National Defence Committee on March 3rd, 2021

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I understand, Mr. Walbourne, but in this case you have said that you didn't think it would be something to go to the provost marshal. You didn't think it was something to take to the SMRCs, which were there specifically to counsel some of the survivors, with or without an investigation.

You have said that this was something the survivor wanted to keep confidential. You don't think that PCO was the right place to go, and yet when you brought it to the minister, the very next day you got a call from PCO, which obviously shows that the minister took immediate action, within a day, to that authority. Yet then you say that the minister should not have broken that confidentiality by going to PCO.

What exactly is it that you wanted from the minister when you did go to see the minister, if you didn't want to take it to any of the appropriate authorities that would normally deal with this?

[Gary Walbourne]

Okay, first thing, let's talk about “appropriate authorities”. Without the victim's permission to investigate, there are no proper authorities. I had an allegation against the chief of the defence staff. He reports to the minister. I report to the minister.

I went to the minister in confidence. You say that the minister took action and ran to PCO. It's not what was asked of him. He is supposed to understand the confidence of these victims when they come forward. I'm sure he does. I asked him to come back to me with advice on what I could potentially do. I did not ask him to go to PCO, and I did not tell him to go and share it with anyone.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Walbourne, it's clear from the parliamentary committee in 2014, and also from a letter in your office, that you knew very well what the different avenues are. You didn't need to go to the minister to ask him “What should I do?” in a particular case. This is something where you could have gone to CFNIS, you could have gone to the SMRCs.... You could have referred the survivors anywhere, and yet you went to the minister saying “This is confidential and don't do anything about it.”

Of course, this is a GIC appointment, presuming that it is the CDS you were referring to. A GIC appointment is under PCO, so when the minister went to PCO, would that not have been the appropriate thing? He did it within a day. The minister did take action. He took the appropriate action, yet you're saying you went to him with something just to keep it confidential.

What exactly...? You have avenues you could have gone. Why, then, did you take it to the minister, knowing that a minister's office, a political office, is not the appropriate place to do this kind of investigation?

[Gary Walbourne]

I don't know if you're trying to infer something, but let me go back one more time, because apparently I'm not being clear.

I had no avenues available to me, because the complainant asked for confidentiality, which I provided. I went to the minister because I thought we had a problem inside the Canadian Armed Forces. The people who were heading up the sexual misconduct response centre, who have run Op Honour...and now there's an allegation against them.

I needed advice on what I should do with it. What should I say to this complainant? How do I put that person's mind at ease? I went to the minister for advice.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In your view, Mr. Walbourne, would you say that what you had in your hand that day was something that would have been actionable at that time?

[Gary Walbourne]

No, because I did not have the permission of the complainant.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In cases where there is a confidentiality issue, what exactly would you do in your office in other cases and what have you done when it comes to confidentiality? What does the directive say that you need to do on confidentiality?

[Gary Walbourne]

One of the cornerstones of ombudsing is confidentiality. It is the cornerstone. It is the lifeblood of the organization.

What I did for confidentiality.... For everyone who came into the ombudsman's office, after they signed their public service declaration, there was another oath they had to sign. I asked for increased scrutiny and protection of these files and these people who came to our office.

Confidentiality—

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Did the survivor—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'm sorry—

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

—ask you to go to the minister or give you permission to go to the minister in this case?

[Gary Walbourne]

The survivor—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We have run out of time.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be brief, because I really want Ms. May to be able to speak, since I am sharing my time with her.

Mr. Walbourne, at the March 2018 meeting, about how long did your closed-door discussion with the Minister last?

[Gary Walbourne]

Maybe 10 to 15 minutes—maybe—for that portion of the meeting.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

On the following day, how long did your discussions with the Privy Council Office about those allegations last?

[Gary Walbourne]

I didn't share the allegations with the PCO. I was there for another reason, I thought. They asked me for the allegation against the chief and I was shocked that they knew. I didn't give them anything. I told them they shouldn't know and that I had asked the minister for confidence.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That's amazing. Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With your permission, Madam Chair. Thank you, Alexis.

Mr. Walbourne, I want to go back to when you described what you went through in the period of time when you were facing—you've used the word “nefarious” at various points—attacks on your credibility. You mentioned it was taking a toll on your health.

I just wanted to pause and ask you how your health is, and I hope that this process today does not bring on, again, a sense that your health is at risk. How are you doing, sir?

[Gary Walbourne]

I'm doing okay. I have a good support group. I have good family and good friends. I have a large group of people in the veterans community, and those who are serving, who have reached out to me and offered me support, and I'm very appreciative of that. So, I'm okay.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Given that you were four years in the position as ombudsman with National Defence and hearing thousands of complaints of harassment and abuse, I appreciate, as a woman, how much you clearly protect a victim.

If you had a younger female relative who wanted to join the Canadian Armed Forces, what would you tell her she could expect?

[Gary Walbourne]

Well, here comes the optimist in the room again.

The Canadian Armed Forces is an entity unlike any other on the planet. There's a group of good people who do good work every day. They get up, they come in, they do their jobs and they go above and beyond for Canadians every single solitary day.

I hope, through all of this, that because of the actions of a few, we don't paint everyone with one brush. I have met lieutenant-colonels and brigadiers-general across this country who are young, upcoming whippersnappers who are going to get it right. What we need to do is get some of the dinosaurs off the table.

I believe this organization is viable. I have two grandsons and if someone asked me if they could join the military, I would say yes, go into it with your eyes open. There are good people trying to do good things every day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Walbourne.