door.

The Defence Department acknowledged it had failed to respond to 17 order paper questions in April and May and was unable to provide the information that Giroux asked to see about the planned defence spending, citing COVID-19 as the reason.

"Work on the request the PBO referred to has, in fact, been impacted by COVID-19 given the requirements for our analysts to work from secure systems inaccessible from home," Defence Department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said an in email.

He went on to blame personnel having "limited access to certain records and databases" and "key military staff" being tasked with supporting the government's COVID-19 response for not responding to the order paper question.

At the same time, Le Bouthillier said officials did respond to 12 order paper questions while Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office said officials helped the budget officer analyze the cost of the military's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in April.

"The Department of National Defence and the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces have been working around the clock helping Canadians during this pandemic," Sajjan's spokesman, Todd Lane, said in a statement.

"Despite the challenges that the pandemic has posed, we remain committed to transparency and being accountable to Parliament."

Bezan nonetheless accused the government and department of failing to provide information to Canadians and parliamentarians, whose job is to hold the government to account.

"At the beginning (of the pandemic), I would say they had the right to make those decisions," he said. "But we're getting to a point now that this has become a government and Minister Sajjan, in particular, stonewalling the accountability aspect of his role."

If there are legitimate concerns, he added, efforts should be underway to install proper protocols and provide adequate safety equipment to let defence officials return to their offices and "fulfil the obligations the government has to Parliament."

Treasury Board President Jean-Yves Duclos, who is responsible for public access to government information, sent a letter to his cabinet colleagues last week reminding them of the need for transparency even during the COVID-19 pandemic

The message followed calls from information commissioner Caroline Maynard, the Canadian Association of Journalists and an ad-hoc accountability group for concrete actions to ensure transparency during the crisis.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 3, 2020.

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jun 2020)

The questions I've seen have been really broad, poorly defined and lacking any context of when they were asked to figure out what they are looking for.  Usually too they spend weeks filtering down to the level of whoever gets pinged with answering it. Usually a bit surprised at how ignorant the MPs are.  Then, once the answer gets figured out, there is usually a painful review process where it goes back up the chain, and the answer is simplified like you are talking to a six year old.  What does 'number of times a ship broke down' even mean?  Can count on one hand the number of times we've had to go off mission because of an equipment issue, but there were probably thousands of things repaired in that time.

Would be interested to see the actual questions, and how many of them are just random unimportant factoids so they can manufacture some outraged headline.  Honestly think most MPs are token representatives marking time and converting oxygen, and you could effectively get everything done and have an opposition with room for other parties with less then 100 total.


----------



## CountDC (3 Jun 2020)

had the privilege of responding from the unit level on information requests.  The time line I had on one was 2 days or justify why I couldn't provide the information.  These do tend to be totally ridiculous requests that are obvious fishing trips with a net.  Let's cast a net and see what we catch.

While on the subject - serving members please stop filing requests for your pers file, leave records, etc through this means.  You are able to obtain directly from the OR and should be able to get a lot faster from them.  You should review your file yearly and request copies of anything you want at that time.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jun 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> While on the subject - serving members please stop filing requests for your pers file, leave records, etc through this means.  You are able to obtain directly from the OR and should be able to get a lot faster from them.  You should review your file yearly and request copies of anything you want at that time.



If members are resorting to ATIP for either personal information or information they require to do their jobs, it's an indicator of either a lack of knowledge or a lack of trust in their CoC.


----------



## Lumber (3 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If members are resorting to ATIP for either personal information or information they require to do their jobs, it's an indicator of either a lack of knowledge or a lack of trust in their CoC.



Could also just be the pervasive idea htat for some reason members aren't allowed to see their own pers files. I don't know who started this rumor, it must have been decades ago, but it's still around.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Could also just be the pervasive idea htat for some reason members aren't allowed to see their own pers files. I don't know who started this rumor, it must have been decades ago, but it's still around.



They can't see it _on their own_, so perhaps think they can't see it at all?


----------



## CBH99 (3 Jun 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Could also just be the pervasive idea htat for some reason members aren't allowed to see their own pers files. I don't know who started this rumor, it must have been decades ago, but it's still around.




Not going to lie, when I was in, I was told that numerous times by different parties.

Never for any one particular thing, and I never requested to see it.  It would just come up randomly when discussing PER or courses, etc.

