﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Hansard xml:lang="EN" id="11164031">
  <StartPageNumber>1</StartPageNumber>
  <DocumentTitle>
    <DocumentName>EVIDENCE</DocumentName>
  </DocumentTitle>
  <ExtractedInformation>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebate">Standing Committee on National Defence</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Number">NUMBER 018</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Session">2nd SESSION</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Parliament">43rd PARLIAMENT</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Date">Wednesday, March 3, 2021</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="DateOtherLang">Le mercredi 3 mars 2021</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Institution">Standing Committee on National Defence</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Country">CANADA</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="RecordingNote">[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="HeaderTitle">EVIDENCE</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="HeaderDate">March 3, 2021</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDocumentCategory">Committee</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitle">NUMBER 018</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleEn">NUMBER 018</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleFr">NUMÉRO 018</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaNumberNumber">18</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumDay">03</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumMonth">03</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumYear">2021</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaCreationTime">2021/03/03 14:30:00</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaInstitution">House Of Commons</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateFr">Comité permanent de la défense nationale</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateEn">Standing Committee on National Defence</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Acronyme">NDDN</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerTitle">Chair</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerName">Mrs. Karen McCrimmon</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SessionNumber">2</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="ParliamentNumber">43</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InCameraNote" />
  </ExtractedInformation>
  <HansardBody>
    <OrderOfBusiness>
      <CatchLine />
      <SubjectOfBusiness>
        <SubjectOfBusinessContent>
          <Timestamp Hr="14" Mn="30">(1430)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164034">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair (Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Kanata—Carleton, Lib.))</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550342"> I call this meeting to order. </ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550343">Good afternoon, everyone.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550344">Welcome to meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence. </ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550345">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.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550346">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550347">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550348">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. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550349">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550350">Welcome, Mr. Gary Walbourne. I now invite you to make an opening statement of up to six minutes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164039">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne (Former Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, As an Individual)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550351"> Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550352">I have appeared in front of 13 committees; however, this is the first time under summons.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550353">I am joined today by my legal counsel Mr. Jordan Lester, partner of the law firm Cheadles in Thunder Bay, Ontario.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550354">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550355">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550356">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550357">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550358">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550359">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550360">The governance report recommended that the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister of National Defence</Affiliation> support the enactment of legislation aimed at giving the office permanence and independence from National Defence with respect to all functional authorities.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550361">On March 18, 2017, <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> rejected the report and its recommendation. In his letter informing me of the same, the minister, quite ironically, stated the following:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550362">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2"> 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. </QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550363">I publicly spoke out against <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation>'s decision to reject this recommendation, and as some of you may know, my concerns were widely reported by national media.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550364">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550365">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550366">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550367">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550368">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.</ParaText>
              <Timestamp Hr="14" Mn="35">(1435)</Timestamp>
              <ParaText id="6550369"> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550370">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550371">Minister <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation> 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. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550372">This meeting happened on March 1, 2018. I explained to Minister <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550373">Minister <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550374">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation> again. This meeting was very hostile and ended bitterly.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550375"> Wouldn't you know it? Suddenly, the investigation processes were being pushed forward again. Shortly after the tumultuous March 1 meeting with the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550376">On March 2, 2018, I informed Minister <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation> 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.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550377">Despite delivering my resignation letter directly to Minister <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation>, 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550378">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550379">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:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550380">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">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.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <Timestamp Hr="14" Mn="40">(1440)</Timestamp>
              <ParaText id="6550381"> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550382">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550383">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550384">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550385">It irritates me as I hear the continued rhetoric of yes, we're all here for you, but in reality not much changes. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550386">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550387">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. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550388">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550389">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550390">I stand ready for your questions, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550391">Thank you.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="14" Mn="45">(1445)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164078">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550392"> Thank you very much, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550393">I will now open the floor for questions.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550394">Mr. Bezan, go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164079">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550395">Thank you, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550396">Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for appearing today and for setting the record straight.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550397">When you met with <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> at that March 1, 2018, meeting, were you accompanied by anyone or was there anyone else in the room at that time?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164080">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550398">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164081">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550399">Can that be collaborated by other witnesses as well?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164082">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550400">Excuse me, but can what be collaborated?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164083">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550401">Can the fact that a meeting took place regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct that you presented about the chief of defence staff?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164084">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550402">Excuse me. No.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550403">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> when the discussion about the sexual allegation was brought forward. He and I were the only ones in the room.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164086">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550404">Only the two of you were in the room. I appreciate that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550405">When <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> said that he learned from the media only a few weeks ago about the allegations against General Vance, how would you qualify that? </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550406">Is he telling the truth or is he fudging what actually happened?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164088">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550407">Madam Chair, I don't think it's my position to qualify anything. All I can do is tell you the truth.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550408">I've told you what I know. I was there in the meeting.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164089">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550409">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550410">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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164091">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550411">The meeting kind of ended right around that point in time.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550412">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. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550413">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164096">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550414">So he wouldn't even look at the physical evidence that you had?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164097">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550415">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164098">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550416">When <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Mr. Sajjan</Affiliation> 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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164099">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550417">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164100">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550418">Was that with the Clerk of the Privy Council at that time?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164101">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550419">No, that was with Janine Sherman. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164102">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550420">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550421">When you went to the minister with this evidence, what were you expecting <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> to do under his responsibilities as set out in the National Defence Act? </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164105">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550422">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550423">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164106">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550424">As we know, General Vance continued on in this position for another three years, and the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> refused to investigate or fulfill his responsibilities and duties under the National Defence Act.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550425">Who else is aware of the information that you have and that you tried to present to Minister Sajjan?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164107">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550426">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> didn't want to see the evidence.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="14" Mn="50">(1450)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164109">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550427">Do you believe that the investigation into your office, and into you in particular, by the Department of National Defence was directed by <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> 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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164111">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550428"> I'll go with “all of the above”. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550429">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550430"> 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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164112">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550431">Would you characterize that pushing you out and investigating your office and staff was an attempt at a cover-up?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164113">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550432">I don't know if it was an attempt at a cover-up, but I know it was a full-court press to get rid of me. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164115">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550433">Do you believe that Minister <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation> should face the music, so to say, for his lack of action, because of what you told him in 2018 and leaving this ride until 2021, and for three years doing nothing and actually even recommending General Vance for a major raise from the Privy Council Office?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164118">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550434">I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. The only thing I ever wanted the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> to do was his job.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164119">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550435">In your work with the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, were there any other concerns that ever came up about the chain of command, and particularly about General Vance and the way he was fulfilling his duties, as it would fall under your responsibility as ombudsman?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164120">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550436">Again, anything that has come to my office, I hold in confidence. I will not release the names of any individuals or any types of complaints that have come to this office.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164122">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550437">I'm not asking for names. I'm just asking if there were other concerns that you had about General Vance, aside from the one allegation that you presented to Minister<Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Sajjan</Affiliation>.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164123">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550438">One moment, please.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550439">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164124">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550440">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550441">How much time do I have left?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164130">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550442">Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr. Bezan.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550443">We'll go on to Mr. Baker, please. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164132">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550444">Thank you very much, Chair. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550445">Mr. Walbourne, was it your understanding when you were the ombudsman that DAOD 5047-1, Office of the Ombudsman, Annex A, the ministerial directive, outlined the authorities and responsibilities of the ombudsman?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164135">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550446">Yes. That's correct. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164137">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550447">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550448"> You received a complaint regarding concerns over the conduct of the former chief of the defence staff, correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164142">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550449">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164148">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550450">You apparently took it as a serious matter, correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164156">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550451">That's correct. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164163">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550452">Okay. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550453">As per section 20.(1) of the directives related to the ombudsperson's activities pursuant to complaints, did you thoroughly investigate the complaint? As we know, section 20.(1) states, and I quote:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550454">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">20.(1) If an investigation is necessary to carry out the Ombudsman's mandate in connection with a complaint received by the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman shall thoroughly investigate the complaint.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164170">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550455">Yes, that's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164171">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550456">Okay. Just to clarify, did you thoroughly investigate the complaint?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164172">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550457">I can only investigate the complaint with the complainant's authorization to do so, and I did not have their authorization to investigate, so no, I could not have done an investigation, but this particular allegation was made. I've heard many allegations across my time as ombudsperson as I went across this country, but this allegation was made, and I was given concrete evidence, irrefutable concrete evidence, that the allegation....</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164173">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550458">Okay. I guess, then, I can.... Is it fair to say that you did not start an official thorough investigation?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164174">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550459">I took the investigation as far as I could with the complainant's authority. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="14" Mn="55">(1455)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164175">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550460">Okay, but there was not an official, thorough investigation. Is that right?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164176">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550461">I'll have to repeat the same answer. Sorry. I took the investigation as far as I could with the complainant's authority. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164178">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550462">Okay. Given that a thorough investigation could not be done by you alone, who else in your office looked into the complaint? I ask this because, as we know, in section 7:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550463">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2"> Any of the powers, duties or functions of the Ombudsman under these directives, other than the power of delegation and the duty or power of submitting or publishing reports under section 38, may be delegated by the Ombudsman to any member of the Ombudsman's staff.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550464">
                <B>Mr. Gary Walbourne:</B> Mm-hmm.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550465">
                <B>Mr. Yvan Baker:</B> So is there anyone else in your office who looked into this complaint?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164179">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550466"> No. When I met with the complainant, the first thing they demanded was an assurance of confidentiality, which I granted to the person. When I met with them and had the conversation, it was very apparent to me that this victim was looking for some protection, so I did not share the allegations or the evidence with anyone else in the office.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164183">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550467">Did you take the complaint and allegations to the military police?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164184">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550468">No, I did not.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164185">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550469">Why didn't you go to the police? Isn't that the normal flow of events?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164186">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550470">It is not at all.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550471">As I've said, the ombudsman's office was created to handle exactly this, and sexual assault and sexual harassment and are two different things, though in the same vein. Sexual harassment was handled by our office—we found many ways to deal with sexual harassment. Sexual assault I had a duty to report. Those things would have been taken to other authorities.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550472">This particular complaint came to me under my assurance of confidentiality. One thing I do when someone presents himself or herself is to make sure I ask them “what does your future look like?” I'm a firm believer that victims of this type of behaviour should be allowed to self-actualize what their future is going to be.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550473">This person asked—not only asked but demanded—that I respect the confidentiality, and I did just that.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164192">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550474">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550475">Why would you take this complaint to someone who does not do investigations? Surely it's understood that a political office does not do investigations.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164194">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550476">The <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> holds many powers under the National Defence Act and has levers he can pull far, far above my pay grade. I went to the minister, as his direct report, looking for advice and guidance on what to do next. I felt that this was a very major issue.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550477">When we're talking about the chief of the defence staff, who other than the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> should I speak to? He has the powers, under the National Defence Act, to take many actions. I was looking for advice and guidance.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550478">I wanted to go back to this complainant and say, “You have been heard. I've taken your complaint to the highest levels of the organization.” That's what I was hoping to be able to do.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164196">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550479">Did you take the complaint and allegations to the CFNIS?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164197">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550480">No, I did not take the complaint to anyone other than the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> because of the confidentiality that I promised that complainant.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164198">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550481">I presume, then, that you didn't talk to anyone else about the allegations. Is that fair?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164199">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550482">That's fair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164201">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550483">Thank you. Your time is up, Mr. Baker.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550484"> Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164202">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550485">Thank you very much for joining us today, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550486">Is there a procedure to be followed when one is in the situation that you found yourself in, when you learned of the complainant's allegations?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164205">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550487">I didn't get the first part of your question. I'm sorry. As for—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164206">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550488">Is there a procedure to be followed when one is in the situation that you found yourself in?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164208">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550489">Yes, and that depends on the type of complaint you get.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550490">You may get a formal complaint—someone will come to you with an allegation of something and they will present their evidence. That would cause an investigation process to commence. Then again, people may come to you with an informal complaint. That is something completely different. That is something we try—as I tried to do with this particular complaint—to go to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> to seek further advice on.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550491">The key here is to protect the complainant—to protect the victim, in this circumstance. That was the goal. But, yes, if a formal allegation has been lodged, there is a formal process to be followed.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="00">(1500)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164210">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550492">So you went to see the Minister, basically for advice. As I understand it, he gave you none. He did not even want to see the evidence. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164213">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550493">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164214">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550494">You say that, thereafter, your life in the ombudsman's office was much more difficult. Is that also correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164215">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550495"> That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164216">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550496">I am going to ask a question that you may not want to answer.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550497">Do you believe that the Minister or the Privy Council Office tried to prevent you from investigating, or tried to make it impossible for you to investigate, in the event that the complainant had been ready to call for an investigation?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164217">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550498">That would be a lot of supposition on my part. If the complainant had come to me with a formal allegation and was willing to give me the authority to investigate, it wouldn't have been the minister or PCO who stopped me. I have been known to take these investigations through to their completion. That's my raison d’être. It's what I have done. Unfortunately, this was an informal complaint, and my hands were kind of tied.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164218">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550499">You mentioned earlier that you were expecting the Minister to do his job.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550500">What should he have done, in your opinion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164219">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550501">I think the minister has certain latitudes afforded to him under the National Defence Act. He could have done his own motion investigation. There are certain different things he could have done. I wasn't looking for any of that. The only ask I had of the minister was to please come back to me with some advice on how we could potentially proceed with the allegation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164221">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550502">Let me go back to one point.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550503">The Minister appeared before this committee and told us how surprised he was to learn the news in the paper. He said that he found out at the same time as all other Canadians. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550504">What do you think of that statement by the Minister?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164224">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550505">I can't put myself in the minister's shoes. I don't know what he has said or what he hasn't said. I know what happened in the meeting on March 1, 2018. I have stated that clearly here in front of committee.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164225">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550506">Let me change the subject. You receive many complaints. There were reports on that when you were in office. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550507">What kind of harassment is most frequent in the Canadian Armed Forces?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164226">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550508">I have been a few years out of the chair, so I will be a little rusty in my stats and categories. The biggest complaint we would get would be inappropriate behaviour—misogynistic comments, inappropriate jokes and that type of thing. We would handle that type of inappropriate behaviour at the ground level. With a formal allegation of that, there was a process we would follow involving the various chains of command across the country, depending on where the issue was. Inappropriate behaviour, misogynistic types of behaviour, inappropriate jokes and those types of things were a large part of what we would receive.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164227">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550509">The office's 2019-2020 annual report indicates 106 cases of harassment in 2019-2020, but the data on the matter is not broken down. So we do not know the numbers and the ratio of sexual harassment cases. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550510">Why do we not make the data public and break it down according to the harassment complaints filed in your former office?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164230">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550511">I really can't speak to the operational footprint of the ombudsman's office now. When I was in the chair, I twice annually reported those exact statistics to the department. They were posted on our website. I don't know if the practice continues to this day or not.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="05">(1505)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164231">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550512">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550513">It's time for Mr. Garrison, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164232">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550514">Thank you very much, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550515">I first want to thank Mr. Walbourne for being with us today. I know there was a reluctance on his part, because what he has had to say to us today is I think disturbing for all Canadians on a number of grounds.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550516">I have always known you, Mr. Walbourne, to be frank-speaking, direct and someone who could be trusted to do his job. I want to ask you a question just to set a little context here, because I was a little disturbed by some of the earlier questions. My experience with your office was that when I referred constituents, they always received excellent service and excellent follow-up. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550517">What was the date of the report that you did on grievance, asking for more independence? When was that report? Can you remind me, please?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164236">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550518"> That was March 2017, I think. Just a quick second here. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550519">Yes, it was March 2017.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164237">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550520">Before that time, had there been any expressions of concern from the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> or the deputy minister about your job performance, the way you did your job or anything related to the service you were providing as ombudsman?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164239">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550521">Absolutely not. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164240">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550522">You see where I'm going with this. It seems to me—I'll put it colloquially—mighty peculiar that only after you raised concerns about the governance and the ability of an independent ombudsman to fully investigate complaints and to do a job on behalf of those who serve in the Canadian Forces or the Department of Defence did we see what can only be described as vindictive moves against you as the ombudsman.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550523">I know that now I'm testifying rather than you, but I think you must have been very frustrated from that time forward in your abilities to deal with the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> and the deputy minister.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550524">How do you feel, after that report, that the working relationship continued?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164241">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550525">I'm of somewhat the same mindset that it seems mighty peculiar. As to the relationship, I'm a very straightforward guy. We have a job to do; let's get it done. I shoot from the hip. I speak frankly, openly and honestly. I think reluctantly they accepted my work, but things got difficult in terms of trying to find out what my financial delegation was one day versus the next and whether I could staff or couldn't staff. It was so bad that if I wanted to travel across the country, I had to get permission from the deputy minister, which goes against the independence of the organization. Why do they need to know where the ombudsman is going and what he's doing?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550526">It just got to be like pushing a rock uphill. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164244">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550527">Thank you for that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550528">You've been very clear and straightforward about what happened in the meeting on March 1, 2018, and I thank you for that very forthright testimony. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550529">Can you see any reason why the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> would not be able to be as forthright about what happened in that meeting as you've been? Are there any constraints on the minister's telling us about that meeting and his perception of that meeting?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164246">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550530">I don't think anything I've said here today is shocking. We have different renditions of our memories, but I don't think that anything I've said here is shocking. This is straight up. It is what it is.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164249">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550531">The <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> appeared before us and said that he could not talk to us about the meeting he had with you. He wouldn't even, really, confirm that the meeting took place, let alone the content of that meeting.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550532">Are you aware of any legal constraints on him as defence minister talking to this committee about what happened in that meeting?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164250">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550533">There are none that I am aware of. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164251">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550534">I think you've been very clear with us. You didn't provide details about the individual complainant and you said that the minister actually refused to look at the evidence that you were going to present to him, so again, it is passing strange to me that the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> felt he couldn't comment on these.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550535">You said that the Privy Council Office later contacted you and asked for details of the complaint. I may have missed it, but when was that contact made by the Privy Council Office? How much time passed before you heard from them?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164252">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550536">I think it was the next day.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164253">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550537">It was the next day, so it was very immediate. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550538">In those conversations, when you did what I think all of us would recognize as the right thing and said that you could not, without the permission of the complainant, pass along the personal information, did the Privy Council Office ask you to contact the complainant and offer their services in dealing with the complaint, or did they simply let the matter drop?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="10">(1510)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164255">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550539">They let the matter drop.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164256">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550540">Did they give you any assurance that they would be reporting back to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> about their action or inaction on this file? </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164257">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550541">No. I left the conversation after I told her that I was surprised she knew about that. I had asked the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> to keep it in confidence, and I told her the same thing I said to this committee, that I wasn't going to give her the name of the complainant or the details of the allegation because the complainant had asked me to respect that confidentiality, and that's exactly what I did.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164260">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550542"> In the little time I have remaining, I want to ask, in your experience as the ombudsman, do you feel that Operation Honour, as a way of responding to sexual misconduct, was being effective and that there was confidence in the commitment of those in leadership positions to actually tackle the problem of sexual misconduct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164264">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550543">Effective? I'm not sure. I don't see the outcome of the investigations when they happen. Was there a concentrated, collaborative effort that everyone was going to try to do the right thing? I'm not sure.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550544">The problem is basically the same thing that I've been complaining about for years. It comes down to the independence. The sexual misconduct response centre reports administratively to the deputy minister of the department, and organizationally and operationally into the chief's office. There is no independence there.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550545">While I was in situ I heard from a lot of people who came to me and said, “I'll never go to that centre. Why would I do that? That's a short circuit for my career.” That is out there, and I believe it's still in the environment. Though I've removed myself from this seat, I still have a lot of friends and acquaintances in the environment, and I keep current on the issues.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550546"> The same sentiment that was there when it was created is there today. Why is this reporting into the deputy minister administratively, and organizationally into the chief's office? It's—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164267">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550547">All right. Thank you very much. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550548">We will move on to Ms. Alleslev, please. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164269">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550549">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550550">I'd like to continue on with my colleague's previous question, but I also want to express our deepest thanks to you, because if we don't have honourable men and women like you to take on this auspicious responsibility and do the very best to protect the institution and the victims, then we have no hope. Your contribution here today is furthering that a great deal. Thank you very much. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550551">I'd like to talk to you a bit about the comment you made when you said that you wanted the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> to do his job. When you took the complaint, or the allegation, about General Vance to the minister, what were the options available to the minister to do his job with the information you gave him?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164271">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550552">Well, I don't know if this falls in the framework of a minister or a manager or a supervisor, but I was his direct report. I went to him with a confidential issue and asked him specifically, please keep this confidential and please get back to me with some advice. As part of doing his job.... I think that if he had done that, that would have been part of doing his job.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164276">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550553">Absolutely.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550554">Could he have taken further action, independent of giving you advice, to get to the bottom of this allegation?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164282">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550555">Well, I think that's been very apparent with the latest move we've made at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces, so there were actions available. I'm not going to sit here and try to skirt around that question. Yes, I believe he had, like I said, other levers at his disposal. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164283">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550556">The evidence you provided him, had he taken it, would have furthered that end...?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164284">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550557">It would have proven beyond a doubt that the allegation had merit, and it may have given him an option to look into it in a different way. I have no idea.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="15">(1515)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164285">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550558">Because these allegations were against the chief of the defence staff, who is above—in a reporting authority—the chief of the defence staff?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164286">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550559">I think that would be the minister.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164287">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550560">It could have been viewed as being his job to make sure that the CDS was in fact doing the job that he was in, and to look at the information you had provided for him to be able to do that.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164288">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550561">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164289">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550562">Could you also tell us a bit about...? I think you mentioned that you met with the deputy secretary to cabinet. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164290">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550563">No, that—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164291">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550564">Or it was the PCO. Was it your understanding when speaking with the members from the PCO that they would take it to cabinet?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164292">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550565">As I stated earlier, I was shocked that they even knew about it. I'm sure the PCO could have offered a different lane of service, I think. I was absolutely shocked that they knew about it, so I was put on my back heel when I went into the room and that was what was asked of me. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550566">As I said, you find yourself in a position where you're kind of caught in the framework where I report to the minister for one thing, but I had to go to the deputy for a handout on something else. It's asinine.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550567">On PCO, there's another group that we could have a whole other committee meeting on. To go to that office looking for help and assistance in the predicament I was in.... I didn't get any. I'm sorry, but I don't have great faith in.... From what I've received, I don't have great faith in PCO. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164293">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550568"> We've talked about the allegations specifically around the chief of the defence staff—not what they were, but how it progressed—and we've discussed what the minister could have done. But you also brought up some very discouraging information around the process. Sometimes we have bosses who are ignorant and negligent of the process and therefore undermine doing stuff because of it. Sometimes they're wilful and deliberate in their interference in the process. And then sometimes it's what you've described: They escalate to using the process as a means of intimidation and against ensuring a positive outcome. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550569">Could you give us some idea of how we've arrived at that and how we can possibly regain the trust and confidence and fix the processes so that it is no longer within the purview of the people to do such a thing?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164298">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550570">Well, I think getting out of it.... Others who've come before me have said that it's a cultural change. It will take time. But until the Government of Canada makes a decision to get this right, we'll have this conversation again in six months. Take—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164301">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550571">So the buck stops with the minister and the <Affiliation DbId="214296" Type="1">Prime Minister</Affiliation>.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164302">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550572">I'm—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164303">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550573">All right. Thank you very much.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164304">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550574">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550575">
                <B>The Chair:</B> We'll move on to Mr. Spengemann, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164306">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550576">Madam Chair, thank you very much. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550577">Mr. Walbourne, thank you for being with us.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550578">I'd like to take you to some committee appearances back in 2014 and 2015 and to what you said on the record. In an appearance you made to this same committee in 2014, you were asked this by then member of Parliament Joyce Murray: </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550579">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">If not the ombudsman's office, then where in the armed forces do people have a safe place to go with these kinds of concerns when it seems like, even in civil society, nine out of ten people don't step forward when there's been a sexual assault. It surprises me that it's really not your jurisdiction. Whose jurisdiction is it?</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText Continuation="True" id="6550580">This was your response at the time: “it would be turned over to the military police or in some cases civilian authorities.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550581">Again, Mr. Walbourne, why did you go to the minister with these issues when you were on the record as stating that the correct organization to investigate these types of claims was the military police?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164309">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550582">I do believe my reference to the military police or civilian police services was to do with sexual assault. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164310">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550583">Okay.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164311">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550584">That was the way we handled those complaints when they came to the office.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164312">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550585">Okay. Thank you for that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550586">Let me take you to the same appearance, Mr. Walbourne, in 2014. Our colleague Mr. Bezan asked you this at the time: </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550587">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">I understand and I appreciate that sexual assault is a criminal investigation that has to be left to the police officials and authorities, and then ultimately the judicial system to sort out.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550588">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">You also mentioned the concern that some people don't come forward on sexual assault or harassment because of revictimization.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550589">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2"> What about those victims? What role does your office have in dealing with the victims after an assault has taken place, especially as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces? </QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550590">You responded at the time with this: “those types of cases are not handled by our office. They are handed off to the proper authorities.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550591"> Again, the phrase “sexual harassment” has been added here. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550592">Would you agree that the evidence shows that you knew that the correct investigative body for these types of allegations was not the minister?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="20">(1520)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164313">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550593">I'm not sure I understand the context of your question. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164314">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550594">Well, on an allegation of “sexual assault or harassment”—I'm quoting our colleague who's present with us here—you said that those cases were not handled by your office but handed off to “the proper authorities”. So why would you go to the minister with an allegation of this sort?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164319">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550595">It goes to the type of complaint you receive. This was an informal allegation against the chief of the defence staff, which I was given evidence to corroborate that the allegation did have merit. I was not given authority by the victim to do an investigation. They only came to speak to me after an assurance of confidentiality, which was exactly the same thing I asked of the minister. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550596">I think your reading of my testimony in 2014 is a little myopic. I think the conversation was much bigger in that committee meeting. It went on through many, many things. I think that question may have been an end run.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164325">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550597">I appreciate that, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550598">Let me take you to 2015 and a news release from your office:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550599">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">...the Department of National Defence and the government of the day negotiated a mandate that excluded the powers necessary to look into individual sexual harassment and assault cases. </QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText Continuation="True" id="6550600">That's directly from your office. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550601">I ask you the same question.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164329">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550602"> Again, can you give me some context?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164330">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550603">Well, sir, it's your news release. It seems fairly broad. It's a mandate negotiated with the government of the day, the Department of National Defence, to give “a mandate that excluded the powers necessary to look into...sexual harassment or assault”, and you went to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. We would like to know why. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164332">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550604">I went to the minister in 2014 or 2018? Which period do you mean?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164334">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550605">I mean with respect to 2018. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164335">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550606">With respect to 2018, I think I have explained it, but let me try one more time. I was approached by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces on an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour against the chief of the defence staff. They asked me for confidentiality, so once that is asked for and granted, it limits what I can or can't do. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550607">I think my comment of 2014 was much broader than one particular case. It talked about a mandate and the right resources and tools to do a job. I'd have to go back to read the article to get the right context. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550608">However, these investigations are determined by the victim who comes forward. If someone asks for confidentiality and does not want to be revictimized, then I don't let that happen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164338">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550609">I appreciate that, Mr. Walbourne. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550610">Let me just briefly take you back to a comment you made earlier in this session. You said you wanted to be able to tell the complainant that she has been heard. Under subsection 21(1), which was raised by my colleague earlier, is it your assessment that the case that was brought to you would require a thorough investigation to do it justice, irrespective of the preference of the complainant?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164339">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550611">I don't think we can have a conversation irrespective of the complainant. That is the problem. We sometimes forget about who the victims are in these circumstances. I don't think I can even answer that question, because we don't make decisions irrespective of the victim. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164341">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550612">No, but what I'm getting at, Mr. Walbourne—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164344">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550613">All right. I'm sorry, but your time is up, Mr. Spengemann.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550614">Thank you very much. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164345">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550615">Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164348">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550616"> Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164349">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550617">Thank you, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550618">Once more, Mr. Walbourne, thank you for joining us today.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550619">You told us that you were shocked to learn that the Privy Council had been made aware.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550620">Given that you had told the Minister that this complaint was confidential and informal, did you expect more discretion from him?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164350">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550621">Well, as a direct report to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> and also as someone classified as a special adviser to the minister, I went to him. I told him that what I had received was in confidence. I asked him for the same thing. I assumed, maybe naively, that I would receive the same type of respect that I had afforded to the victim who had come forward. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="25">(1525)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164352">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550622">As I understand it, you believe that you did not get that respect. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164353">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550623">First of all, I wasn't looking for respect. I was looking for confidentiality, and no, I did not receive the confidentiality I requested. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164355">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550624">When the Minister appeared, he told us that he could not confirm the exact moment when he learned of these allegations because it would have an impact on the current investigation into the allegations against Mr. Vance. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550625">In your opinion, if the Minister told us when he became aware of the allegations against General Vance, what would the impact on the current investigation be?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164358">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550626">I really have no answer for that. I don't see how they would impact it. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164360">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550627">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550628">What did you do after the Privy Council's call about the allegations?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164361">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550629">There wasn't much I could do. I did reach out to the complainant with some minor assurances and just wished the best to that person for the future, but there wasn't much I could do. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164363">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550630">How did the complainant feel then?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164364">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550631">You know, we sit and talk about this a lot, but I believe that in order to fully understand, you almost need to be a victim. Someone comes to a place of authority looking for help, guidance and assistance, and they are told, “Sorry, we don't have any for you.” It is kind of heartbreaking to have to go back to that individual and say, “I didn't get the reception I was looking for.” That is kind of hard information and detail to take back to a complainant, to a victim in this type of circumstance.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164369">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550632"> Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550633">Your time is up.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550634">We'll move on to Mr. Garrison, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164371">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550635">Thanks very much, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550636">Again, I'm a little disturbed that some of the questioning takes the form of “Why did the complainant knock on the wrong door?” instead of “Why was there no one who took the action that was necessary in this case?”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550637">My question, Mr. Walbourne, again, is this: In going to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, was part of the reason for doing that because the chief of the defence staff also reports to the minister? You've been emphasizing that you had a direct reporting relationship. Would that have been a factor in why it was appropriate for you to go directly to the minister with this allegation?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164374">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550638">For sure, that was one of the leading factors. I'm given an informal complaint. I'm locked under the confidentiality. Where do I go?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550639"> I report to the same person that the chief reports to, fortunately or unfortunately, and I went looking for advice. There was no book. There was no manual of what to do with an allegation against the chief of the defence staff. I was in a difficult position. I believed it was the right place to go. For example, had I received a complaint about a lieutenant colonel who works for a colonel on a base, well, then, I'd go to that colonel to have that conversation.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550640"> In the hierarchy of things, it seems to be the right and natural place to go to look for advice and guidance. Who else would I go to?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164380">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550641">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550642">Madam Chair, I'd like to give the remaining minute or so I have to Ms. May.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164381">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550643">All right.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550644">Go ahead, Ms. May.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164382">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550645">I want to thank you so very much, Randall.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550646"> I want to thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for your service to this country and for standing up for the rights of victims.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550647">I wonder if I can get your help to understand something. From your evidence, I understand that what you brought to your March 1 meeting was, in your words, incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing by the chief of the defence staff. The <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> didn't want to look at it, but you were also preserving the confidentiality of the victim.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550648">I'm racking my brain to figure out what kind of physical evidence you could have with you that both protected the confidentiality that you had sworn to the victim and provided proof. Can you describe that evidence for the committee?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164383">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550649">This is getting very close to giving the details of the allegation, but let me see if I can try this for you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550650"> As a supposition, if it were a written document, names could be redacted, dates could be redacted, and just the line of the evidence could be presented—as an example.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164384">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550651">Mr. Walbourne, I don't want to push you into anything that would reveal identities or anything like that, but I'm trying to understand. If the evidence were of the nature of inappropriate expressions of sexual interest and was in a written document, might that be the kind of thing you had in your possession?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="30">(1530)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164388">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550652">I've gone about as far as I'm going to go in talking about that allegation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164390">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550653">Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550654">I also noted your reference to the decision of Mr. Justice Zinn. That was the case that involved Melanie Chapman, wasn't it? Mr. Justice Zinn went through a description of a lack of procedural fairness, which included that she was not given details of the charges that were against her and that she was not able to properly defend herself.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550655">Would you say that the findings of Mr. Zinn in that case paralleled your own experience of what you described as “a hit job”, the effort to undermine you with various vindictive complaints of your conduct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164392">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550656">That is correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164393">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550657">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550658">I appreciate the time. I'm sure I'm up. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550659">Thank you very much, Randall.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550660"> Thank you, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164394">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550661">Yes, you are.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550662">Madame Gallant, go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164395">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550663">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550664">Through you, Madam Chair, to the witness, was this the first time you'd heard or seen concerns related to General Vance?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164397">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550665">This was the first time I was given evidence of inappropriate sexual behaviour.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164399">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550666">Evidence...but you'd heard things.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164404">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550667">As I've travelled across this country, I've heard a lot of things.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550668"> I'll give you a quick example. I met with a 32-year serving member, an NCO in the Canadian Armed Forces, who told me a story about the first 10 years of her time in the Canadian Armed Forces. It was absolutely brutal, but that person found a way to fix themselves. This is what I talk about with victims and self-actualization. They found the tools and resources they needed. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550669">To answer your question, I've heard everything across this country.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164407">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550670">Thank you for that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550671">The PCO met with you the day after you met with <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation>. How much did they seem to know?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164408">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550672">They knew as much as the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> knew.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164409">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550673">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550674">It has been reported that the evidence of this is an email chain that has been made public. Would you confirm the public reporting?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164410">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550675"> I am not going to confirm or deny anything about that allegation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164411">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550676">Janine Sherman told this committee that PCO did not have information that would have allowed any action to be taken in regard to your March 1 meeting with <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation>. Is this accurate?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164412">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550677">They would have gotten no evidence from me, because, again, I did not have the complainant's authorization to share that evidence.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164414">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550678">She also told this committee that there were no conversations between PCO and any member of the cabinet on this topic. Given that you said only you, the alleger and the minister knew, can this be accurate?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164416">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550679">I can't respond to that. I have no idea.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164418">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550680">Did <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> ever characterize his relationship with General Vance to you before he became minister or during his tenure?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164420">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550681">I think in a brief conversation when I first met him, he talked about how he knew General Vance. They had been in Afghanistan together, battle buddies. It was the very first time I met him. We were introducing ourselves. I told him a little bit about my background. He told me a little bit about his. That would be the only mention I can think of.