Evidence of meeting #21 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 investigation.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Novak, when you're looking at the national security clearances that the chief of the defence staff has, and when you look at the allegations that have been brought forward against the current and the former chiefs of the defence staff, do you believe that their security is compromised, that they are now potentially at risk of blackmail or other espionage from our adversaries?
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
All I can say is that obviously, when serious allegations are brought forward, and it seems they were a number of years ago, that does raise troubling questions about who else might have those allegations and what interactions may or may not have existed with chiefs of the defence staff. I think it's a good question. I'm not sure I'm well positioned to answer it, but I think it's a good question.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Novak, for appearing today and answering questions.
It's safe to say for the appointment to go forward you didn't have any concerns based on the investigations that happened. Is that a safe thing to say?
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
Madam Chair, I think I spoke very clearly to this in my statement. We were advised in March 2015—
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Novak, if I can interrupt, these are yes or no questions. I don't have a lot of time and I'd appreciate if you'd stick to that.
Just to confirm, you didn't have any concerns—yes or no. After all of the investigations that you spoke about, you didn't have any concerns and recommended the appointment to go forward. Is that correct?
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
If the member would let me finish, the ad hoc committee did report to us the matter of the general's relationship in Italy in March 2015.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Chair, can Mr. Novak be directed to answer the question?
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
I'm attempting to answer the question, Madam Chair. The member doesn't seem to want to hear the answer.
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
In March 2015, we were advised of the matter of how General Vance met his then fiancée. As I indicated, we were told that the matter had been closed. There was no reprimand against the general. That's what we knew in March 2015. The appointment was announced in April.
I have briefed the committee on the rumour that was brought forward in April and I briefed the committee on the anonymous email.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Chair, again, my question isn't being answered, so I will interrupt.
That aside, I appreciate your answering that question. In the end, in July, is it safe to say you did not have any concerns with General Vance in recommending the appointment? I'm not trying to trick you here. You recommended the appointment to the Prime Minister, I'm guessing. Is it true that you didn't have any concerns about the appointment?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
I think my actions demonstrate I took the rumour that was brought to me very seriously. I immediately, the same day, spoke to the national security adviser and asked for a review and investigation of that rumour. I think that demonstrates very clearly a high level of concern. At the same time I've indicated to the committee that there were no facts—
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bittle is really badgering the witness here. We want to hear the answers and his constant interruption is not adding to the discussion in any way, shape or form.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Chair, no one is answering my question. I've asked a simple question with respect to his thoughts in July. I'm not suggesting that he didn't have concerns based on previous evidence. I'm asking what his concerns were at the end of the investigative process and if he had concerns in recommending. He hasn't answered the question, which is why I'm raising these concerns.
I've already lost a couple of minutes on a simple yes or no question.
In July before General Vance took over as chief of the defence staff, did you have concerns with his appointment?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
I've been very clear about that, Madam Chair. When rumours were conveyed, I took those very seriously and I was concerned. I wanted to receive from our officials the facts and to know whether there were any outstanding investigations or information that we were not aware of. Our officials reported back that there was not.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It's very weird how cagey you're being, Mr. Novak, about this. You did have concerns still remaining in your mind in July 2015 after all the investigations, or you were content with the appointment of General Vance?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
Madam Chair, I appreciate the member is trying to have a bit of a partisan discussion about this. I'm not before the committee in a partisan capacity. I've been very candid. I was concerned to receive a rumour about the appointment. I reported that immediately to the Privy Council and requested a further investigation.
But let's be candid. These appointments proceed on the basis of facts. When a rumour is reported to the Privy Council and no information is returned, when an anonymous email is sent in and we are briefed there is no new information, there's no investigation and the matter has been closed, those are the facts that are available.
Had there been other facts another decision may have been made. There were not at the time.
