National Defence committee  Certainly in this particular case, as we have heard in the media—and I'll go with that particular assumption—the complainant wanted to seek protection from reprisals, and I think allowed my predecessor to go forward to the minister to say, “Look, we have this particular issue and these are the types of allegations.”

National Defence committee  In this particular case, the allegation.... It's hard to say what the conversation was with the complainant. I don't have inside knowledge as to what that conversation was, but all I can go on is that my predecessor, Mr. Walbourne, was looking for protection, for “top cover” as he called it, for the complainant, before anything would go forward.

National Defence committee  All I can say is that the outcome that we saw in the end.... The allegations were not pursued. That is the real issue at heart. Why were they not pursued? It's my belief that the complainant did not have the confidence that anything would be done going forward. That is the problem.

National Defence committee  Yes. I think there were options that could have been pursued, but importantly, the complainant needed some top cover or needed some protection or some confidence to be able to pursue some of those allegations, and that person I think in the end did not receive that, or was not confident, and therefore nothing was done.

National Defence committee  If I were to ask him.... As my predecessor has said before in testimony, he was looking for top cover, for some protection or some coverage, that “yes, you will not have reprisal”. Even those simple words might have been important in enabling the complainant to pursue some particular avenue.

National Defence committee  I certainly think from my perspective it doesn't put me in a conflict of interest position. However, I think what we're seeing now with the—

National Defence committee  No. In essence, one of my roles within my mandate is as a special advisor to the minister. My role is to provide the minister with honest, open and transparent advice, and particularly honest advice. If it's conflicting with his views, that's not my consideration. My consideration is to provide open and honest advice.

National Defence committee  The analysis was done for me, so that I could understand what options may have been available during that particular process. You have to remember that I was not there during those meetings and therefore I was not aware of any of the conversations, nor was my office. After what we first heard about in the news, in the media, I wanted to understand what particular options would be available and whether there were options that my predecessor could have taken—that type of thing.

National Defence committee  My experience since I first started is that I have not had any issues with meeting with the minister. Obviously, the minister is a very busy person, with a department the size of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. That's a given. My experience is that I have not had any issues.

National Defence committee  Just before I started, Ms. Hynes, along with the management team, briefed me on the general responsibilities of the ombudsman's office, what types of investigations were being carried out at the time, the structure of the office and the management of the office. It was a very quick briefing, because I had to go to committee to be a witness on another committee just after that, but it gave me a very brief general overview of what the office was doing at the time and how it was structured—the budget, the structure and so on.

National Defence committee  Fundamentally, there's a second part that needs to be added to your context there. We'll assume for the time being that I would not have the authority to investigate criminal matters, which I wouldn't think would be appropriate in any case, nor matters that could result in charges under the code of service discipline.

National Defence committee  I think as I said before, yes, if I had the exact same circumstances, I would have brought it to the attention of the person I report directly to as the person who has control and responsibility over the department in which that person operates. I think that's an appropriate thing to do.

National Defence committee  I don't believe so. I think that is the reason why my predecessor brought that information forward. It was to at least give some substance to the idea that there was a credible allegation—not that it would have been found correct, but that there was a credible and significant allegation that should be pursued.

National Defence committee  Well, I think we're seeing now that it's not.... I come back to the point that it's not truly about where it's brought. It is truly about what confidence the member has to see that it would be progressed and advanced fairly and that they would have protection from reprisals. As I said before, perhaps PCO could have done it or hired it out, but I truly believe that in this case, given who the member was who is being alleged to have done something, it does require quite a deep level of knowledge and understanding of what the military environment is, and for that it may be difficult to find or to hire out.

National Defence committee  I think the main principle in this, as I stated in my opening remarks, is that it is the constituent who drives whether an investigation goes forward in this case. I think fundamentally the issue at heart, and particularly the issue at heart for this committee, in my opinion, is that we have to build a system that provides that confidence to those who want to come forward.