By Michael Blais
In the interest of full disclosure. I have known Gary Walbourne since the Canadian Veterans Advocacy (CVA) began its formal engagement in Ottawa as a VAC stakeholder in 2011. At the time Walbourne was Deputy Veterans Ombudsman. In my opinion, Walbourne can be an intense individual and admittedly, I have increasingly enjoyed the robust conversations we have shared this past decade in respect to both the Conservative and subsequent Liberal governments' provisions to Canada’s veterans. After his appointment to lead the Office of the Military Ombudsman, we discussed topics such as; DND’s obligations on transition of the wounded/injured to civilian life, sexual assault/harassment in the CAF, Operation Honour and Military Sexual Trauma. I came to admire the former ombudsman’s tenacity and equally important, his dedication to assist those who have turned to his office to report incidents of concern.
Naturally, I was profoundly disappointed to read about the dismissive manner in which Mr. Walbourne was treated by the Minister of National Defence (MND), Harjit Sajjan as a consequence to performing his duty as Ombudsman. Hopefully, Prime Minister Trudeau will realize that Sajjan has violated the trust of the rank and file and will finally, after years of ineptitude, put someone in the MND’s office that will be respected, admired and trusted by Canada’s sons and daughters in uniform.
Is this desire perhaps too harsh? I think not. Ostracizing the Office of the Military Ombudsman because he is doing his job to the best of his abilities sets a dangerous precedent. It clearly demonstrates how an inept minister can corrupt the legislative intent at the Ombudsman’s office at both DND and Veterans Affairs Canada.
When Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government created these two positions, he legislated fail-safe protocols to ensure that the MND and the prime minister retained ultimate control over the respective ombudsman’s and when necessary they retained the power to rein in the appointed ombudsperson’s activities should they become politically embarrassing or untenable. Readers need only to recall Ombudsman Stogran’s summary dismissal when he dared to go public about Veterans Affairs Canada intransigence and ineptitude?
These provisions are purposefully obstructive, designed to marginalize the ombudsperson’s effort and through a formidable legislative muzzle, negate the ombudsman's ability to affect justice for serving members or veterans who come forward to him or her at the departmental level.
It is any wonder very few serving members actually trust the Office of the Military Ombudsman?
Is it any wonder that few veterans or their families trust or respect the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman?
Former OVO Craig Dalton identified this existential problem in the summer of 2019 when he publicly expressed his concerns that the office of the Veterans Ombudsman was neither trusted nor respected by veterans and their families while he concurrently requested that the government conduct an “independent” review of the office’s mandate.
“I am concerned with what has been reflected to me around the lack of trust in our office, questioning what value we offer to veterans, noting that we’re not independent enough to generate confidence in veterans,” Dalton told Murray Brewster atCBC news. “If veterans are not coming to us because they don’t believe we’re independent and they don’t believe we can support them. Then I think looking at other reporting relationships of an ombudsman office is certainly a component of the review I’d like to see included.”
Daulton was not, alas, prepared to take the required step of recommending that the OVO report directly to parliament instead of the minister. Minster McCauley was not, alas, prepared to do anything and Ombudsman Dalton’s request was filed in the dusty drawer where all OVO reports ultimately wind up.
Tragically, Harper's fail-safe mechanisms preclude any legitimate effort to conduct a review into the former CDS General Jonathan Vance's allegedly inappropriate conduct.
Why would that be the case?
Simply put, the ombudsman has no recourse at their disposal other than to report such allegations to the minister only.
The situation, in respect to General Vance’s allegedly inappropriate 2012 email to a female corporal, in which he proposed a joint vacation on a clothing optional beach, is further complicated by the accuser’s wish to remain anonymous. The legislation under these circumstances is specific, Mr. Walbourne, as Ombudsman for the DND, is duty bound to maintain General Vance’s accuser’s confidence and privacy.
For his part, MND Sajjan, claims he too was bound by legislative restrictions that compelled him to bring the accusation of Vance’s allegedly inappropriate email to the Privy Council Office (PCO). By doing so, Sajjan effectively relegated authority in respect to further investigations or any potential disciplinary acts to the PCO.
The secretive PCO apparently did nothing because General Vance’s accuser had requested anonymity and they did not have enough information upon which to proceed.
How can justice be served under these circumstances?
The government tell us to ‘trust them' but those words ring as hollow as those of the Mexican beach vendor who offers you a special deal because he is your ‘Amigo’. Trust me, he is not your friend.