I always thought that 'not allowed to see your own file' was a real thing.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jun 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Could also just be the pervasive idea htat for some reason members aren't allowed to see their own pers files. I don't know who started this rumor, it must have been decades ago, but it's still around.



What do people think is in their PERs file that is so secretive? Weird.  You just aren't allowed to see it on your own because someone might remove a RW or something, not because someone is scribbling notes and dropping it in their for eternity.

Also strange that stuff isn't digitized; would be so much easier, and wouldn't get lost when you are posted.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jun 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> What do people think is in their PERs file that is so secretive? Weird.  You just aren't allowed to see it on your own because someone might remove a RW or something, not because someone is scribbling notes and dropping it in their for eternity.
> 
> Also strange that stuff isn't digitized; would be so much easier, and wouldn't get lost when you are posted.



Digitalize it as read only on EMMA. Problem solved


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> While on the subject - serving members please stop filing requests for your pers file, leave records, etc through this means.  You are able to obtain directly from the OR and should be able to get a lot faster from them.  You should review your file yearly and request copies of anything you want at that time.



That's incorrect, unless it's a few specific things you are looking for such as an old course report, CF98 or something, if you want the whole Pers File as many people do, they are told to submit an ATI for it, it's not just a CFSU(O) policy either, any OR, I'm aware of  across the country does that.  OR's are short staffed enough and we don't have time to be photocopying entire files for people.


----------



## garb811 (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> That's incorrect, unless it's a few specific things you are looking for such as an old course report, CF98 or something, if you want the whole Pers File as many people do, they are told to submit an ATI for it, it's not just a CFSU(O) policy either, any OR, I'm aware of  across the country does that.  OR's are short staffed enough and we don't have time to be photocopying entire files for people.


You do know you're just going to end up photocopying it anyway when they submit the Privacy Act request, right? So just cut out all the staff officers in the middle and do what's right instead of hoping the person isn't going to bother with the paperwork.  It's policies and attitudes like that which have bogged the system down to the point of being useless for people who have a genuine need to use a Privacy Act request to get something off of a databank they can't access by walking into the OR.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They can't see it _on their own_, so perhaps think they can't see it at all?



They can't see it on their own meaning they can't ask for it and go off with it alone and have the chance to remove things or add things if they were so inclined however, they also don't need to have their supervisor present.  When doing a DAG they are given a chance to look at it, I usually let them skim through it while updating forms during their DAG or they can just make an appointment with any of the HRA's or sometimes even just walk in and if not busy we can sit with them.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> You do know you're just going to end up photocopying it anyway when they submit the Privacy Act request, right? So just cut out all the staff officers in the middle and do what's right instead of hoping the person isn't going to bother with the paperwork.  It's policies and attitudes like that which have bogged the system down to the point of being useless for people who have a genuine need to use a Privacy Act request to get something off of a databank they can't access by walking into the OR.



We get the request from Access to Information with the address and name of who to send it to.  We put it in an envelop and drop it in the mail and it gets return to us a few weeks later.


----------



## garb811 (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> We get the request from Access to Information with the address and name of who to send it to.  We put it in an envelop and drop it in the mail and it gets return to us a few weeks later.


That's interesting. Anytime I have to reply to an ATI request it is very clearly specified that copies are to be sent, not originals. Guess Ottawa is so flush with cash they can afford to hire minions to do the copying for them.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jun 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> That's interesting. Anytime I have to reply to an ATI request it is very clearly specified that copies are to be sent, not originals. Guess Ottawa is so flush with cash they can afford to hire minions to do the copying for them.



There are differences between handing of Access to Information Act (ATI) and Privacy Act requests.  "All records pertaining to CAF Jellybean purchases" is an ATI request; "A copy of my Pers File" is a Privacy Act request.  Both lumped together as ATIP, but different legislation and different handling.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2020)

[quote author=dapaterson]Privacy Act request.  
[/quote]

Bit off topic but from what I'm hearing a lot of gun owners are filing requests under the privacy act with the RCMP to find out what guns the RCMP has registered or associated with their name and asking for all information pertaining to them and social media.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are differences between handing of Access to Information Act (ATI) and Privacy Act requests.  "All records pertaining to CAF Jellybean purchases" is an ATI request; "A copy of my Pers File" is a Privacy Act request.  Both lumped together as ATIP, but different legislation and different handling.



I forgot to add the P.  Anyway the way it works in the NCR is that the mbr makes the request to ATIP, the request is sent to the Coord at CFSU(O) who forwards it to the positional box which is monitored by the WO, I believe.  It then gets sent the Sgt who forwards it to the MCpl for the cell that handles the requesting mbr's letter group.  The MCpl will assign it to one of the Cpl/Pte's to get it off the shelf, package it up and send it off Access to information.  They make the copies and send it out to the mbr.  It is then returned back to CFSU(O) and it goes back on the shelf.  It's been a few years since I've worked in that unit but that's the same procedure that has been in place for many years across the country.  At CFSU(O) and I'm sure others, they have little pieces of paper with the instructions on how to make the request.  At least when I was there, most of the clerks would ask if it was something specific they wanted and if so, we could get it for them but only if was no more than a few pages.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> That's interesting. Anytime I have to reply to an ATI request it is very clearly specified that copies are to be sent, not originals. Guess Ottawa is so flush with cash they can afford to hire minions to do the copying for them.



It's not just Ottawa, it's everywhere.  We are too short of HRA's and if a mbr requests a copy of their Pers File that could take a full day or more.  Some of these people have 2 volumes of thick files.  
A bit off topic but medical records at the Montfort doesn't send them off, they do it themselves and I've heard some of those files are also thick.

If I'm not mistaken you're an MPO?  If someone is asking for something from you I would assume it's an MP report or something similar which might be a handful of pages that could be done fairly quick.  Think about a unit at a smaller place like Gander or like North Bay for example.  They might have a few HRA's.  If 5 people decide to get together and request copies of their Pers Files, it's going to throw a wrench into other work getting done.


----------



## ballz (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> That's incorrect, unless it's a few specific things you are looking for such as an old course report, CF98 or something, if you want the whole Pers File as many people do, they are told to submit an ATI for it, it's not just a CFSU(O) policy either, any OR, I'm aware of  across the country does that.  OR's are short staffed enough and we don't have time to be photocopying entire files for people.



I never had that issue with an OR before, but I can only recall a couple of times where someone requested to see their pers file.



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I forgot to add the P.  Anyway the way it works in the NCR is that the mbr makes the request to ATIP, the request is sent to the Coord at CFSU(O) who forwards it to the positional box which is monitored by the WO, I believe.  It then gets sent the Sgt who forwards it to the MCpl for the cell that handles the requesting mbr's letter group.  The MCpl will assign it to one of the Cpl/Pte's to get it off the shelf, package it up and send it off Access to information.  They make the copies and send it out to the mbr.  It is then returned back to CFSU(O) and it goes back on the shelf.  It's been a few years since I've worked in that unit but that's the same procedure that has been in place for many years across the country.  At CFSU(O) and I'm sure others, they have little pieces of paper with the instructions on how to make the request.  At least when I was there, most of the clerks would ask if it was something specific they wanted and if so, we could get it for them but only if was no more than a few pages.



Jesus H Christ. How many ranks/organizations/mail-runs need to be involved instead of just allowing the member to make an appointment with a Corporal HRA? There can't be so many people requesting to see their pers file that this is necessary.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I never had that issue with an OR before, but I can only recall a couple of times where someone requested to see their pers file.
> 
> Jesus H Christ. How many ranks/organizations/mail-runs need to be involved instead of just allowing the member to make an appointment with a Corporal HRA? There can't be so many people requesting to see their pers file that this is necessary.



You lost me... It's no problem at all for a mbr to see their Pers File and no one other than the mbr and a HRA needs to be involved.  The mbr can usually even get a few copies off it if they want.  As I said, the mbr can make an appointment with any HRA regardless of rank or often just walk in an ask if they can look at it for a few minutes.  The problem is if they want a copy of the entire file.  That's when the request needs to be made to ATIP.  In a place like the NCR, it's almost a daily occurrence.  ATIP requests come in every couple weeks at least.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jun 2020)

Here's the Privacy Act thing.  You are allowed to access and look at your Pers File.

The minute you request a copy, however, the Privacy Act kicks in.  Which means that most references to others in your file have to be stripped before it is released to you, since they have not consented to the disclosure of their personal information.

So, the course loading messages in your file?  There's a redaction required of some of the personally identifiable information of the others involved.  The memo that lists the seven people exposed to a halogen release? The personally identifying information about the other six has to be redacted.

Sending the file to someone who knows what they're doing in the realm of Privacy Act disclosures is more time efficient than trying to train all HRAs to be privacy experts, on top of their regular duties.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bit off topic but from what I'm hearing a lot of gun owners are filing requests under the privacy act with the RCMP to find out what guns the RCMP has registered or associated with their name and asking for all information pertaining to them and social media.



I'm betting they are getting very few responses. If the musical ride has social media info in a file, it's very likely intelligence or related to a confidential complaint, and they don't usually have to disclose that to a requester.


----------



## ballz (4 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You lost me... It's no problem at all for a mbr to see their Pers File and no one other than the mbr and a HRA needs to be involved. The mbr can usually even get a few copies off it if they want.  As I said, the mbr can make an appointment with any HRA regardless of rank or often just walk in an ask if they can look at it for a few minutes.  The problem is if they want a copy of the entire file.  That's when the request needs to be made to ATIP.  In a place like the NCR, it's almost a daily occurrence.  ATIP requests come in every couple weeks at least.



Misunderstood what you were saying. Sounded like people were being told to submit an ATIP if they wanted to see the file. Now, particularly with the context of DAP's post, I understand the difference between asking to see it and getting a few copies of something vice the whole thing.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jun 2020)

ATIP is two different domains of law, both complex... and neither is fun to have as a background issue in a brief in front of the DM and CDS and a handful of 3* and civilian equivalents.

Or so I have heard.


----------



## stellarpanther (4 Jun 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Misunderstood what you were saying. Sounded like people were being told to submit an ATIP if they wanted to see the file. Now, particularly with the context of DAP's post, I understand the difference between asking to see it and getting a few copies of something vice the whole thing.


----------



## garb811 (4 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's the Privacy Act thing.  You are allowed to access and look at your Pers File.
> 
> The minute you request a copy, however, the Privacy Act kicks in.  Which means that most references to others in your file have to be stripped before it is released to you, since they have not consented to the disclosure of their personal information.
> 
> ...


Here's the actual Privacy Act thing, it applies all the time, not just when someone submits an ATIP. My right of access kicks in as soon as I submit my ATIP application but the requirement to properly safeguard my personal information IAW the Privacy Act exists from the moment the Department collects it until it is properly disposed of.  But, as someone who is humblebragging about having breifed on this, "...in front of the DM and CDS and a handful of 3* and civilian equivalents", I'm sure you already knew that and just misspoke, right?

If it's your contention that DAIP must be the one who vets the file for personal information of other people because HRA aren't the experts on this, who does it when:

- I walk into the OR and ask to see my pers file?
- I want a copy of a course loading message that includes 23 other people and the HRA who handed me my pers file gives me one?
- My supervisor pulls my pers file in order to review it because I have applied for a commisioning program?
- My pers file is accesed by CFNIS in the course of an investigation with legal authority?
- etc etc

The fact CAF/DND thinks the best way to deal with other people's personal information being placed on someone's pers file is to ensure every pers file being released in full is vetted by DAIP speaks volumes as to why CAF/DND is still not in full compliance with the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act almost 40 years later.  It also makes me wonder what actions DAIP is taking with regard to these transgressions when they find them as part of their vetting process.

FWIW, if someone is documenting exposure during a halogen release via a memo with a bulk listing of personnel, they need to be sent on a Safety Management Course and their UGSO needs to be replaced.

AFWIW: It is totally within the remit of HRA to be conducting quality control of what is going on to pers files to ensure it is in compliance with the Privacy Act, they are supposed to be the experts at human resource administration...it's even in the title of their trade.


----------



## CountDC (10 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> That's incorrect, unless it's a few specific things you are looking for such as an old course report, CF98 or something, if you want the whole Pers File as many people do, they are told to submit an ATI for it, it's not just a CFSU(O) policy either, any OR, I'm aware of  across the country does that.  OR's are short staffed enough and we don't have time to be photocopying entire files for people.





			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> That's incorrect, unless it's a few specific things you are looking for such as an old course report, CF98 or something, if you want the whole Pers File as many people do, they are told to submit an ATI for it, it's not just a CFSU(O) policy either, any OR, I'm aware of  across the country does that.  OR's are short staffed enough and we don't have time to be photocopying entire files for people.



