Evidence of meeting #18 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Gary Walbourne  Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of January 25, 2021. Members are attending either in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately. We will ensure that the interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. All comments by members should be addressed through the chair. Please speak slowly and clearly. With the help of the clerk, I will do the best I can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 9, 2021, the committee is resuming its study of addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Forces, including the allegations against the former chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance. I hope you all had a chance to read the letter from the law clerk that was sent out to all committee members.

Today I would like to welcome our witness by video conference—Mr. Gary Walbourne, the former ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Mr. Walbourne may be assisted by counsel. That permission was granted by the committee. However, please be advised that counsel will be restricted to an advisory role and may neither ask questions nor reply on the witness's behalf. Up to six minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Welcome, Mr. Gary Walbourne. I now invite you to make an opening statement of up to six minutes.

March 3rd, 2021 / 2:30 p.m.

Gary Walbourne Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members.

I have appeared in front of 13 committees; however, this is the first time under summons.

I am joined today by my legal counsel Mr. Jordan Lester, partner of the law firm Cheadles in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

As you are aware, I am the former ombudsman of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. As ombudsman, I played a vital role for the 120,000 members of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans, their families and all those who served.

Among many other things, the office of the ombudsperson helps individuals and families with complaints or concerns, and can investigate any report and publicly release such a report on any issues that affect the well-being of those who have served or who are serving.

In 2011, I joined the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman as executive director of operations and deputy ombudsman. Prior to that, I was director general to the executive secretariat at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, where I was accountable for the coordination of parliamentary affairs, access to information and privacy, and ministerial correspondence. Before joining the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I was the director of strategic initiatives at the Department of National Defence for several years.

My last day on the job as ombudsperson at DND was October 31, 2018. I left the job early on the advice of my doctors and my own realization that no reasonable person could possibly be expected to continue in the hostile circumstances created by the Department of National Defence.

The hostility from DND started around March of 2017, when I prepared and released a report called “The Case for a Permanent and Independent Ombudsman Office”, which I will call the “governance report”. The governance report concluded that the current governance structure, with its delegations and administrative arrangements, has negatively affected the operational effectiveness of the ombudsman's office.

My primary concern, as was expressed in the report, was that the ombudsman, who reports to and is accountable to the Minister of National Defence, falls under the legislative responsibilities of the deputy head. This, I concluded, affected the independence of the office.

The governance report recommended that the Minister of National Defence support the enactment of legislation aimed at giving the office permanence and independence from National Defence with respect to all functional authorities.

On March 18, 2017, Minister Sajjan rejected the report and its recommendation. In his letter informing me of the same, the minister, quite ironically, stated the following:

If you ever feel that your ability to carry out your duties is being constrained by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces, I would encourage you to make full use of your direct reporting relationship to make the situation known to me.

I publicly spoke out against Minister Sajjan's decision to reject this recommendation, and as some of you may know, my concerns were widely reported by national media.

Several months later, on July 17, 2017, I met with then deputy minister John Forster to discuss governance issues, specifically the department's administrative order and directive number 7024-1, which sets out internal procedures for disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplace. I've been trying to address these issues with the minister and then deputy minister since 2015.

During this meeting, I directly expressed my frustration with DND's lack of interest in improving its governance structures, and threatened to make my concerns public. One week later, on or about July 24, 2017, I was advised by then deputy minister Forster that a senior officer in the Department of National Defence had made allegations of wrongdoing against me and my staff, under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, PSDPA.

The precise allegations being made were not disclosed; rather, vague and cryptic descriptions such as inappropriate contracting and discriminating hiring practices were provided. These allegations were meritless, and I knew it was a hit job.

On July 27, 2017, I wrote to then deputy minister Forster advising him that I intended to co-operate with the investigation. Further, I asked that I be consulted on the selection of a third party investigator. I was never consulted on the selection of a third party investigator.

For three months nothing happened with this investigation, until October 27, 2017, when I was advised by Deputy Minister Jody Thomas that the allegations against me would proceed to formal investigation. This was odd, because, once again, I was not provided the specifics of the allegations.

The timing of advising me of this investigation was, in my opinion, suspicious. It was conveyed to me just before I was scheduled to appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, where I would be providing an update to the committee on DND's implementation, or lack thereof, of my recommendations. There is no reason why it would take three months to determine whether a formal investigation was necessary. It was obvious this process was being used as a means of intimidation to me prior to my testimony before committee.

