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.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Based on what you know now and what you knew then, I think you said today that you believe you were misled by General Vance in some of his answers and some of the stuff he gave the committee. Is that true?
11:45 a.m.
As an Individual
As I said earlier, the Prime Minister met with General Vance towards the end of March of 2015. In the course of that conversation, he asked him directly about the issue relating to his deployment at NATO and recounted the information that had been provided to us by officials about that matter, which was that he had been in a relationship with a subordinate not in the chain of command, and we were not aware there had been any reprimand against him.
The Prime Minister asked him directly whether there was anything else that he should know. All I recall the general saying, as I indicated at the outset, was that he was glad the matter had been reviewed and was behind him, and that was it. Clearly, when we, six years later, have the very serious allegations brought forward by Major Brennan, if they are true—and as I said earlier, I have no reason to doubt her—that means the general was not truthful when he met with the Prime Minister in March of 2015.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Novak. Thank you for your testimony today.
Can you tell us more about the process of appointing General Vance as chief of the defence staff?
11:50 a.m.
As an Individual
As I indicated in my statement, there was an ad hoc committee constituted for the purpose of making a recommendation on this deployment. That's the same process that had been used for General Natynczyk and General Lawson. That committee was composed of the Clerk of the Privy Council; the national security adviser, which is a senior position in the Privy Council; the deputy minister of national defence; and the Minister of National Defence. As I indicated, the Prime Minister's Office participated in that committee via the deputy chief of staff to the Prime Minister.
I believe the ad hoc committee began its work some time early in 2015. My understanding of the process is that the committee reviewed the senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces, consulted the existing chief of the defence staff and others for advice and built a list of prospective candidates. Over time that list was narrowed. The committee interviewed potential candidates, and eventually the committee's work concluded by providing a recommendation to the Prime Minister via the Privy Council.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Mr. Novak.
How did the former prime minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper and his office conclude that the allegations against General Vance were unfounded? What exactly was the process followed at that time?
11:50 a.m.
As an Individual
I have been very clear with the committee that, in March of 2015, there was one issue raised. That was the issue pertaining to the general's deployment at NATO and how he met his then fiancée. That was the issue raised. That was in March of 2015. The appointment was announced in April of 2015.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, in July of 2015, prior to the change of command ceremony, two additional pieces of information came forward.
One was an anonymous email sent to someone at the Department of National Defence pertaining to the general's time at NATO. We were briefed by our officials that the email was investigated by the national investigation service. They found nothing new that wasn't known in March, and that matter was closed.
With respect to the rumour, as I indicated earlier, the rumour I received was relayed to the national security adviser who investigated it at our request and reported back some time later that there was no record of a complaint, no complainant, no investigation that was either open or closed, and that he had directly spoken to General Vance about the matter, who denied improperly acting to further someone's career and also indicated he had been in a public relationship with the individual during his time at Gagetown.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Why did you then terminate the investigation of General Vance by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, CFNIS?
11:50 a.m.
As an Individual
I'm not sure I understand the member's question.
The Prime Minister's Office didn't stop any investigation. The Prime Minister's Office is not an investigative body. Our officials briefed us that, with respect to the NATO deployment, that matter had been investigated by entities in the Canadian Armed Forces and at the department. Our officials briefed us in March that the matter had been reviewed, the investigation was closed and there had been no reprimand of the general.
When someone sent an anonymous email later on in July, we were briefed that the email contained no new information and that the NIS had again reviewed it and had closed its review, finding nothing that was not already known.
I am not sure I understand the member's question.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
All right.
Who in the former prime minister's office was involved in the appointment process and background check of General Vance?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
As I indicated in my statement, the ad hoc committee process was led by the national security adviser, a senior position in the Privy Council; the Clerk of the Privy Council; and the deputy minister of national defence. The committee included the Minister of National Defence and the deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Those were the individuals involved in the ad hoc committee search process.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Novak, the minister suggested that interfering with this issue would be tantamount to political interference. I would like to ask you some questions about that, with examples.
If the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman requests a meeting with the Minister of National Defence, is that considered political interference?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
I don't believe it would be, but I cannot offer a legal perspective to the committee on this question. I've been very candid that, when the political side of the government encounters allegations or even rumours, particularly pertaining to the head of the Canadian Armed Forces, those should be reported for an investigation.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Novak. You have answered the question well.
If the minister had decided to initiate, request or order an investigation with the information in hand, would that have constituted political interference, in your view?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
I'm not sure I caught the full question. Again, I don't believe [Inaudible—Editor] to pass information and request an investigation.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
You still answered my question.
As I understand it, when you heard rumours about Mr. Vance, you reported it to the Privy Council Office.
So in a way, the information was shared. It was noted that Mr. Sajjan also informed the Privy Council Office of the situation, which is quite normal.
Where I have more questions is that the minister did not want to see the file, but he informed the Privy Council Office of a potential problem. Yet the reaction of the Privy Council Office was to investigate the victim rather than General Vance.
Can you enlighten me further on this? Do you find this to be an appropriate action by the Privy Council?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Clearly, I'm not well-positioned to comment on the actions of the Privy Council post-2015. All I can say is that, in the case of the rumour that was relayed, at my request, for investigation in July 2015, this appointment would not have proceeded if that investigation had yielded any actual facts or any findings. That's the purpose of relaying rumours for investigation.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to return for a moment to where I left off, when I ran out of time last time, in terms of the records of these investigations.
My question is a fairly simple one, Mr. Novak. In a briefing of an incoming Prime Minister's chief of staff or deputy chief of staff, would information about the concerns regarding the appointment of the chief of the defence staff have been made available to the incoming Prime Minister's Office, or would it have been available if they sought such information?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Obviously, I can't speak specifically to what briefings the incoming Prime Minister would have received. In my experience those briefings are very thorough and very detailed. Obviously, I do believe if a prime minister or a minister or a senior political staff member made inquiries of the Privy Council, they would have the ability to find out information pertaining to the appointment that had been made.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much.
I want to turn to the larger context, because I think what you've told us today is that there was a real incident focus in terms of the allegations and investigations. