National Defence Committee on Feb. 19th, 2021

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

This was a general question. It did not concern the allegations we are discussing today. I wanted to know who would be required to act, in cabinet, if such allegations were made. I think that you can tell us this. I don't think there is anything confidential there, normally. It's just a matter of procedure.

[Janine Sherman]

Can I answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, please.

[Janine Sherman]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It isn't something that would necessarily be discussed by all of cabinet. As I mentioned, it is up to the responsible minister to make recommendations following an investigation about a particular case. I think you're asking when and how people will become aware of those allegations. The point is that while they're allegations, they need to be investigated. When there is a formal complaint, there is a very clear process that is followed in terms of procedural fairness for the complainant and the respondent. That information is managed on a confidential basis. An independent reviewer will conduct the investigation in general, and the findings from that will determine what the next steps may be. If there are findings, that minister would make recommendations about, potentially, removal of that GIC appointee from his or her position. If the findings are such, that recommendation would go—

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

So if there are allegations of a sexual nature concerning the chief of the defence staff, the Prime Minister would not be made aware of them until the complaint was official. That is my take-away from this.

[Janine Sherman]

I would say, I think, that as my colleague mentioned, every case is unique.

If there is a situation in which allegations are made and there is a danger to someone in the workplace, if there is a situation in which the workplace is under duress in some shape or form, if I can use that word, it is possible—and again, specific to the case and the circumstances—to remove the person who is being complained about from the workplace on a temporary basis while an investigation is done.

Until allegations are proven, we try to manage that kind of process in a way that is confidential for all parties. In respect to the rule of law and procedural fairness, you have a right to hear what the complaints are and to have those be investigated, proven, responded to. There is thus quite a process that must be followed when a formal complaint comes forward.

I would say it is not something that is presented in terms of its not being an issue that goes to a number of ministers in the form of cabinet; it is something that a minister, who is responsible, would be aware of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

We will move on to Mr. Garrison, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to follow up where Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe was going.

What I believe I heard you say was that if there were a risk to the workplace, someone could be removed temporarily while allegations were being investigated.

Clearly, if the chief of the defence staff, who is in charge of eliminating sexual misconduct in the military, is accused of that very thing, surely this would be a situation that would qualify as something that required his removal, at least temporarily.

I'm not going to ask you to judge that, but I am going to ask, shouldn't it be the role of the minister to inform you, if that were the case? If it were perceived to be that he couldn't do the job because of the allegations without potentially causing serious damage to the program and to the Canadian Forces, is it the responsibility of the minister to inform the PCO, if that were the case?

[Christyne Tremblay]

Madam Chair, would you allow my colleague to continue her explanations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, please.

[Christyne Tremblay]

Thank you.

[Janine Sherman]

Thank you.

I think the question, Madam Chair, and the example I gave, are very specifically about formal allegations that have been brought to bear by a complainant. I would distinguish here between that situation and issues of unfounded rumours.

When we conduct an investigation, there is a first-level assessment as to whether the particular issues brought forward in a complaint constitute—or would constitute, if they had indeed occurred—harassment, for example; that's an assessment of whether they would, if they were true. Once we understand that such is indeed the case, an investigation is undertaken.

There are a number of steps. The short version of this is that there are a number of steps to properly respect procedural fairness, to make sure that we are undertaking investigations—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Excuse me, but with respect, that's not what I am asking you.

I am asking you: if a minister feels that the person cannot stay in the job because of damage to the organization, is it their responsibility to make you aware of that?

Whose responsibility would it be, if that determination were made? I'm not asking you to judge whether this is the case here, but whose responsibility it would be.

[Janine Sherman]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To answer the more specific question, it is up to a minister. I'm being careful here in that a Governor in Council appointee can be a CEO of a Crown corporation or a head of a tribunal. It can be any number of those sorts of positions. The information that does come forward about someone's suitability to be in a position can come from various places.

It would be something that the minister would be consulted on and a view would be brought forward to the Governor in Council to say that for all these reasons, this person is not suitable. Again, it would depend on the kind of appointee. We have Governor in Council appointees who serve at good behaviour. We have some who serve at pleasure. In any case, if concerns are raised, a GIC appointee is entitled to procedural fairness. They would have a chance to respond to the concerns that are being raised as to whether or not those were legitimate concerns.

Often those concerns do come through an investigation. It is possible that they could come through some other avenues, but procedural fairness and the right of the individual to make representations would still be considered.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

With respect, the standard has to be higher than “not a criminal”. We demand the highest standards of behaviour, so it may not take an incident-based finding to determine that the person can't continue to do the job they are supposed to do.

In this case, we have fairly good information that there had been previous investigations of accusations of sexual misconduct against General Vance and that there had been previous allegations made. All I'm saying here is that it's not for you to judge the specific allegations, but when you have a pattern of behaviour that affects someone's ability to do the job, it would seem to me the minister has a responsibility.

There may be other things in performance evaluation. I personally have another question about General Vance's suitability. When we went through six vice chiefs of the defence staff in six years, it would seem to me the minister would be asking some questions about that. That's highly unusual. What's going on in an organization that loses senior leadership at that level?

Again, that's a different kind of concern than a complaint, but I'm going to raise it. Wouldn't it be the minister's responsibility, if he had a concern about that, to raise that with the Privy Council Office?

[Janine Sherman]

May I go ahead, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, please.

[Janine Sherman]

As I've pointed out, the performance management process that does apply to GICs is an annual opportunity for considerations about leadership and performance of individuals to be brought to bear. Yes, there are avenues for that. A minister would absolutely have a view on that.

In the case of GIC appointees, it could come from a board that is responsible for a CEO. There are a number of avenues that we do review in terms of overall performance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right, thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Garrison. I tried to let her go as long as I could.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We'll go on to Mr. Bezan, please.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for appearing.

Just following up on Mr. Garrison's line about performance, let's go back to the situation we have with General Vance. There are allegations that came forward, reportedly in 2018, and then he was given a raise on May 9, 2019 in the amount of $45,900.

Does the PCO do that performance themselves, or is that performance coming from the deputy minister? Is that coming from the minister? How does it happen that the CDS is then approved for such a performance bonus?

[Christyne Tremblay]

Madam Chair, would you let Ms. Sherman explain our performance review process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, please.

[Christyne Tremblay]

Thank you.