National Defence Committee on March 3rd, 2021

[Gary Walbourne]

That's correct.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

In your opinion, would the minister need a reason, as the minister, to do his own...“investigate” sometimes is a clinical definition term, but just to look into the matter?

[Gary Walbourne]

I believe he could have.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

He could have looked into the matter even if he had just heard a whisper on the street. He could have decided that this was a whisper about the highest officer in the Canadian Forces, and he could have said, “I think I need to make sure that I have the right person with the right honour, integrity, code of service and discipline in that position.”

Would that be a fair statement?

[Gary Walbourne]

Yes. I consider that a fair statement.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

In terms of options, he could have spoken directly to the CDS about the allegations. He could have spoken to other senior members. He could have perhaps convened a board of inquiry. He could have employed a third party. He had many more options at his disposal in this particular instance than you did. Is that to your understanding?

[Gary Walbourne]

That's correct.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

So to say that he should treat the chief of the defence staff like he would treat any other corporal or major is probably not a fair statement, and we shouldn't be interpreting how the minister behaves towards the chief of the defence staff in the same manner as perhaps all other members of the Canadian Forces.

[Gary Walbourne]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'm afraid the time is up.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We will go to Mr. Spengemann, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I have one question for Mr. Walbourne, and I will split the remainder of my time with Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Walbourne, just to go back to our exchange on the rights and preferences of victims, which you very rightfully said are front and centre, in this particular case the instructions were really not to pursue an investigation. You also mentioned earlier in testimony that you wanted to convey to the victim, and I'm quoting you here, “You have been heard.”

I just wanted to circle back to the preference that you stated with respect to the victim and the fact that you went to the minister. Did you have instructions or did you see it as consent being given to approach the minister on this question? The adjunct to that is that you said you wanted to get top cover from the minister. You speculated that, in that case, there may well have been a change of opinion on the part of the victim to go forward more publicly into an investigation. It could just as easily have been the case that top cover—in this particular case, two men against presumably a female victim, although I'm not stating that for the record—could have been seen as pressure to change the victim's mind.

I just wanted to get your response on that, and then pass it on to my colleague Mr. Bagnell.

[Gary Walbourne]

I didn't have just one conversation with the victim. There were several conversations over a period of time. There were things I said I had to do, ease their mind, get them some resources and those types of things.

One of the comments was, “It doesn't matter, because it goes to the top. No one will ever do anything.” My thought process was that I report to the minister and he reports to the minister. I think this is of national concern. Let me talk to the minister and he'll get me some advice. That didn't happen.

When I talked about.... I didn't say I went to the minister looking for top cover, but it would have been nice to be able to go back to the victim and say, “I've got you some top cover.” That's what I was looking for, that type of advice to come back, the guidance, to let me know he's going to do something. That's what I was referring to when I said top cover.

I didn't just have one conversation with this victim and walk away. That's not how it worked. There were many conversations. During the first one, I heard the allegation and watched the emotion. I then tried to bring resources to bear. Then we allowed the person to speak on what their future looked like. One of the things she was looking for was, “If only there was someone you could talk to who would give you the assurance you need.” I thought, in this particular case, looking at the allegation and who it was made against, the minister was the guy for that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne.

I'll pass it to my colleague Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I just want to go back to where Mr. Bezan was on the last line of questioning because I have the very same interest related to independence.

Thank you very much for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'm sorry. You'll have to put on your headset, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'm sorry. I've been in enough meetings that I should have this right by now.

I just want to go back to what Mr. Bezan was talking about. Thank you very much for being here. It's very helpful, Mr. Walbourne. It's great that Elizabeth is here too.

I want to go back to what Mr. Bezan was talking about at the end of his last intervention, because I have the same interest that's related to independence. I think the biggest benefit of the committee is making the armed forces safer. We had three or four experts all tell us it's the culture in the military. You mentioned that earlier, Mr. Walbourne.

I'm just wondering if you can explain that to us. This would be a big help, because it's a huge task to change that culture. In making your office independent, how would that help tackle this problem of the culture, which is such a big job to tackle?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think there are two pieces to that, if I may say so.

The first is I think—and I have said it before—there are good people inside the Canadian Armed Forces doing good work, and I think if they had enough time and distance they might get there at some point in time.

If we want to change culture, we can't just say we're going to change culture, walk through a new doorway, and have that culture be changed. I think the Government of Canada has a role to play in instituting this change of culture.

Let's say, for example, that those who are the subject of sexual assault or harassment will now have their case heard by an entity that reports to Parliament. There would be no more hiding behind the chain of command, no more negotiating these things away before they come forward.

I think you will find that if the victims—mostly female in this particular instance, though this impacts every gender across the Department of National Defence—had assurance that there was someone above the chain of command who could listen to them and could take action, that would start a cultural shift and change, because now those left in the chain of command and those who are working in the environment would know there was no escape route. There will be no negotiation, and we will not bury this. It will be dealt with. And I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'm sorry to interrupt. Thank you very much.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Walbourne, these will be my final comments for today. Once again, I would like to thank you for joining us today. We are very grateful to you.

I was thinking over the last question I asked you, and I would like some clarification.

When the Privy Council Office called you, did you go in person or was it done by telephone?

[Gary Walbourne]

I went to their office.

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

Did they call you about any particular topic when they asked you to go to their office?

[Gary Walbourne]

No, we were hot back and forth under this investigation that I was under. There had been a lot of communication. It's the only thing I ever reached out to the PCO for, so I was under the assumption—wrongly, apparently—that I was going over to talk about where we were in that investigation process.

We had called over a couple of days prior to my meeting with the minister and asked for a meeting. By the time I got back from the meeting with the minister, I had received, that morning, a response to come over to PCO, so I was under the assumption it had to do with something totally different.

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

At that point, did they not tell you about the specific topic that would be discussed?