I have received mine every time I asked which has been every 5 years.  I have also done the copying for requests when a JR and have had my staff do it since then.  First step though is to talk to the member as most times it was a matter of the member wanted to see the file and thought that was the only way they could because of that nasty rumour.  Last ATI I received slightly over a year ago I talked to the member, gave him a date to have his pers file copy in a reasonable time and had him cancel the request.  Better to do things under my own timelines than 2 days mandated by someone else.  If everyone requested a complete copy of their file at once I could see a problem but a few a year should not be an issue for any office given the speed of copiers these days.  I also try to get everyone to review their file every year and ask then for anything they want a copy of.  Yes sometimes I had to work a bit late but then I always do anyway so no change (I know, not supposed to expect people to put in extra hours on occasion).  If this is having a major impact on the office I have to wonder what they are doing to begin with that scheduling one day to photocopy and redact is so hard.  I use to schedule a Saturday a month to do my PA, guess that is not allowed either. 

With the system you described are you really saving much time overall?  Mbr has to complete a request, submits to office that processes the request and sends through multi-levels to eventually end up on the clerks desk for action.  Seems like a lot of people and man-hours adding up to no real savings overall but is great for job justification. 

HRA's trained?  Did something change that I was not aware of?  Not that hard and we were always taught it in the past - information on a need to know basis only.  Does Cpl Bloggins need to know Cpl Screwup's address, phone number, etc?  No, then don't provide.  One of my fav's is the numerous things that insist on having a copy of the mbrs MPRR.  Why?  If requesting medal mounting why does the supply god need the mprr which contains everything?  I blacked out almost the whole thing and sent it with only the mbrs sn, rank, name and the medal field showing that the entitlement was there.  

I have heard the "not allowed to see your file" rumour numerous times.  I have always told them - it is your pers file, you are entitled to see what is in there.  Insist on an appointment to review your file if you want to see it.  Either your supervisor or a clerk will have to be present to ensure nothing gets removed that is supposed to be there.    And yes, I have seen notes placed on pers files that should not be there simply because Capt SoSo wrote something and asked it be pa'd to the file in case he needed it later. Never been charged? Are you sure? there is a report on your pers file that says you were found guilty of …. oh wait, that is the wrong name.  Oops, guess it was pa'd to the wrong file. I'm sure it didn't impact anything. 

Enough - having a bad day dealing with HRA's that can't answer simple questions I sent them in short plain language so into rant mode.   Don't even recall what the original start was but sure am off the topic.  

- Staff edit to fix quote box


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Jun 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I have received mine every time I asked which has been every 5 years.  I have also done the copying for requests when a JR and have had my staff do it since then.  First step though is to talk to the member as most times it was a matter of the member wanted to see the file and thought that was the only way they could because of that nasty rumour.  Last ATI I received slightly over a year ago I talked to the member, gave him a date to have his pers file copy in a reasonable time and had him cancel the request.  Better to do things under my own timelines than 2 days mandated by someone else.  If everyone requested a complete copy of their file at once I could see a problem but a few a year should not be an issue for any office given the speed of copiers these days.  I also try to get everyone to review their file every year and ask then for anything they want a copy of.  Yes sometimes I had to work a bit late but then I always do anyway so no change (I know, not supposed to expect people to put in extra hours on occasion).  If this is having a major impact on the office I have to wonder what they are doing to begin with that scheduling one day to photocopy and redact is so hard.  I use to schedule a Saturday a month to do my PA, guess that is not allowed either.
> 
> With the system you described are you really saving much time overall?  Mbr has to complete a request, submits to office that processes the request and sends through multi-levels to eventually end up on the clerks desk for action.  Seems like a lot of people and man-hours adding up to no real savings overall but is great for job justification.
> 
> ...



CountDC... Are you a currently serving HRA?  The reason I ask is because some of what you say would lead to someone potentially getting in shit.  If a supervisor requests a Pers File and goes over it with the mbr that's fine but nothing is supposed to be taken off the file to copy.  That should be done by the HRA.  What you also said about filling an ATIP to request a copy of the file is also incorrect.  It will not end up on a clerks desk, unless by clerk you mean a clerk with ATIP.  First the CAF does not have clerks any longer, they have HRA's and FSA's.  Second, we do not do as you suggest and if you found someone to do that for you it shouldn't have happened.  Something that bugs me and has for a long time is this thing about other trades telling us what our job is.  We don't tell the infantry how to plan a section attack or tell the Vehicle tech how to do a brake job.  People need to stop telling us how to do ours.