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164422">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550682">In your March 1 meeting with the minister, did he in any way ask or suggest that you resign?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164425">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550683">No, he did not.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164427">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550684">You refused our first invitation on the advice of your lawyer. Can you tell us why you felt you needed a lawyer present in the first place?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164429">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550685">One moment, please.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550686">Given what's happening, the state of affairs we find ourselves in.... I've gone through the wringer once with this department, let me tell you. There's a whole other committee meeting we could have. I thought it best to have some protection.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164433">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550687">With respect to going through the wringer, would you say that this, in general, characterizes the experience of people who do lodge complaints against the military through the chain of command?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164435">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550688">I would in no way compare myself with victims who come forward with these types of allegations. Mine was an administrative nightmare. It was absolutely an impossible situation to work in, but I wouldn't put myself in any category close to that of these victims who come forward.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164437">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550689">With the victims that you've dealt with, had any of the types of administrative restrictions and postings, anything related to their being unable to perform the normal duties of their job, been done to them?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="35">(1535)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164438">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550690">I'm not sure I got the question.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164439">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550691">For the outgoing and incoming CDS who have stepped aside, the cases are, for obvious reasons, being investigated independent of the chain of command. Enlisted women have complained that their reports of sexual assault were buried by the chain of command. Are there separate systems in place for investigating complaints based on rank?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164440">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550692">There are none that I'm aware of.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164441">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550693">You've written a couple of opinion pieces and statements on your website that would lead us to believe that you could go no further as ombudsman, that you had pushed as hard as you could. Could you elaborate on that for us, please?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164442">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550694">Well, this goes back to transitioning members. I was the deputy ombudsman at Veterans Affairs before I came over to the Canadian Armed Forces, and I've seen the tail end of what transition looks like. When I came into the position of the Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, I took that on with the idea that if we could fix the front end, maybe we could have a better result at the back end.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550695"> I went out publicly and spoke in and around the Desmond inquiry at the time. That caused me grief. The governance report, when it was released, caused me grief. When I spoke to the media, things would change. Each time before I went before committee, there would be some nuance of change somewhere coming down the pipe.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550696">Look, it was a full-court press, start to finish. When I first came into this, I sat in front of committee and they asked me, “Gary, do you have the tools you need to do the job?” Being the naive new guy on the street, I said, “Yes, I think with the right people, the right mindset and working collaboratively, we can accomplish much.” That was my first—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164448">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550697"> Did you ever go to PCO about the—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164455">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550698">All right. Thank you very much. The time is up.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550699">Right now we will go to Mr. Robillard.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550700">Go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164457">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550701">Thank you, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550702">Mr. Walbourne, after that meeting, did you conduct an official investigation, as prescribed in the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives, the DAOD, given that you clearly considered the matter to be serious.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550703">Section 4(b) stipulates that, subject to these directives: </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550704">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="1">4(b) [The ombudsman] may, on the ombudsman's own motion after advising the Minister, investigate any matter concerning the DND or CF.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550705">If that is the case, what happened to the report of that investigation?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164460">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550706"> That which you're reading, sir, has to do with systemic reviews, when you look at policy, procedure or a clump or group of complaints coming out of a similar area. I can, on my own motion, investigate any policy or procedure. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550707">When I have individual victims approach me, the rules are different. I've said it a few times in front of committee, but let me say it one more time. When the victim comes to me, I ask whether they want this held in confidence or whether they want it investigated. This particular victim said they wanted it held in confidence, so I had no powers, rights or motions that I could bring to bear to start an investigation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164465">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550708">The DAOD Respecting the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence stipulates that the office of the ombudsman shall be operated in a confidential and secure manner so as to protect the information received by the office in the course of its operations.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550709">Why did you speak to the Minister about your cases?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164469">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550710">As a special adviser to the minister, I thought it prudent on my behalf to let him know that this allegation was there and it was substantiated. I thought it was the right thing to do. He is the person who oversees the chief of the defence staff and has direct control over the position. I don't know if there's someone else in government I should have gone to, but I thought that was the right point of contact.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164472">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550711">Why did you go to the Minister and try to tell him something, when the ombudsman is clearly expected to keep information on cases confidential?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164474">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550712">What is assured in confidentiality is the protection of the victim's identity. I did not give the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> the details of the allegation. I tried to show him some evidence. He refused to look at it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164476">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550713">Section 14 of the departmental directive stipulates that the ombudsman shall not investigate any complaint or matter relating to a military judge, court martial or summary trial.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550714">I may have misinterpreted that, but why did you go to see the Minister?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="40">(1540)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164479">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550715">I have absolutely no idea what connection you're making between the military justice system and me.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164480">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550716">As I understand the situation, there could well be a court martial. You and I agree that the Minister of National Defence should not be involved in that process, do we not?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164482">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550717">Not at all; I believed my role was to advise the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, which I did. As to what he could have done, you say that this would have ended up in a court martial. That's a supposition. No one knows that. We don't know the degree of the penalty that would have been imposed for this. Apparently, from what I understand, the penalties are not that great, so it may not have been a court martial. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550718">I just think this is apples and oranges.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164485">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550719">Do I still have time, Madam Chair?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164486">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550720">You have one more minute.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164488">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550721">Why did you go to see the Minister about this matter?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164490">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550722">Well, let me put it out there: Wouldn't you think it would be prudent that I go to the supervisor of the person in question when I have an allegation? My job as a special adviser to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> is to do just that—advise him—and I thought this was of enough magnitude that it should have been brought to his attention. That's what I did.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164503">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264296" Type="47">Mr. Yves Robillard</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550723">Thank you.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164504">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550724">Thank you very much, Mr. Robillard.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550725">We will move on to Mr. Benzen, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164505">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264428" Type="47">Mr. Bob Benzen (Calgary Heritage, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550726">Thank you, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550727">Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for being here today.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550728">Mr. Walbourne, after March 1, 2018, you had seven meetings cancelled with the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. In those seven meetings, were you trying to follow up on this allegation? Were you going back to follow up and see if you could get advice as to how to proceed on this matter?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164506">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550729">No, that wasn't the request for the meetings. That wasn't the purpose. I knew after PCO contacted me that the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> wasn't going to do anything. I had many other hot cases that required ministerial exposure and feedback. That's the reason for the meetings. The office wasn't stagnant on just one file. I mean, we deal with 2,000 complaints a year and with the systemic review. I needed to speak to the minister on multiple issues.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164509">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264428" Type="47">Mr. Bob Benzen</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550730"> Besides having a major allegation against the CDS, did you receive any other allegations of sexual misconduct against any other senior military leaders?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164510">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550731">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164511">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264428" Type="47">Mr. Bob Benzen</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550732">Did you have a sense, in your job, while Operation Honour was going on—and obviously it was there for a reason—that there was a major systemic problem in the armed forces with sexual misconduct? Were you seeing that one way or another through your office?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164513">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550733">Well, I think it's apparent. We see what's in the environment. As the sexual misconduct response centre was being stood up, I was still receiving these calls and complaints.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550734"> I'd have to go back to verify the numbers, but even though the sexual misconduct response centre was open, we did over 100 in the first year they were open. It dropped down to 60 in the second year, but we continued to get complaints, even with the volume that was going into the SMRC.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164516">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264428" Type="47">Mr. Bob Benzen</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550735">Basically, after you told the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> on March 1 that there was this allegation, which you had evidence of, and he had appointed General Vance to be in charge of Operation Honour, were you worried about how that was going to affect members of the CAF, given that allegations against the very person who was in charge were being investigated?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164521">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550736">My worries about the sexual misconduct response centre started long before that. I thought it was ill-conceived. I thought it was improperly rolled out. I don't think it had the right mandate, policies or procedures in place when it opened its doors. There were restrictions. Certain levels were allowed inside, and then they weren't allowed. Reservists couldn't come in. Then civilians couldn't, but now they can. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550737">My concerns go back to long before I received that allegation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="45">(1545)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164525">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264428" Type="47">Mr. Bob Benzen</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550738">Do you find it interesting the way the charges against you were investigated and how lax they were in investigating and following up on the allegations against General Vance?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164527">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550739">I won't speak about General Vance, but I will tell you my feelings and sentiment about the investigation that went on against me. I wish we had time to sit and talk about unethical, nefarious and insidious behaviours, because I have a story that maybe someday will be told.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550740">I just think it's a hard ride. If you go into this position and do the right thing.... You have to agitate at times. They say calm seas don't fill many sails. We need change. We keep talking about change. It just doesn't happen.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550741">What happened to me, I think, was an exercise and a lesson for others. If you do the right thing, be prepared. But I just think it was a farce. It was a dog-and-pony show. Their allegations were meritless. The findings, even though they were against me, can be disproved—every one of them.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164532">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264428" Type="47">Mr. Bob Benzen</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550742">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550743">Clearly the system is broken. You have an obligation to listen to these allegations, and yet when you take them to your superior, they are not even dealt with.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550744"> Can you talk a little bit about why you need to have independence and why this has to be changed immediately, and how that could affect the trust and the morale of all members of CAF?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164536">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550745">This is a no-brainer, in my opinion. As long as that structure stays where it is—administratively reporting to the deputy, and organizationally reporting to the chief—we are never going to get those people who need to come forward to come forward. In my office, it's the same thing.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550746"> You want to talk about administrative freedom. Let's just, perchance, in a new fantasy world we could live in, say that if this SMRC were combined with the ombudsman’s office and reported to Parliament, when that type of complaint came in, it would not be going to the minister. It would be going to Parliament. If one person can't act, can we hope that 338 can?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164539">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550747">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550748">Madame Vandenbeld, go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164540">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550749">Thank you very much, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550750">I would like to get a little bit of clarification.