National Defence Committee on May 15th, 2014

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Oh, great. All right.

In civilian life, or at least in my past experience with being in that possible position, usually I find that it ends up being that there's some sort of monetary reward.

Is that always the case in the military, that you end up with monetary compensation, or are there other ways of dealing with how you address the issue to a successful conclusion?

[Gary Walbourne]

Sometimes it is a monetary issue, and other times it's not. Sometimes it could be a posting that someone, because of family responsibilities or issues, cannot move to at that point in time, so their resolution would be not to be posted in that particular season.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Mr. Walbourne.

Now we go to Ms. Murray for seven minutes.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you for being at the committee, and congratulations on your appointment, Mr. Walbourne.

I want to go back to the questions about sexual assault in the military. The Maclean's investigation and exposé was a startling revelation of what appeared to be some systemic concerns, a problem with people not just experiencing sexual assault, but more worrisome almost, not feeling safe to have recourse for that.

Has that been identified by the DND ombudsmen over the past years? I'm new on the committee, but I don't recall that this was flagged by the ombudsman's office.

Mr. Gauthier can perhaps tell us whether the alarm was raised on this issue by the ombudsman's office.

[Alain Gauthier]

The office has been tracking harassment in general for a few years. The sexual assault piece is something we are not dealing with as an office because it's not part of our mandate. For anything that is of a criminal nature, when people do call us, we immediately refer them to the military police, national investigation services, or even civilian police. So we are not dealing with those files, as we're not trained or qualified to deal with criminal issues.

On the harassment piece as a whole, over the last several years we've been receiving, on average, about 80 complaints related to harassment. Those include abuse of authority, personal harassment, hazing, but also sexual harassment. The sexual harassment is the smallest piece that we do receive, with, on average, three complaints a year.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay. Do you track when you receive a complaint about sexual assault and you advise them to go to the military police or their superior? Do you then track how often that is occurring?

[Alain Gauthier]

No, we're not. Essentially, we're not opening it as a formal complaint because we're not dealing with those complaints. So it's immediate referral. We send people to the proper authorities.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

If not the ombudsman's office, then where in the armed forces do people have a safe place to go with these kinds of concerns when it seems like, even in civil society, nine out of ten people don't step forward when there's been a sexual assault. It surprises me that it's really not your jurisdiction. Whose jurisdiction is it?

[Gary Walbourne]

As Alain said, it would be turned over to the military police or in some cases civilian authorities. I think it goes back to the point that we were talking about earlier. I think the reason for this external review is that this is part of the problem. People will not come forward because of the revictimization piece. They need to have a place where they can go to do that. What this review will do and determine at the end of the day is, first, what solutions to put in place so this type of incident doesn't happen again; and second, if it does, that there is recourse for the person.

I do believe that's where that committee will head at some point in time once the terms of reference have been defined.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So you see it as a failing in the system. It takes an investigative journalist from a weekly magazine to put the finger on a serious systemic problem in the armed forces.

[Gary Walbourne]

I believe there are failings all around. Again, I'll have to go back to it. I do believe some of those people did not come forward because of the things we've already discussed. Maybe they felt a little freer to talk to the journalist, where there could be some recognition, and maybe some protection would come out of that.

Yes, I think every time anything like this happens it's a failure on all of our parts.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Another area that's also been raised in this conversation is the ill and injured soldiers, and the shortage of professional health care support. Certainly at some of the bases there have been system-wide gaps, a failure still to date, I believe, to fill the positions that were identified in 2003 as needed for supporting ill and injured soldiers.

Do you see your office being a channel for improvement on that issue?

[Gary Walbourne]

Most definitely. This office has been involved with this type of issue—especially the mental health issue—since the first report, I think, in 2003. I think the last time the former ombudsman had testified, of the 447 positions they had created, only 380 had been staffed. From what we understand right now, 425 have been staffed, and Alain was telling me yesterday that there are staffing processes in place for the balance of those. So progress is being made.

Yes, to answer your question, most definitely, this office is very interested in this file. We do regular follow-ups on this and we will stay engaged.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

In your comments earlier you said your vision is to raise awareness to get to root causes and to bring lasting change, and I want to congratulate you for that clear vision.

What tools do you have for bringing lasting change? What are your tools for taking the report from raising awareness and identifying the causes and what you think is needed, to actually getting lasting change?

[Gary Walbourne]

Well, I'll boil it down to its base place, if I may. I think logic needs to be brought to bear when you look at unfairness. Some things are blatantly unfair, and I talked a little bit earlier about collaboration. We deal with the department at many levels. I do believe one of my roles is to get the seniors from the chain of command and the department to understand our position and what we're finding. I can say our success rate has been fairly good when I look back over time at the recommendations we've put forward that have been implemented. So I'm very pleased to see that there is a desire to work with us, but I do believe it comes down to that we have to be evidence-based, we have to show the case, lay it out in front of them.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So it's persuasion, in other words. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I do have a third area of questions.

Before I get to the last question, I want to bring your attention to this committee's 2009 report, which was called “Doing Well and Doing Better”, on health services provided to Canadian Forces personnel with PTSD. It's a report that has never been reviewed by the government.

We've seen no record to show that there's been any systematic attempt to take those recommendations and either work on them or jettison them. We've seen nothing that reports on the completion of the 36 recommendations or of progress on them. I invite you to take a look at that report as part of your orientation to what work has already been done to point to solutions to this—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Oh, I never made it to my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

We'll go to Mr. Chisu for five minutes.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Walbourne. Congratulations on your appointment.

While the issues of Veterans Affairs and National Defence have some overlap, these are quite different departments with different mandates. I want to emphasize that when we're looking at the ill and injured in National Defence, the main preoccupation of National Defence is to bring them back to be combat ready. That is their main preoccupation, to come back to their duties. When you are looking at Veterans Affairs, it's about how you are assisting them if and when they are released from the armed forces.

I think the overlap is on the transitional phase, and the transitional phase is very important when you are leaving the forces and are in the care of Veterans Affairs. I have seen a lot of problems there. For example, the medical files are not transferred directly to the VAC. Now, it is in the process—there's something in the armed forces—and I understand that they are digitalizing the medical files and so on.

In regard to looking at these differences, what is your vision for the office of the ombudsman for National Defence in looking at them and also at the overlap between the two departments?

[Gary Walbourne]

In regard to my vision, I'll take the question in relation to the transition piece between the two entities. As I said earlier, I do believe that there is a great opportunity for me and for the ombudsman at Veterans Affairs to help bridge the gaps: the transition piece, this handover versus hand-off, the digitalization of files, and those types of things.

On the service rate, injury, the universality of service, and you're out and then how you get into Veterans Affairs, I think those things can become a lot easier than they are. One of the things that the Veterans Ombudsman and I have been talking about is working together, with the support of both departments, to help find a way that we can make that transition much easier.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

You have extensive qualifications. I've read your bio. It's fantastic to bring them to the new position you have, because in this new position not only are you looking at the life in the military but you're looking also outside the military. Your qualifications are exceptional for that. How will you bring these qualifications to serve you in your position? How do you think that will happen?

[Gary Walbourne]

Well, I think the history I have with Veterans Affairs allows me to quickly understand what happens from the point of release through the transition period. I did spend about 10 years with the Department of National Defence prior to joining Veterans Affairs, so I'm familiar with the chain of command and basically with how things work.

Also, I have private sector experience. Someone asked the other day what that brings to the table. I think it brings a sense of urgency to the table. In the private sector—God love them—they are the first early adopters of new technology and new ways of doing things. I think there's a lot we can learn. I know that things and goals are different, but I do believe there's a bit and piece of everything that comes to make a better picture.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Why I put this question to you is that I served in the military for 24 years. I served in the reserves—in the reserves, you have people who are working in a different capacity—in the regular force, and in the cadets. I have quite extensive experience in the military life, as I said, and I like that you're emphasizing this experience that you have had in the private sector and in your qualifications, and how that will help you in dealing with all these branches of the Canadian Forces, and also with the civilians who are in National Defence.

[Gary Walbourne]

I think a broad base of experience is not going to hurt me. I think it will stand me well. You know, I do understand different perspectives, and because of my experience and my background and with my educational credentials, I think I'm well prepared to take on the diversity of this portfolio. You're right. It is vast. It's large and there are many issues. As I said, I think it all comes, part and parcel, with creating a full approach to the organization.