I appeared before the committee, and wouldn't you know it, there was radio silence regarding the investigation. On January 12, 2018, I wrote directly to Minister Sajjan to express concerns about the fairness of the investigation, notably, the length of time in advancing the investigation and the secrecy surrounding the specific allegations being made against me.

Minister Sajjan responded more than one month later with no substance other than to thank me for co-operation in the matter. The investigation process inexplicably moved at a snail's pace until March 2018, which just so happened to be the time when I personally met with Minister Sajjan to address an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour within the senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically, against the chief of the defence staff, and to discuss my concerns about this allegation.

This meeting happened on March 1, 2018. I explained to Minister Sajjan that the complainant had approached me only after the assurance of confidentiality. As to what I will say here today, it will only be restricted by the oath I took as ombudsman, and more specifically, I will not reveal the name of the complainant or the details of the complaint, for this is their story to tell, not mine.

Minister Sajjan was told the complaint was not formal and my request of the minister was for him to get back to me with some advice on how we could potentially proceed. Now, I understand that there have been several requests to see the calendar of meetings between myself and the minister. This has now been made available to the clerk for distribution to the committee.

It will show that I met with the minister at the following pace: once in 2015, twice in 2016, three times in 2017 and once in 2018, specifically, March 1, 2018. After this meeting, there were over a dozen requests from myself to the minister to meet. All were rejected, and I never spoke to Minister Sajjan again. This meeting was very hostile and ended bitterly.

Wouldn't you know it? Suddenly, the investigation processes were being pushed forward again. Shortly after the tumultuous March 1 meeting with the minister, and without any warning consultation, my financial authority and my HR delegations were altered, changed and truncated. This decision directly impacted the independence of my organization.

On March 2, 2018, I informed Minister Sajjan of my intention to resign from my position. My letter to the minister stated, “There is absolutely no trust in the environment and more effort is focussed on isolating this Office rather than listening to evidence-based reporting. As mentioned this has become a toxic workplace and has had grave impact on my health and well-being and thus has pushed me to this decision.”

Despite delivering my resignation letter directly to Minister Sajjan, and despite the very serious allegations being made against the Department of National Defence, the minister did not acknowledge the resignation letter until August 15 of 2018, a delay of five months. In this response, he did not address the serious allegations, nor did he address my concerns regarding a toxic workplace.

Meanwhile, the investigation continued, and others were launched against members of my team who defended me. Several innocent victims were caught up in the investigation, some who still suffer in situation to this day, and those of us who left early.

One of the people vexatiously charged went to Federal Court for a judicial review. Here's a quote from that review. On July 23, 2019, the Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn said:

She was denied procedural fairness in the investigation and in the decision-making process. The decision to accept the investigator's findings that she engaged in wrongdoing must be set aside.

To add further injury, after I had met with the minister on March 1, I was contacted by the Privy Council Office the very next day for a meeting. I thought it had to do with the investigation that I was under, but I was completely floored when they asked me about the details of the complaint and the allegation against the chief of the defence staff when I had specifically told the minister that I did not have the complainant's permission to investigate, and it was to be held in confidence.

Much has been said about the independence of both the ombudsman's office and the sexual misconduct response centre. The fact is neither is independent. Even though I am no longer an ombudsperson, while I'm here I would like to use this platform of the committee to advocate.

There is no construct that allows for independence when both financial and staffing delegations are controlled by the very entity you are reporting on. I liken it to sending young adults off to university; they live independently while their parents pay the rent. That's close. I published two reports regarding independence that are as applicable today as they were when they were published.

I'll give you a little history. In 1998 the ombudsman's office was created, and, yes, dealing with sexual assault and harassment were the responsibility of the ombudsman's office. What was missing was the support and resources to fully implement a program. I suggested that the sexual misconduct response centre be rolled into the ombudsman's office and that this entity be made to report to Parliament.

It irritates me as I hear the continued rhetoric of yes, we're all here for you, but in reality not much changes.

The time has come to get these organizations out from under the boot heel of the department. You will hear opposing points of view, I'm sure, but I will ask you this: how is it working for your now? Changing the name on the door and flashing advertising is not going to fix this, as we have seen.