----------



## trooper142 (11 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> CountDC... Are you a currently serving HRA?  The reason I ask is because some of what you say would lead to someone potentially getting in crap.  If a supervisor requests a Pers File and goes over it with the mbr that's fine but nothing is supposed to be taken off the file to copy.  That should be done by the HRA.  What you also said about filling an ATIP to request a copy of the file is also incorrect.  It will not end up on a clerks desk, unless by clerk you mean a clerk with ATIP.  First the CAF does not have clerks any longer, they have HRA's and FSA's.  Second, we do not do as you suggest and if you found someone to do that for you it shouldn't have happened.  Something that bugs me and has for a long time is this thing about other trades telling us what our job is.  We don't tell the infantry how to plan a section attack or tell the Vehicle tech how to do a brake job.  People need to stop telling us how to do ours.



I dont comment very often; but I have highlighted  somethings I would like to comment on. By no means do I mean any disrespect, but I feel like the above yellow highlighted comment is a bit of a nuance no? I mean I think we can all agree we know what he was referring to when he said clerk, seems a bit petty to me.

Second in green; I have an issue with that. IMO it is incumbent on the member to ask questions about their career and how it is being managed; its no different with pay and records. I dont believe its possible for every HRA or FSA to know everything; and I have often encountered new privates at the front desk who look at me doe eyed; perfectly normal, they're learning. Best believe I am going to politely correct someone if what they are saying it out of touch with policy or affects me negatively from an admin standpoint. Allowing constructive criticism or feedback is an important part of growth. I know that may not be what you were eluding to, but it just erks me when people say dont tell me how to do my job, it comes off as gatekeeperesque and can sour people right quick!

On that note; although I have a short 10 years in the military; I do recall the rumour of not being allowed to see pers file; it wasnt until recently(within the last few years) that I insisted on personally looking through my pers file regularly to ensure I understood what was in there. I know that isn't the reality everywhere in the military and some HRA's manage heavier workloads than others, but it should be a regular thing the troops are encouraged to do; perhaps during the annual APRV?

Anyways, just my  :2c:


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Jun 2020)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> I dont comment very often; but I have highlighted  somethings I would like to comment on. By no means do I mean any disrespect, but I feel like the above yellow highlighted comment is a bit of a nuance no? I mean I think we can all agree we know what he was referring to when he said clerk, seems a bit petty to me.
> 
> Second in green; I have an issue with that. IMO it is incumbent on the member to ask questions about their career and how it is being managed; its no different with pay and records. I dont believe its possible for every HRA or FSA to know everything; and I have often encountered new privates at the front desk who look at me doe eyed; perfectly normal, they're learning. Best believe I am going to politely correct someone if what they are saying it out of touch with policy or affects me negatively from an admin standpoint. Allowing constructive criticism or feedback is an important part of growth. I know that may not be what you were eluding to, but it just erks me when people say dont tell me how to do my job, it comes off as gatekeeperesque and can sour people right quick!
> 
> ...



I should have worded it better but it's something that's being pushed right from the CWO's on down.  They're trying to eliminate the word "clerk" and we've actually been told we are to correct people whenever we hear it used.  Like I said, I should have chosen my words better.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Jun 2020)

Clerk

noun
1.
a person employed in an office or bank to keep records, accounts, and undertake other routine administrative duties.

Seems pretty fitting for both HRAs and FSAs working in an OR no?  The trade may not be called « Clerk » anymore but in terms of duties, they are clerks.  I personally find it a lot more fitting than the « administrator » title:

Administrator 
noun
a person responsible for running a business, organization, etc.


----------



## dimsum (11 Jun 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Clerk
> 
> noun
> 1.
> ...



I'm curious as to why they changed the title in the first place.  Is "clerk" not gender-neutral and an appropriate name for the job?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Jun 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to why they changed the title in the first place.  Is "clerk" not gender-neutral and an appropriate name for the job?



I was told it had more to do with after the members left the military than anything else. Civvy side I believe they looked at clerk as a very basic type job, even if the person was higher up and managing things and therefore made it harder for former members to transition.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to why they changed the title in the first place.  Is "clerk" not gender-neutral and an appropriate name for the job?



The MESIP that recreated what was before (less the CEP Techs) likely has the rationale for using "Admnistrator" versus "Clerk".  I do not think it is gender related


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jun 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I was told it had more to do with after the members left the military than anything else. Civvy side I believe they looked at clerk as a very basic type job, even if the person was higher up and managing things and therefore made it harder for former members to transition.