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550751"> Mr. Walbourne, in an answer to one of the previous questions, you said that it wouldn't have necessarily been a court martial type of offence. We don't actually know what it was. You said that you had brought certain evidence with you on paper when you went to speak to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. Was that evidence something that you would have normally been required to go to the CFNIS or to the provost marshal with? Or was this something, for instance, on the same level as what you said you usually deal with—a joke, an offensive comment, an email or something like that?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164544">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550752"> Well, two things....</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550753">First of all, in response to whether it would be a court martial, I am not a judge advocate general. I don't know how the judicial system inside the Canadian Armed Forces works in detail, so I don't know what the outcome of any type of trial that would have considered that allegation could have been. It may have been everything.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550754">As to the second part, I am not going to comment any further about the allegations or the details of the allegation I received. If I receive evidence against a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, depending on what the complaint is or what the evidence is, that will determine what resource we go to. If it is a sexual assault, it's taken to the military police, and we provide the evidence that was given to us; the complainant is notified that will happen prior to it happening.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550755">If it's sexual harassment, and the complainant has given us the authority, we'll go back to the chain of command and deal with the—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164552">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550756">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550757">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550758">What exactly is it that you wanted from the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="50">(1550)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164561">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550759">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550760"> I went to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164567">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550761">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550762">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550763">What exactly...? You have avenues you could have gone. Why, then, did you take it to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, knowing that a minister's office, a political office, is not the appropriate place to do this kind of investigation?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164574">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550764">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550765">I had no avenues available to me, because the complainant asked for confidentiality, which I provided. I went to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550766">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> for advice.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164579">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550767">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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164581">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550768">No, because I did not have the permission of the complainant.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164583">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550769">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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164585">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550770">One of the cornerstones of ombudsing is confidentiality. It is the cornerstone. It is the lifeblood of the organization.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550771">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550772">Confidentiality—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164587">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550773"> Did the survivor—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164588">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550774">I'm sorry—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164589">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550775">—ask you to go to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> or give you permission to go to the minister in this case?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164590">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550776">The survivor—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164591">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550777">We have run out of time.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164593">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264298" Type="47">Ms. Anita Vandenbeld</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550778">I'm sorry. I'm out of time.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164595">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550779"> Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164596">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550780">Thank you, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550781">I will be brief, because I really want Ms. May to be able to speak, since I am sharing my time with her.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550782">Mr. Walbourne, at the March 2018 meeting, about how long did your closed-door discussion with the Minister last?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164597">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550783">Maybe 10 to 15 minutes—maybe—for that portion of the meeting.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164598">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550784">On the following day, how long did your discussions with the Privy Council Office about those allegations last?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164599">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550785">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> for confidence.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="55">(1555)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164602">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550786">That's amazing. Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550787">Go ahead, Ms. May.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164603">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550788">With your permission, Madam Chair. Thank you, Alexis.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550789">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550790">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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164607">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550791">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164610">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550792">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550793">If you had a younger female relative who wanted to join the Canadian Armed Forces, what would you tell her she could expect?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164614">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550794">Well, here comes the optimist in the room again.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550795">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550796">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550797">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164625">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550798">Thank you very much, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164626">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550799">Thank you.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164627">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550800">We will go on to you, Mr. Garrison.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164630">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550801">Thank you very much, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550802">I guess my concern here is somewhat similar to Elizabeth's, in that we seem to have gotten focused in the committee on what Mr. Walbourne did or didn't do. He's been very frank with us about what he did and how that fit with his view of his responsibilities. The person who obviously was not frank with us in his appearance before the committee was the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550803">I will have a couple more questions for Mr. Walbourne, but I just want to note that, as I said in the last meeting, I think we do need to invite the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> back so that he can—now, taking into account Mr. Walbourne's testimony—see if he wishes to change anything that he had to say to us.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550804">We now have a second chief of the defence staff. The current chief of the defence staff has stepped aside, as it's being characterized, because of an allegation of sexual misconduct.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550805">Mr. Walbourne, would you have seen this as a possible outcome of the information that you took to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164634">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550806">I think it's quite apparent that it could have been. If this is what we've done in the current situation, I don't see much different.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164636">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550807">Do you feel that the information that you brought to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, which he refused to look at, was serious enough that it might have had the same outcome?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164638">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550808"> I'm not going to talk any more about that allegation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164639">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550809">Okay. Fair enough.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550810">Another peculiar thing about some of the questioning today is...if we didn't have ministerial responsibility in Parliament. When people talk about a court martial, you don't have to be a military justice to know that there's some question about whether you can actually court-martial the chief of the defence staff, since a court martial requires an officer of the same rank or higher to conduct proceedings. There are some real problems there.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550811">I'll go back to something you said to us that I think was very important—that is, that you and the chief of the defence staff both reported to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. Would you have expected that the minister might have asked the chief of the defence staff if he had anything he wanted to talk about as a result of your meeting?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164640">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550812">That sounds like a logical response to me.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164641">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550813">Again, I'm back to where as a committee member I actually need to be able to ask these questions to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. When PCO did not take any further action.... </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550814">I just want to go back to this, because I've kind of lost the thread here. The <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> never contacted you again for any follow-up, and in fact refused meetings with you repeatedly after that. One would presume it was out of fear that you might ask him the same question or present him with the same evidence. I can't impute motive, but the point is that the minister never got back to you with any advice or any suggestion that he'd done anything about this matter.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="00">(1600)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164642">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550815">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164643">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550816">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550817">Mr. Bezan, go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164644">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550818">Thank you, Madam Chair. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550819">I again want to thank Mr. Walbourne for his candour, his service for so many years to Canada and especially his time as defence ombudsman. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550820">There's no question that, with your testimony today, it's clear that <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> failed to take actions on these allegations of sexual misconduct by former chief of the defence staff General Vance. Your testimony proves that the minister failed to live up to his own standard of zero tolerance for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. Really, the question now comes down to the <Affiliation DbId="214296" Type="1">Prime Minister</Affiliation> having to answer how this is acceptable conduct by a member of his own cabinet.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550821">I am disappointed with the attacks coming from Liberal MPs here, trying to muddy the waters, trying to attack your credibility on decisions you made and how you handled these allegations. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550822">I just want to remind everyone that under the National Defence Act, it says right in section 4 that the minister “has the management and direction of the Canadian Forces”. That's all the Canadian Forces. He has four people who report directly to him: the chief of the defence staff, the deputy minister, the judge advocate general and the ombudsman. As long as the CDS is in position—I know the Liberal colleagues know this—there's no way anyone is going to seriously investigate the CDS as long as they're sitting in the chair. We know that there was going to be some cover-up.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550823">Mr. Walbourne, you said that you met with Janine Sherman from PCO. Did she ever tell you how the Privy Council Office was informed a day later? Did it come directly from <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister Sajjan</Affiliation>, or did it come from somebody else in his office?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164652">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550824">No, I never got that detail from Ms. Sherman, other than that she knew about the allegation.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550825">To the other point you were making, I would go the other way, Mr. Bezan. I would say thanks to the Liberal members for finally reading the mandate of the ombudsman's office.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164653">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550826">Okay. I appreciate that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550827">With regard to the seven meetings you requested with the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> after March 1, 2018, you said you had various issues you wanted to bring forward. Do you think he was saying no because he was afraid you would again bring up the issue of the allegations against General Vance?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164656">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550828">Well, that's a distinct possibility. I would suspect it would have been in the back of his mind.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164657">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550829">Just to change gears a bit, you know that I've long supported the idea of having the office of the military ombudsman as independent, as well as making the sexual misconduct response centre independent. You have proposed bringing those two offices under one umbrella and reporting directly to Parliament. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550830">How do you visualize it working with, say, an allegation you were dealing with, an allegation against the chief of the defence staff? If it came into your office as an independent ombudsman, would you then be free to take that to the sexual misconduct response centre, or would you have to take it to committee, through an in camera process, to get action?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164663">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550831"> Again, it would depend on the type of allegation that was made: informal, formal, systemic or whatever it was. I suspect there would have to be structures created just above as a reporting-in for that entity, but I would assume that's where it would go, either to committee or to cabinet, one way or the other.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164666">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550832">As you start looking at independence and being able to do investigations beyond what you do, can you just clarify for us—because Liberal members were somewhat confused—what powers the ombudsman has to investigate, whether it's misconduct, harassment or sexual assault? What are the limitations currently, and where do we need to go to make it better so that we can start stomping out sexual misconduct in the armed forces?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164671">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550833">As I said earlier, sexual harassment, in the same vein, is handled in a different way. There are resources you bring to get the person the right counselling and to get them into a good place and to deal with what's happening in that particular environment, either through the chain of command or through mediated conversations. There are many approaches to that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550834">As for the second part, for me it just comes back to the basics. What are we going to do? How do we give assurances? The structure has to be such that it is separated enough so that those coming forward know that there is not going to be blowback because they've come forward. It has to be such that there is an entity other than the minister or the chief where it stops completely.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550835">I just think we have to stop talking about this. It does not take World War III to get this to happen. The ombudsman's office was set up to handle sexual assault and harassment. The SMRC, I think, has come a long way. Dr. Preston and her group are doing good work over there. God bless them. I think now's the time. I think we're at the right time, the right place and in the right time in history to get this right.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="05">(1605)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164675">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550836">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164677">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269430" Type="40">Mr. James Bezan</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550837">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550838">
