Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #99 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ombudsman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #99 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ombudsman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:35 p.m.
Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual
It took me an hour.
If we don't go after the people who are in these positions and challenge them to do the right thing, teach them how to do the right thing and reward them for doing the right thing.... Everyone at DND in the executive cadre is getting a bonus this year. I guarantee you that.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Patrick, I'll let you get in on this.
There is an ethos. There is the code of service discipline. There are the KR&Os. They're supposed to describe how our leadership in the Canadian Armed Forces is supposed to act, yet the ones at the top are the ones ignoring them, in your experience and in the experience of others.
5:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Let me quote from the privacy breach report that I received from the department, which said they were basically in mitigation—
5:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I understand.
It says, “25 August 2023, member B was reminded that according to section 7 (use) of the Privacy Act the use of [personal information] must be consistent with the purpose for which it was collected, and that retention of performance related information must be in accordance with current systems policies and standards.”
The punishment for breaking the Privacy Act is being reminded of what's in the Privacy Act.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Again, thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for your service to our CAF members and their families.
Lieutenant, I would like to hear a bit more from you.
I will reflect on Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act. The government has proposed to increase the independence of military justice actors, like the provost marshal, to ensure they are not influenced by the chain of command. I would like to hear your thoughts on the importance of the independence of military justice actors, but also the role that the chain of command can play in the system at present.
5:40 p.m.
As an Individual
First, I would say I haven't actually brushed up too much on the military justice system. As you heard, “mentorship” was the response from the recommendation by the military police for charges. I haven't gotten to the trial phase.
In my corporate law practice, we deal with issues of fiduciary duties of directors. There are stockholders who can appoint directors to the board of a company, but the directors, regardless of their affiliation with the stockholders, must act in the best interests of the corporation. The appointment process doesn't necessarily mean that an individual is in a conflict of interest if there is a very strict code of ethics and there is enforcement of that code. A breach of fiduciary duties is a cause of action in a court of law.
A director who breaches those duties can be held personally liable for individual breaches. That means that if they're acting inappropriately, they can be held accountable by other stockholders or they can be held accountable by other actors who have been harmed. The same principle can apply here.
I read with interest an assessment of Bill C-66 by someone in the profession with much more expertise than I have, Rory Fowler, a well-known name, I believe. To his point, I'm not sure that changing the appointment process is truly going to fix issues of independence when you could, in fact, empower someone with either positive reinforcement or the negative reinforcement that comes with clearly laying out ethical issues. In other words, let's say they received pressure from the chief of the defence staff to act inappropriately. If they had a reporting mechanism and an ethical obligation to resist that sort of pressure, they could be supported and there would be no need to change that appointment process.
Again, I will qualify that I have not brushed up too much on that aspect of the military justice system.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you for that answer. I really appreciate it.
As I said, thank you for your service. I know you're still in the forces.
How has your experience with the Canadian Armed Forces grievance system affected your ability or your willingness to continue to serve? Have you spoken to individuals in a situation similar to yours?
5:40 p.m.
As an Individual
The grievance system is presently almost the bane of my existence. It is a source of aggravation and frustration.
I'll say two things. First of all, you need to put yourself in the perspective of the most vulnerable kind of person. Respectfully, that's actually not me. I'm an attorney. I have some legal knowledge. I'm not the most vulnerable kind of person. The most vulnerable kind of person may be the 16-year-old who gets parental consent to join. They may be the person who is so affected by aggravated sexual trauma that they can't even put their hand on the doorknob to get into work, or may vomit when putting on their uniform. That's just an example. If you design a system so that individuals like that can navigate it rather than requiring us to be Rory Fowler or Michel Drapeau, you will succeed in having a system that works for everyone.
The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't. What annoys me more than anything is when senior members who have never been affected in the way some of us have flippantly say, “If you don't like it, grieve it,” knowing full well that they've never had to go through those processes, or maybe they did in a minor way and had success.
If I could leave the committee with one final point to think about, it's that if you really want to get to culture change and solve these issues, you need to look at every single aspect of the system and understand how it feeds back in. That includes the honours and recognition system, the promotion system, the grievance system and the military police system—all of it—but with a central view of what the effect would be on these sorts of things that we get to.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Unfortunately, we'll have to leave it there, colleagues. As you can see, the bells are ringing. They're 15-minute bells. Only with your permission can I squeeze out another five or 10 minutes. Do you want to do that?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Yes. We're just upstairs, so we'll run up and vote.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. We'll give it another 10 minutes.
Just to be fair, we'll have two minutes, two minutes, two minutes and two minutes.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Walbourne, you mentioned that the media only come out when the ombud makes recommendations or when there's a scandal. They shine some light on that kind of thing. One of the recommendations is to have the ombud report directly to the House rather than to the minister.
In your opinion, if the ombudsman reported to the House rather than to the minister, what would be the role of MPs, particularly opposition MPs?
April 17th, 2024 / 5:45 p.m.
Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual
As to the construct of how it would work, the ombudsman is still going to report through the minister. The work that's done through the CAF would have to come through that chain. If there is no response, where does it go from there? The corrections ombudsman right now reports through the minister. He goes to the commissioner. If there's no action, he goes to the minister. If not, it goes from there to the House, it gets tabled and there is light shone on it.
How do we want to do that at the end of the day? Is it through the committee? Is it taken to the House? I think those details on the best way forward need to be determined.
There are several options. The Five Eyes have various applications of this, so I think there are ways of doing it, but I think it would remain about what the capacity is and where it should go. That's how I'd like to see it reviewed.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Walbourne.
Since I don't have much time left, my comments will be brief.
Mr. White, one of the recommendations is to introduce administrative and disciplinary sanctions against people who avoid creating records or who destroy them.
If this recommendation is implemented, is there a risk that only people at the bottom of the hierarchy will be penalized, not those who give orders?
5:45 p.m.
As an Individual
It's a good question in the sense that there's always an opportunity, as I was saying, when you have issues around discretion, for abuse to arise. When it comes to requesting information, the challenge, of course, is that assumptions are made as to who's making these sorts of requests, and actions can be taken appropriately.
I'm very certain—from what you hear from oral history, for example—that in the naval reserve headquarters, meetings about me and my issues are dealt with verbally. They even go a step further than just destroying records. They don't create them. They don't send emails. They'll send a text message that can't be ATIPed. They'll make phone calls. There's—
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Mr. White, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but as you can see, we're short on time.