I’d believe that if ‘clerk’ didn’t actually appear in the ‘Related civilian jobs’ sections of both HRA and FSA recruiting pages.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Jun 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I’d believe that if ‘clerk’ didn’t actually appear in the ‘Related civilian jobs’ sections of both HRA and FSA recruiting pages.



Its one thing to try and get a job with a lower title (i.e. being a administrator and going to work as a clerk civvy side), its another to try and get one with a higher title (i.e. being a clerk and trying to get a administrator or supervisor job). People are very petty, and most don't bother to really look at what you actually did in a previous job, rather just the title.


----------



## ballz (11 Jun 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I was told it had more to do with after the members left the military than anything else. Civvy side I believe they looked at clerk as a very basic type job, even if the person was higher up and managing things and therefore made it harder for former members to transition.



Civilian-side what many of the FSAs are doing would be appropriately called "accounts payable clerk," "accounts receivable clerk," "bookkeeper," or for HRAs "payroll clerk" (even though that should be an FSA task, but I digress), etc. If they were to apply to a civilian job they'd be better to use those titles for each position, instead of their overall "trade" which is really "accountant."

They should have just called the FSAs "accountants" because everything they are supposed to be doing are actual accounting operations. However, the trade is absent of any leadership on both the NCM and Officer side of the house, and for the most part absent any competence on what accounting or "modern comptrollership" (the latest buzzword) is actually supposed to look like. Therefore our accountants are being used to do secretarial work like booking flights for people and doing their claims for them start-to-finish while the warehouse clerks (supply techs) are being used to pay the invoices and do bookkeeping.

I've been noticing a pattern where it seems that the inability to use proper nomenclature directly influences the end results.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Jun 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Civilian-side what many of the FSAs are doing would be appropriately called "accounts payable clerk," "accounts receivable clerk," "bookkeeper," or for HRAs "payroll clerk" (even though that should be an FSA task, but I digress), etc. If they were to apply to a civilian job they'd be better to use those titles for each position, instead of their overall "trade" which is really "accountant."
> 
> They should have just called the FSAs "accountants" because everything they are supposed to be doing are actual accounting operations. However, the trade is absent of any leadership on both the NCM and Officer side of the house, and for the most part absent any competence on what accounting or "modern comptrollership" (the latest buzzword) is actually supposed to look like. Therefore our accountants are being used to do secretarial work like booking flights for people and doing their claims for them start-to-finish while the warehouse clerks (supply techs) are being used to pay the invoices and do bookkeeping.
> 
> I've been noticing a pattern where it seems that the inability to use proper nomenclature directly influences the end results.



Accountants are a specific profession overseen by provincially governed bodies (similar to professional engineers, lawyers, doctors, nurses etc.). That's a totally different job then an accounts receivable clerk or the others you listed (maybe with the exception of book keeper; sometimes that's used interchangeably for accountants that have small businesses as clients). For example, when a tax accountant certifies they've completed your return, there are professional obligations where they are liable for following the tax laws, so there can be repercussions for them if they did something greasy. If you do get audited, part of what you pay for is for them to be the meat shield when CRA comes calling, and usually they have professional insurance/guarantees to cover any penalties if you are reassessed.

Not positive, but generally you aren't legally allowed to use the specific designation unless you have meet the criteria in the province. Usually when you find a job with clerk in the title, they are doing day to day transactional kind of things in a specific area (usually fairly repetitive). It's not necessarily easy, but doesn't usually involve a lot of required background knowledge/education (but probably has a lot of employer specific policy/SOP/process things to learn on the job). Personally I think administrator implies there is more interpreting and deciding which policy/process to apply to a given situation, so there may be a similar level of transactional kind of stuff, but usually needs more decision making first. A good/bad clerk can easily make/break your day, and the difference in speed in how fast they'll process something is usually obvious between someone new at it versus someone with experience, but it's a different skillset then an accountant.

Having said that, find job titles are completely meaningless, and unless it's something fairly specific in an org chart that is well understood people make up their own anyway. I've had small businesses where I've done my own bookkeeping and have always done my own taxes, but would be a huge stretch to say I've had experience as an accountant. Personally if I read a job application with an overblown title that doesn't have relevant education, training, or experience, I'm going to assume they are blowing smoke and discount what it says. Maybe that's just me, and probably a good thing that my primary job isn't working HR.  :dunno:


----------



## ballz (12 Jun 2020)

For context, I am one pending signature away from receiving the Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) designation. I don't mean that as an appeal to authority, but I'm about to say a bunch of stuff without any reference so I think it's important to point out that I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance at the very least.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Accountants are a specific profession overseen by provincially governed bodies (similar to professional engineers, lawyers, doctors, nurses etc.).



