Evidence of meeting #20 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ombudsman.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Raymond Trotter  Executive Officer, Royal Canadian Navy, As an Individual
Geneviève Bernatchez  Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence
Jody Thomas  Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

I'm calling this meeting back to order. As we resume the meeting, the committee is continuing its study of addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance.

With us today by video conference for the last two hours is the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence. As well, from the Department of National Defence, we have Jody Thomas, deputy minister, and Rear-Admiral Geneviève Bernatchez, judge advocate general of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Ten minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Welcome, Minister Harjit Sajjan. I now invite you to make an opening statement of up to 10 minutes. Thank you.

March 12th, 2021 / 3 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan LiberalMinister of National Defence

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me back for this two-hour session.

There are points that I hope all members in this committee agree upon. Sexual misconduct and harassment are unacceptable. They're not acceptable in Canadian society. They're not acceptable in the Parliament of Canada and they're definitely not acceptable in the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence. We want to prevent it and we support their network. We want to ensure that those who come forward feel safe and confident when sexual misconduct and harassment are reported and investigated.

Eliminating all forms of misconduct and abuse of power and creating a safe work environment for everyone in the defence team has always been my top priority as Minister of National Defence. However, recent media reports show that still too many members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not feel safe to come forward.

I want to be clear that I had no knowledge of these allegations before they were reported. I know, we know, that we must do more to make sure that every Canadian Armed Forces member feels safe to come forward and that we will be ready to support them if they do.

I spent my lifetime serving Canadians, as a police detective, as a Canadian who served in uniform and as a member of Parliament. I know that perpetrators must be held accountable. I know that any organization, including the Canadian Armed Forces, must work hard to eliminate the toxic masculinity that creates an unacceptable culture. We have taken action to change this culture of toxic masculinity and it tackles sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, but we have more work to do and every option is on the table. We owe it to our members and to Canadians to get this right.

As I stated previously, I disagree with parts of Mr. Walbourne's testimony concerning our meeting in 2018. Last week, the former ombudsman presented his version of the facts. In my previous testimony I wanted to respect the confidential nature of my meetings with the former ombudsman, but in light of his testimony, there are issues I need to set straight.

I did meet with Mr. Walbourne on March 1. At the end of a regular meeting with staff, Mr. Walbourne asked to meet alone. The majority of this private meeting did not concern General Vance. Rather, in this private meeting, Mr. Walbourne spent the majority of his time focused on the investigation into claims of misconduct involving him and his office.

As I have said before, any investigation needs to run its course, no matter the rank, no matter the position of those involved. It must be free of political interference. That also applied to the investigation of the ombudsman's office, as I told him at that time. Politicians inserting themselves into an investigation is wrong.

At the very end of this private conversation, Mr. Walbourne brought up concerns of misconduct involving the former chief of the defence staff. He did not give me any details. I did not allow him to give me any details. I very purposely respected the investigative process to ensure that it remained independent.

Drawing an elected official, a politician, into the sequence of an investigation would have been wrong and dangerous. Politicizing any investigation threatens a just outcome for those who come forward. Given his position and experience, Mr. Walbourne should have known this. In our society, the last thing we want is for elected politicians to make decisions that investigators need to make independently.

In Mr. Walbourne's testimony, he stated that he came to me for advice on what to do. I advised him exactly what to do. I said that Mr. Walbourne should use the already existing powers and processes to address the complaint. As Mr. Walbourne stated in his testimony, he knew the powers he had as ombudsman.

According to the directives that govern his office, in matters involving a potential criminal act or breach of code of service discipline, the ombudsman can report these complaints to the judge advocate general, the provost marshal or the military police complaints commission. To my knowledge, Mr. Walbourne did not take these complaints to any of these bodies.

I provided the advice that Mr. Walbourne said he sought. Investigations into complaints like this should start with proper investigative authority, not with an elected official.

To provide Mr. Walbourne with additional support, senior officials in the Privy Council Office were informed of the complaint regarding the former chief of the defence staff. By Mr. Walbourne's own admission, he was asked to provide details regarding this complaint to those appropriate authorities the very next day. Unfortunately, he did not do so. Mr. Walbourne said he sought top cover to show the complainant that we took this allegation seriously.