                <B>The Chair:</B> We go now to Mr. Baker.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550839">Go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164678">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550840">Thank you very much, Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550841">Mr. Walbourne, I'd like to go back to some of your testimony today. You've spoken about how you approached the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> with allegations, but you have also spoken about how you were obliged to protect the confidentiality of the person coming forward.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550842">Help me understand this a little bit better. You needed to protect confidentiality, but you went to the minister and you have said that you would have wanted him to act. What, reasonably, could he have done under those constraints? What's your advice in that regard?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164685">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550843">My advice would be to do something. Again, as I said, there are many levers inside the NDA that the minister has available. I don't have visibility on all of them. There are actions that could have been taken. We've seen some recent action taken.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550844">There are many things I think could have happened, but doing nothing wasn't the response I was looking for. Throwing it over to PCO and not coming back to me with advice on what I was I supposed to do with this.... I'm sitting with the allegation. I am trying to protect the complainant who has come forward to me, but I have an allegation against a chief. What do I do with that? Who do I go to? My only reporting structure was to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164686">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550845">I'm trying to understand better. You said there were a number of levers or a number of things that the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> could have done. Could you give us an example of what that could have been? In this case, what he apparently did—this is your testimony, so correct me if I'm wrong—was raise this with PCO. Within a day, you got a call from PCO, as you've indicated. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550846">He did act. He raised it with PCO, but you suggest that there were other levers at his disposal. I'm curious about what those other levers are. What are those other actions that you believe he should, or could, have taken?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164696">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550847">Retired Colonel Drapeau was in front of the committee a little while back, and I think he clearly outlined what some of those levers were. He could have called an own motion investigation. He has that authority. There were other things he could do.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550848">What kind of chafes me a little is that he did the exact opposite of what I asked him to do, which was to come back to me with advice. Instead, he punted it over to PCO and I was caught flat-footed when I arrived in their office.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164699">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550849">You made a suggestion that he could have done what Mr. Drapeau recently suggested and initiated an investigation but, again, you said you have to protect the confidentiality of the witness and you cannot share the identity and at least some of the information necessary to pursue that investigation. You, yourself, said you couldn't pursue an investigation and have said that you couldn't go to the police or any other authorities that are available.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550850">Again, how would the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> be able to initiate that investigation? Help me understand that.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164700">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550851"> Well, let's talk about visibility. Let's just say that the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> took it and said, “I'm going to call my own motion investigation.” He could have called that victim and had a conversation, and maybe he'd have found other things in the environment. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550852">You're asking me to suppose what the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> could have done and what he should have done. There are many levers inside the NDA and other levers inside of cabinet that he can pull and bring to bear. His decision was to punt it over to the PCO, and that's where we find ourselves today. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="10">(1610)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164703">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550853">How would he call that person if you need to protect that person's identity to protect their confidentiality?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164705">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550854">With any lead back from the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, I would have reached back to the victim, told her what I was in the process of doing and where I was. I would ask her at that time whether I would be able to release their name to the minister. I probably would have gotten a yes, knowing that they had that type of top coverage. That's what would have happened.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550855"> Even though I say informal/formal investigations, we don't get an informal complaint and just drop it. We deal with the person. We make sure they're where they need to be, that they have the resources, that they're feeling okay. We follow up for self-help and those types of things.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550856">Many things could have happened.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164706">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550857">Chair, how much time do I have left? </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164707">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550858">Not enough, I'm afraid.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550859">We'll go on to Ms. Alleslev.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164708">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550860">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550861">I'd like to continue on that line, if I could.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550862"> Could I ask you this? You were not obligated to bring absolutely everything to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister of National Defence</Affiliation>. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164709">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550863">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164710">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550864">Therefore, we would be correct in saying that you used your discretion in terms of what you brought forward to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister of National Defence</Affiliation>.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164711">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550865">Where I had the opportunity to use discretion, I did.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164712">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550866">That discretion would be around the severity or the seriousness that you felt, in your own opinion, was therefore worthy and something that the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> should know.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164714">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550867">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164715">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550868">By bringing this particular allegation to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, one could infer that you interpreted it as serious enough that the minister needed to know.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164716">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550869">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164717">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550870">You and the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> do not have the same authority. Is that a fair statement?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164718">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550871">For sure. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164721">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550872">Also, the abilities, authorities and responsibilities that you have are different from those of the <Affiliation DbId="253008" Type="2">Minister of National Defence</Affiliation>.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164722">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550873">Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164723">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550874">The CDS is not the same level, but you have no authority over the chief of the defence staff.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164724">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550875">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164726">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550876">The only person between you, the CDS, the JAG and the deputy minister who has authority over the CDS is the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">Minister of National Defence</Affiliation>. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164728">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550877">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164729">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550878">What you could do with the information is far different from what the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> could do with the information.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164730">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550879">That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164732">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550880">In your opinion, would the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> need a reason, as the minister, to do his own...“investigate” sometimes is a clinical definition term, but just to look into the matter?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164735">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550881">I believe he could have. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164736">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550882">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.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550883">Would that be a fair statement?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164738">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550884">Yes. I consider that a fair statement. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164740">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550885">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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164742">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550886"> That's correct.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164744">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550887">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> behaves towards the chief of the defence staff in the same manner as perhaps all other members of the Canadian Forces.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="15">(1615)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164747">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550888">Agreed.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164750">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550889">I'm afraid the time is up.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164752">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="253002" Type="2">Ms. Leona Alleslev</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550890">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164753">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550891">We will go to Mr. Spengemann, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164754">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550892">Madam Chair, thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550893">I have one question for Mr. Walbourne, and I will split the remainder of my time with Mr. Bagnell.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550894">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.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550895">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. 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. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550896">I just wanted to get your response on that, and then pass it on to my colleague Mr. Bagnell.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164759">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550897">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550898">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550899">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550900">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164767">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264297" Type="47">Mr. Sven Spengemann</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550901">Thank you, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550902">I'll pass it to my colleague Mr. Bagnell.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164771">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264293" Type="47">Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550903"> 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. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550904">Thank you very much for being here.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164776">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550905">I'm sorry. You'll have to put on your headset, Mr. Bagnell.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164778">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264293" Type="47">Hon. Larry Bagnell</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550906">I'm sorry. I've been in enough meetings that I should have this right by now.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550907">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550908">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550909">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?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164785">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550910"> I think there are two pieces to that, if I may say so.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550911">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550912">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550913">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550914">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—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="20">(1620)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164787">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550915">I'm sorry to interrupt. Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6550916">Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164788">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550917">Thank you, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550918">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550919">I was thinking over the last question I asked you, and I would like some clarification.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550920">When the Privy Council Office called you, did you go in person or was it done by telephone?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164790">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550921">I went to their office.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164791">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550922">Did they call you about any particular topic when they asked you to go to their office?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164793">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550923">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550924">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164795">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550925">At that point, did they not tell you about the specific topic that would be discussed?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164796">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550926">No, again, I thought it was a response to a request I had made for a meeting. I was going over under the premise that we were talking about a different subject.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164797">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550927">When you got to the office and realized that this was not the reason you were there, things did not take long because you left immediately. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164799">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550928">It was very short.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164800">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550929">Thank you, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550930">Ms. May, would you like to ask one last question? You are one of the few women to be able to do so today.