Not accurate. CPA is a specific profession, legislated (federally and provincially) and governed by a national body (CPA Canada) and administered by provincial bodies (CPA Alberta, CPA Ontario, etc.).

However, anybody can call themselves an "accountant" and there are many "accountant" positions that are not CPAs. Go to any job board posting and Accounting analyst, junior accountant, accountant, and senior accountants don't require a CPA. It's generally "Accounting Manager" positions that you'll see a CPA being required (and that's up to the organization). Or when you get into "Audit Manager," "Tax Manager," etc. you will see it requires a CPA.

This misunderstanding is exactly why CPA Canada is pushing for rules on the use of the word "accountant" vice right now where only "CPA" is protected.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> That's a totally different job then an accounts receivable clerk or the others you listed (maybe with the exception of book keeper; sometimes that's used interchangeably for accountants that have small businesses as clients).



All of those jobs are part of accounting operations, and so if you're looking at someone that does accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, book-keeping, assurance activities (inspections, post-payment verifications), budget management, etc., particularly when you get the _Sgt FSA_ level where you are supervising numerous accounting operations, it is not at all inaccurate to say that it's an _accountant_. So if you're looking for a general umbrella term to encompass what an FSA trade does, accountant is the as accurate as anything I can think of. 



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> For example, when a tax accountant certifies they've completed your return, there are professional obligations where they are liable for following the tax laws, so there can be repercussions for them if they did something greasy. If you do get audited, part of what you pay for is for them to be the meat shield when CRA comes calling, and usually they have professional insurance/guarantees to cover any penalties if you are reassessed.



Also not true. Anybody can do tax compilations. You simply need to register with CRA as a tax preparer. It's not until you get into _tax planning_ and some other activities that you have to be a CPA and have professional obligations. Yes, a tax preparer will certify that they've completed the return with all information provided by the client, and are not aware of anything that is being withheld, but if they screw up the return to the point of being fraudulent, it will have nothing to do with the CPA Canada (unless, of course, they are an actual CPA... then the professional body will get involved as well).



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not positive, but generally you aren't legally allowed to use the specific designation



You are not allowed to use the CPA designation unless you are a CPA, that is correct. But is not correct that you have be a CPA to be an accountant, a tax preparer, etc.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> but it's a different skillset then an accountant.



Disagree. Our FSAs are executing (Cpl/Pte) and supervising (Sgt/MCpl) accounting operations. At least, if you read the Master Task List for FSAs they are. Whether we are employing them IAW that direction is a different problem, and goes back to what I am saying that nomenclature can often influence the end results.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Personally if I read a job application with an overblown title that _doesn't have relevant education, training_, or experience, I'm going to assume they are blowing smoke and discount what it says.



You mean like nearly every Comptroller in the Canadian Armed Forces? And I don't say that to pump my own tires, just that those running our financial frameworks are generally woefully unprepared by the CAF, and it hurts the CAF in the long-run. ADM(RS) has had a string of audits over a multiple year period which have recognized a pattern in a need for "significant improvements" in the areas of governance over financial management.


----------



## Weinie (12 Jun 2020)

Folks,

Have we gotten a bit off topic here?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Jun 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> Have we gotten a bit off topic here?



On army.ca? Never...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jun 2020)

A bump because I changed the topic header.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (13 Jun 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to why they changed the title in the first place.  Is "clerk" not gender-neutral and an appropriate name for the job?



I was informed via Ottawa that the change was simply due to the trending of evolving job descriptions in the general sense of the term. Gender, civilian/military, etc was not a factor influencing the change, but rather what the perception was of the title itself. Administrator apparently implies specific training.

A good sum up: 


> ...you might think clerical and administrative work in an office is one and the same, but they are not. Clerical personnel are entry-level workers, generally, whereas administrative work is typically done by trained secretaries or administrative assistants.



So I’d understand it that trade training sees HRAs/FSAs (Administrators) are specifically trained in their field. Not just any individual who completes random clerical tasks around the office as asked; who may, or may not, receive distinctive training in the future. (Although that ends up happening too.)


----------

