National Defence Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

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

I realize, Madam Chair, that the invitation was made and he took a pass on it, but this is a summons. This is by motion rather than invitation from the clerk, so this would make it very formal and require him to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Let's discuss that at the end of this meeting. We have some very esteemed witnesses with us right now. I will reserve 15 minutes at the end of the meeting.

Go ahead, Madam Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary and the committee that we did indeed previously discuss witnesses publicly, so we're not going to be satisfied with doing this in camera.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We normally discuss those kinds of witnesses and things like that at the steering committee, but I'll take it under advisement. I'll talk to the clerk, but we'll discuss it for the last 15 minutes of this meeting.

Thank you.

Do we have Colonel Drapeau on the phone?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

Not yet. I'm still waiting for the phone number.

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

Madam Chair, while we're waiting, I have a point of order.

We have six witnesses appearing over a two-hour meeting. I think a number of us have raised this in numerous meetings, that it would provide—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

You're right, Mr. Bezan, we—

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

—greater information and allow greater participation by members if we had fewer witnesses. Six is significant and usually we have two. Cramming so many witnesses into one meeting is really unfair to us as members of the committee seeking to get answers to all the questions we're so interested in at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Understood, but sometimes very esteemed witnesses who have a lot to contribute to the discussion are available on only a certain day. Rather than turn away that witness who could add quite a bit to this discussion, we decided.... The witnesses are kind of designed in that the first two witnesses are from CAF-DND, the second two witnesses are two people with esteemed legal backgrounds, and the last two witnesses are academic in nature. They were paired that way to make it as efficient as possible.

I don't disagree with the theme behind your comment, but we had an opportunity for people we otherwise wouldn't have been able to hear from. So I take that on advice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I call the meeting back to order.

We will go back to Mr. Bezan to finish his six minutes of questions.

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

Madam Chair, how many seconds do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I think you have about a minute and a half, but let me check.

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

I thought you said I had two and a half.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll put my final question to you, Colonel Drapeau.

I appreciate what you're saying about Minister Sajjan not fulfilling his duty. Did former defence ombudsman Gary Walbourne fulfill his duty in bringing forward the allegations back in March 2018? What other course did he have?

I know that you have made comments about the Privy Council Office not having enough information and some blame being laid that former ombudsman Walbourne never provided that information to the Privy Council Office. Did he fulfill all his duties, including the confidentiality of the allegations?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

The answer to this is yes. Mr. Walbourne had no choice but to report to nobody else but the minister the allegations made to him by the two complainants. He had also no authority to investigate the matter, so the whole thing was passed on to the minister.

The minister had fundamentally two duties. One was to investigate. He had the tools to do so by section 45 of the National Defence Act. The second duty was to report to PCO, because in fact allegations were made against somebody with a Governor in Council appointment.

As far as I understand, the minister elected not to investigate and not to appoint anybody to do so, but he could have.

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

As a final comment, we are all aware of the allegations that were made, and that proved to be untrue, against a former vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Could the minister have acted in the same manner, where they could have suspended the chief of the defence staff the same way they suspended Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, until the investigation was complete?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

I cannot respond to that in the abstract, because I would not have known until yesterday what the substance of the allegations were. I can only assume that the ombudsman would have been pretty clear in reporting in confidence to the minister the extent and maybe the seriousness of the allegation, and depending on those factors, the minister might have been well advised at the time, by prudence if nothing else, to suspend temporarily the chief of the defence staff to have the matter investigated.

That would have seemed the reasonable, prudent course of action that was done certainly for Vice-Admiral Norman or anybody else facing these kinds of allegations.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

We'll go to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

Thank you to all of you for making time to be with the committee today and for offering your expertise and experience.

I want to start by coming back to something that was mentioned by Colonel Drapeau in his opening statement. He made the point that allegations of harassment were made in 2018, but I also believe I heard Mr. Drapeau just say he doesn't know the content of the conversation between the ombudsman and the minister.

I just want to clarify for the record that this committee has not heard that there were or were not allegations in 2018. I think all we know is that the Privy Council Office determined that there was not any actionable information.

My question is for Justice Deschamps and Dr. Preston. It's the same question for both.

I'll direct it to you, Justice Deschamps, and then, Dr. Preston, if you would also try to answer it, I'd appreciate it.

What is the process and what should be done when someone wants to bring forward concerns of sexual harassment but doesn't want to file an official complaint?

[Marie Deschamps]

I can attempt to answer that question, because what I suggested as process is not necessarily what occurs in practice, because in practice, it was in 2014—

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

I have a point of order. I'm truly sorry to interrupt Ms. Deschamps. I believe we could hear her better before.

Unfortunately, our interpreters can't do their job right now.

[Marie Deschamps]

Okay. I wasn't talking loud enough. I will start over.

What I can say is that in 2014, when I did my interviews, it was all over the place and it was not necessarily what should have occurred. What I suggested is that whenever there is a complaint, they should first of all turn to the centre, and if they are not ready to lay a formal complaint, at least they can get support from the centre and then the centre can bring them into laying or bringing a—

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

I am so sorry. I am not doing this on purpose.

We have an Official Languages Act. Interpretation services absolutely must be provided.