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?