National Defence Committee on March 3rd, 2021

[Gary Walbourne]

Well, you know, I'm sure if the minister went away and thought about it, and called back and said, “You know, Gary, I think you've given me enough. I'm going to launch an investigation”, then, as I said earlier to the other member, I would have gone back to the complainant and seen what was in the realm of the possible and how far forward that person was willing to come.

We're making dead-end statements, but it would have been a process. There would have been multiple people involved. I'm sure there would have been negotiations. I would have expected a reasonable conversation: “Gary, I thought about this last night and I think we could probably try this or this.” That's not what happened. This was tossed like a hot potato.

I think there were a multitude of options available. There could have been a discussion. The minister could have met with the victim. That might have been a possibility. The victim might have filed a formal complaint. I don't know what could have happened had the top cover been in place. He, I'm sure, had more options than I had.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I hear you, and you said that previously in your testimony today. What I'm trying to get at is how we address these types of situations. What I'm trying to get at a little bit is, under the system we have and under the circumstances you've presented.... You've testified that you brought the concern to the minister. I guess what I'm trying to think through is whether there's a process that a minister—this minister, another minister, a future minister, whatever the case may be—could use to undertake an investigation, which you suggested might be a reasonable next step, and still protect the people coming forward, protect the victim. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm trying to figure out how that could work.

To my thinking, you'd want an independent body running the investigation, a body that is professional and has experience in running investigations appropriately. I'm just wondering whether the minister—not just this minister but a future minister or past minister—could undertake an investigation and still protect the folks we're trying to protect here, who are the victims.

[Gary Walbourne]

It is always difficult to strike that right balance to protect the victim and advance the program. I think it will go back.... The only way I can respond to your question is by saying that as long as it stays in its current structure, I just don't think it's going to get us there. If it was a separate entity that reported to Parliament, then it would also be an entity that the minister could reach over to use, to say, “I have this allegation. I want you to do an investigation.”

There are many different ways this could be set up, but I'll go back to this point: I believe there were other things that could have happened. I had exhausted what I thought I had in my arsenal. That's where we find ourselves.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I guess one of the challenges I see here, if I'm not mistaken—and you've spoken to it—is that in this particular case, with the chief of the defence staff being a GIC appointment, a Governor in Council appointment, I don't know but I suspect that would be why the minister might go to the Privy Council Office.

I'm wondering whether this minister or another minister.... I'm sort of asking for your advice here, right, because for me, at the end of the day, personally what I want to walk away with from this conversation and other conversations we've had with witnesses is to understand how we can do better, how we can resolve this problem.

Again, I'm wondering what steps a minister could take to undertake that investigation that you're talking about and still do right by the people who are coming forward, and who, as you pointed out, want their confidentiality respected and want to make sure they're protected. How would that work? I guess I'm just asking you for your advice.

[Gary Walbourne]

Well, you're asking me to do an organizational structure on Zoom.

There are many ways it can go. I firmly believe that until we get the entity out from under the boot-heel of the department, nothing is going to change. Once that's done—and who that entity reports in to—maybe there's a schematic that's built there that allows a minister to engage or not engage, to give that entity the authority to do certain things.

We're talking about “maybe, maybe, it might be”, but it all depends on where we end up as an organization. If we leave it the way it is today, I don't think much is ever going to change. What lever did the minister have to use and what did he use? What will happen to a new minister and what lever will they use? That leaves it all wide open to the interpretation of the person who sits in the seat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right—

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It sounds like the levers don't exist today for the minister to undertake that investigation you're talking about.

[Gary Walbourne]

They do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much. That's the end of our time today.

I would like to thank the witness for his very valuable testimony today and for appearing for our study.

Thank you to the committee members and our IT and translation team.

[An hon. member]

Point of order, Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

The meeting is adjourned.