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164802">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550931">Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164803">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550932">I'm afraid not. I'm sorry. We're running out of time.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164804">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269431" Type="40">Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550933">I am sorry, Ms. May.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164805">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="252941" Type="2">Ms. Elizabeth May</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550934">Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164806">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550935">Mr. Garrison, go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164807">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550936">Thank you very much, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550937">I, too, once again, as we're nearing the end of this, want to express my great thanks to Mr. Walbourne, both for his previous service and for his forthrightness and frankness today.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550938">I want to ask you to state something that may be very obvious, but it just occurred to me. Since you took along the evidence in written form to your meeting with the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, did it ever occur to you that he might refuse to look at that evidence? Was that an expected behaviour from the minister?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164808">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550939">No, I wasn't expecting that. That was a surprise.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164810">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550940">Did the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> cite any reason for not looking at that evidence, or can you think of any reason that he could have cited for not looking at that evidence?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164812">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550941">No, he didn't, and no, I can't.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164813">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550942">Thank you for that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550943">In your work with those who brought forward complaints of sexual misconduct to your office—again, I'm probably asking you to state the obvious—is the reaction from this victim much the same as from others, that they are reluctant at the beginning to risk further damage, further reprisals in their military careers, until they have some assurances about the process?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164814">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550944"> That is one of the underlying fears, and probably the one that's most predominant. It's not only..... I would say that running neck and neck to that are the family consequences that come from it. Being a victim, you get victimized again in many places, and some of those are on the home front, sadly.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550945">Yes, that is a major concern. The transparency and having it outside the chain of command is a real bone of contention.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="25">(1625)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164815">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550946">This complainant, if I understand you correctly, never said to you “I will never consent to letting my identity be known”, but said “I need some assurances about process.” Would that be a fair characterization of the position that this complainant was taking?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164816">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550947">Yes, and it's the same characterization we get from most who approach. They want to talk first about the assurances of what is going to protect them.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164817">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550948">Then again, that makes good sense to me about why you're talking to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, among all of the other reasons to be talking to the minister, who is responsible for the discipline and good conduct of the Canadian Forces.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164820">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550949">Thank you very much.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164822">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264481" Type="47">Mr. Randall Garrison</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550950">Madam Chair, I'm going to stop there.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550951">Thank you.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164824">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550952"> Your time is up.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550953">We will go on to Madame Gallant, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164825">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550954">Thank you, Madam Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550955">Did anyone other than the PCO ask you for the physical evidence?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164826">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550956">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164827">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550957">Not Jody Thomas...?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164828">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550958">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164829">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550959">As far as you know, were there any indications to the victim that the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">defence minister</Affiliation> did relay the information to the CDS?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164830">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550960">As far as I know, no.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164831">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550961">When the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> refused to look at the evidence that you tried to present at that meeting on March 1, did you get the impression that he already knew?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164832">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550962">I don't think so. I think he was taken aback that I had it. I don't know if he was surprised because I had it, or surprised because it came forward. I can't answer that.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164833">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550963">You said that seven meetings were cancelled. What were the issues that were ignored and that would have been addressed in those seven meetings?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164836">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550964">There were many issues. There was compensation for retired members. There was movement on various programs and policies. There was software I had developed for the department and we were looking for some headway and a lead on. It was a smorgasbord of issues.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164837">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550965">Were there any about inappropriate behaviour?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164840">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550966">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164841">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550967">
                <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4"> Minister Sajjan</Affiliation> put General Vance in charge of Operation Honour and kept him there even after he had learned of the allegations that you brought to him. Did you fear for the well-being of the Canadian Armed Forces members and the future of Op Honour?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164842">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550968">I feared for both at the same time. My fear was that I think we have a concept of Op Honour.... We didn't set it up right, but we have a good concept. I was afraid that the trust in it was going to be eroded further. Yes, I always have the other concern.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164843">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550969">Would you be willing to commit here today that you would answer additional questions we may have or submit additional documentation to us on request?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164844">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550970">Depending on what you're asking for, if it's within my power to give it to you, you're more than welcome to it, if it's within the parameters that have been placed upon me and the confidentiality I hold and the confidentiality agreement that I've signed. As long as we stay within those parameters, you can have whatever I have.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164845">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550971">On the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> himself, could he not have done any type of investigation on his own? Could he have asked people about it? Was there anything stopping him? After all, he was a police officer himself.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164846">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550972">Well, I don't know of any barriers that stop the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. No, there are many things that I think could have been done. Throwing it to the PCO and never speaking to me again I don't think was the most adult response.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164847">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550973">Was there anyone else you could have relayed this to and expected some type of action, other than the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164849">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550974">No, I don't think there's anyone else you can go to. I mean, it is the chain of command. He is the person who is responsible. I couldn't think of anyone else inside of government I could have gone to.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164850">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550975">Should the CDS, in your opinion, have been asked to step aside while an investigation...? Given that the charges or allegations were even brought to the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>, would that have been the correct course of action?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164852">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550976">I can't say what the correct course of action should have been from the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. All I look at is recent behaviour and what has happened—sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164853">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550977">On Op Honour, insofar as you're concerned, is it pretty well destined to failure? Or are there any hopes that something positive can continue out of it?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164855">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550978"> Again, I'll go back to Dr. Preston. I think she has done good work from her level down. I think they have a structure in place, but as long as it sits where it sits, it's going to be an underutilized organization. It will not get us to where we need to be. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550979">It's an ombudsman-plus. We've called it a different name. It has the same duty, mandate and functions that I carry; I think it's just lipstick. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="30">(1630)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164856">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550980">You mentioned that we have to get rid of the dinosaurs. Where do we start? Would you suggest that there's no problem at all, for example, at the Royal Military College? Do we need to start at the very beginning there, with officers?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164857">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550981">I've said it and I'll say it again: I think what needs to happen is that members of the Canadian Armed Forces, those who get up every morning to serve this country, need to know that there is an entity outside the chain of command that can deal with their issues. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550982">We can talk about the Royal Military College. I've spent time there and heard the stories from that place also. Until we change the opportunities for the victim, we're not going to make any headway.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164859">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264430" Type="47">Mrs. Cheryl Gallant</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550983">Thank you, Mr. Walbourne.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164862">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550984">All right. Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550985">We move now to Mr. Baker.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550986">Go ahead, please.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164864">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550987">Thanks very much, Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550988">Mr. Walbourne, I want to go back to the conversation that you and I were having in a previous round of questioning and explore that further and understand better, if I can. We were talking about the fact that you indicated that you had met with the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> to share with him allegations of sexual harassment, and that the next day you heard from the Privy Council Office. It appears that the minister took action to refer it to the Privy Council Office.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550989">I asked you what action the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> could have reasonably taken, and you suggested that one option would be to undertake an investigation. You also talked in your testimony—and we've heard this not only from you but also from others who've presented to this committee—about the need to not just protect confidentiality, which you and I have already discussed, but also protect the victims. Those people coming forward need to be protected over the long term and be assured that their concerns are addressed. Part of doing that would involve an independent and impartial investigation. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550990">I'm just wondering whether it would be seen as independent and impartial if the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> undertook an investigation in that circumstance.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164866">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550991">Well, you know, I'm sure if the <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550992">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550993">I think there were a multitude of options available. There could have been a discussion. The <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164868">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550994">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation>. 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550995">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164869">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550996">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.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550997">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="35">(1635)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164870">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6550998"> 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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> might go to the Privy Council Office.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6550999">I'm wondering whether this <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6551000">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.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164871">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6551001">Well, you're asking me to do an organizational structure on Zoom. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6551002">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.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6551003">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 <Affiliation DbId="214311" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> 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. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164872">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6551004">All right—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164873">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264294" Type="47">Mr. Yvan Baker</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6551005">It sounds like the levers don't exist today for the minister to undertake that investigation you're talking about. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164874">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="272038" Type="28">Mr. Gary Walbourne</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6551006">They do. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="11164875">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269429" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6551007">All right. Thank you very much. That's the end of our time today.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6551008"> I would like to thank the witness for his very valuable testimony today and for appearing for our study.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6551009">Thank you to the committee members and our IT and translation team.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6551010">
                <B>An hon. member:</B> Point of order, Madam Chair—</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6551011">
                <B>The Chair:</B> The meeting is adjourned.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
        </SubjectOfBusinessContent>
      </SubjectOfBusiness>
    </OrderOfBusiness>
  </HansardBody>
</Hansard>