Madam, Chair, it is because I took this concern so seriously, as I would with any allegations of misconduct, that I raised it to the appropriate independent authority outside of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Walbourne suggested that if he had received feedback, he would have gone back to the complainant to see if they would provide specific information. We did, in fact, provide that feedback. At no time, according to Mr. Walbourne's testimony, did he say he went back to the complainant to ask if they were willing to make a formal complaint following his meeting with these senior officials. I've learned that at no time did the appropriate authorities receive information.

Finally, Mr. Walbourne stated that there was no follow-up. That is not true. Senior officials followed up. Actionable information was asked for. Information was not shared. At the core of our democratic and justice systems, at their very heart, is the belief that any investigation into potential wrongdoing should never come under the sway of political influence. Being involved can prejudice a just outcome for those who come forward. When any concerns or allegations are brought to my attention, I have always followed the proper processes. I would never want to be the reason that somebody who came forward did not get the just outcome they deserve.

As for the suggestion that the board of inquiry or summary investigation would be the appropriate venue, that suggestion is absolutely wrong. In fact, under the defence administrative orders and directives into boards of inquiry and summary investigations, we are prohibited from using a board of inquiry or summary investigation to seek evidence related to a potential breach of the code of service discipline or assign criminal responsibility.

Madam Chair, let me quote article 2.7 from directive 7002-0:

2.7 A [board of inquiry] or [a summary investigation] must not be conducted if any purpose of the [board of inquiry] or [summary investigation] is to:

a. obtain evidence relating to a potential breach of the Code of Service Discipline; or

b. assign criminal responsibility.

As well, the board of inquiry is prohibited from recommending that a charge be laid. These are critical points.

When individuals come forward, they rightfully expect that their complaints will be acted upon while respecting their wishes and, if warranted, the appropriate charges should be laid under either the code of service discipline or criminal charges. Any interference in this process, which is what has been suggested, puts into jeopardy a just outcome. That would mean a complainant, a survivor, could be denied the just outcome they deserve.

That is why it would have been extremely inappropriate and damaging to discuss any allegation with General Vance.

A just outcome is what those who come forward deserve, an outcome that Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces members, expect, an outcome our society needs, an outcome that I—and our entire government—want. We have processes to investigate regardless of the rank or position of the person involved.

However, despite the cries from some of the members, investigations should not be politicized, not by a minister and not by anyone in political office. Any investigation should be conducted independently by the relevant and appropriate authorities. This is a fundamental part of our justice system, a principle some of the members seem to forget.

I have always insisted that we have more work to do to ensure that any member of the Canadian Armed Forces feels safe to come forward. Though we have made meaningful progress, we need to accelerate these changes. We need a complete and total culture change. We need to improve our policies and processes to prevent misconduct and to prevent abuses of power.

That is why we are moving forward with an independent external review, to ensure we can comprehensively address the fact that members still do not feel safe to come forward. As we have said, we'll be moving forward with an independent reporting structure to look at allegations of misconduct. All options are on the table. For those who have experienced misconduct, we will do everything possible to rebuild the confidence we have lost.

We're focused on doing everything possible to prevent and eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We will have a complete and total culture change. We will eliminate the culture of toxic masculinity that still exists. We will make sure that those who have experienced misconduct feel safe and supported if and when they come forward. We will build a more inclusive Canadian Armed Forces that better reflects and represents the Canadians that they protect each and every day.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

We will go on to Mr. Bezan, please.

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, I'm glad you're at committee. You seem to have a change in the story of exactly what happened with these allegations against General Vance. In your opening statement, you failed to acknowledge the victim's wishes, which were to keep it confidential. She was not prepared to give the ombudsman the ability to go forward with the claim until she knew there was a way to protect her.

You know, Minister, and you failed to recognize in your opening statement, that the chief of the defence staff has control over the entire armed forces and only answers to you, as the Minister of National Defence. You ignored the impact of the chain of command and how it would skew the victim's ability to come forward with her story. You were also the superior of the former ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, so he had to get direction from you—which didn't occur.