I'm aware of the allotted time given to me by the committee to make an opening statement, and I don't doubt there are some questions. To to conclude my statement, I will say that, yes, I did meet with on March 1, 2018, and, yes, I did directly tell him about an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour made against the chief of the defence staff.

Very shortly after that meeting, as I have said before, the autonomy and financial independence of my office were gutted yet again, and despite the fact that I was the ombudsman of the department I oversaw, that was the last time I ever spoke to the minister.

I now stand ready to take questions from the committee, but I do ask that if anyone comes to committee to refute what I have said here today, please invite me back so that I can provide evidence to support my testimony.

I stand ready for your questions, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much, Mr. Walbourne.

I will now open the floor for questions.

Mr. Bezan, go ahead, please.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for appearing today and for setting the record straight.

When you met with Minister Sajjan at that March 1, 2018, meeting, were you accompanied by anyone or was there anyone else in the room at that time?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

The meeting was a scheduled meeting. There was an agenda for the meeting. There were several items. There were both departmental staff and ombudsman staff in the room at the time.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Can that be collaborated by other witnesses as well?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

Excuse me, but can what be collaborated?

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Can the fact that a meeting took place regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct that you presented about the chief of defence staff?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

Excuse me. No.

I can send the agenda over to the committee. You will see that at the end of the agenda there's a confidential item on which everyone else was asked to leave the room. The meeting was between me and the minister when the discussion about the sexual allegation was brought forward. He and I were the only ones in the room.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Only the two of you were in the room. I appreciate that.

When Minister Sajjan said that he learned from the media only a few weeks ago about the allegations against General Vance, how would you qualify that?

Is he telling the truth or is he fudging what actually happened?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

Madam Chair, I don't think it's my position to qualify anything. All I can do is tell you the truth.

I've told you what I know. I was there in the meeting.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Okay.

You told the minister back on March 1, 2018, that there were serious allegations of sexual misconduct by General Vance. What was the minister's mood and how did he reply in response to this report that you were presenting to him?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

The meeting kind of ended right around that point in time.

I did tell the minister what the allegation was. I reached into my pocket to show him the evidence I was holding, and he pushed back from the table and said, “No.” I don't think we exchanged another word.

I did offer to shake his hand at the end of the meeting and I asked him to get back to me with some advice as to what I should do with this. That's how it ended.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

So he wouldn't even look at the physical evidence that you had?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

When Mr. Sajjan says that he then reported to appropriate authorities, which we all assume is to the Privy Council Office, was there any follow-up from PCO with you about these allegations?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

As I said in my opening statement, I was contacted by PCO, but I thought it had something to do with me personally and with the investigation that I was under. When I went over to meet with PCO, I was asked for the evidence regarding the allegation.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Was that with the Clerk of the Privy Council at that time?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

No, that was with Janine Sherman.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I think we are all aware that you weren't obligated to provide that evidence to them, as per the ministerial directives and the confidentiality that you have to keep for the complainant.

When you went to the minister with this evidence, what were you expecting Minister Sajjan to do under his responsibilities as set out in the National Defence Act?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

I think we've heard other witnesses say that there were several options available to the minister. I did not go in with any preconceived notion of what he would, could, or couldn't do. As his direct report on the organizational chart, I was looking for some advice and guidance on what I should do.

My first concern is, always has been, and always will be the victim. I made sure that person was in the right place, where they needed to be, and then my job was to see how we could get this issue raised to the surface. I was looking for advice and guidance.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

As we know, General Vance continued on in this position for another three years, and the minister refused to investigate or fulfill his responsibilities and duties under the National Defence Act.

Who else is aware of the information that you have and that you tried to present to Minister Sajjan?

2:45 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

As far as I know, the person who has made the allegation and I are the only two people who have seen that evidence. As I said, the minister didn't want to see the evidence.

2:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Do you believe that the investigation into your office, and into you in particular, by the Department of National Defence was directed by Minister Sajjan as a way to force you out? Or, was it directed by Jody Thomas or other people within National Defence? Or, was it all of the above?

2:50 p.m.

Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual

Gary Walbourne

I'll go with “all of the above”.

It's funny. If you look back at the cyclical approach of things that have happened—my appearances, the release of a report, a media interview—things would stop, they would start, they would become one thing and something else would happen.

Is it all anomalies? It seems very bizarre to me, but it seems that every time I had something of concern to say, there seemed to be some sort of push-back and, for the most part, I do firmly believe it came back through this investigation.