I just want to confirm the facts here because what you said on February 19 was different from what you are saying today.

Did you meet with Gary Walbourne on March 1, 2018, yes or no?

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Chair, as I said in my statement, I did meet with the ombudsman. However, to address the comments the member just made, it is absolutely inappropriate for any elected official—

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Minister, I am sorry but—

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

—in an investigation—

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I'm sorry, but we're not buying that. You are the minister. You've sworn an oath to be the minister and to manage, under the National Defence Act, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Minister, did Gary Walbourne address the issue of sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance in the March 1, 2018, meeting?

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Chair, as I stated, after a formal meeting in which staff were present, the ombudsman asked me to meet with him alone. I agreed, and the majority of the discussion was about the investigation into him and his office. At the conclusion of that—

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Instead of smearing the character of Gary Walbourne, will you please just answer the question? Did he raise the issue of sexual misconduct—

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Chair, he asked about the meeting, and I'm trying to address what the meeting was and to properly explain what has taken place. What I'm here to tell you is that at the end of that meeting, Mr. Walbourne raised concerns about the former chief of defence staff. That is when I told him that I could not be involved in an investigation. It is improper for any politician to be part of the investigation. More importantly—

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Minister, you know very well that there is an impossibility for an independent investigation to happen within the Department of National Defence when everybody reports up to the chief of the defence staff.

When he tried to raise this and present you with the evidence, what did you do with that information on March 1, 2018?

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

With all due respect, Madam Chair, the member is missing a point here. When a complaint is received by the ombudsman, investigation automatically starts. Because of that, no politician, including me, should ever be put in that position. That information should have gone to the appropriate authorities, as I stated. There are many options, which are actually in his own guidance—and he stated that he does know his job—where he could have gone to the judge advocate general, the provost marshal or the independent Military Police Complaints Commission. That did not happen.

What I didn't want to do, Madam Chair, was to possibly undermine a just outcome by my getting involved in an investigation.

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

You've made that point, Minister.

We want to know who you told about these allegations.

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Chair, I'm trying to answer the question here.

I was trying to protect the integrity of the investigation, the person who has come forward. If anybody raises a concern regarding the chief of the defence staff, it has to be taken seriously. That is exactly what I did, making sure that I, as a politician, an elected official, was not involved in the investigation; that it was directed to the appropriate authorities—in this case the Privy Council—so that the allegation could be looked at; and that if he needed greater advice, to actually get it from the appropriate people. That's how seriously we took this, because we needed to make sure the appropriate—

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Minister, we know you're trying to burn up time here and you don't want to answer the tough questions.

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

No, you're not understanding.

Madam Chair—

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I understand quite well. I believe that I understand exactly what happened. It's been widely reported on. I've read the National Defence Act. I've been on this file for quite some time. I understand how the department works and what your responsibilities are, and that you're failing to do that.

Again, you talk about not wanting to do any information, but we know that PCO did get this information. Who did you tell about the allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance after that meeting on March 1?

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

As I stated, I didn't accept the information from the ombudsman. He came for advice. I gave him the advice on exactly who he needed to go to.

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Did you ever follow up with—

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

To make sure, I went back to my office and got in touch with my chief of staff to make sure that the appropriate authority—in this case, PCO—was informed of this, and in his own testimony it was confirmed that they followed up with him immediately on this matter.

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Chair, through you to the minister, you gave the information, handed it off to the PCO, and the PCO actually wrote a memo on March 16 clearly outlining that the ombudsman doesn't have the power to investigate sexual misconduct. We also know from testimony here that the ombudsman asked to meet with you seven more times after March 1, and you refused. Why?

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Madam Chair, as I just stated, my meeting about this is interference in an investigation.

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

The investigation hadn't started yet.

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

With all due respect to the member, Madam Chair, when an ombudsman receives a complaint, the process has started. It is the job of the ombudsman to conduct those investigations. I didn't want to be put into a position where I potentially interfered with an investigation—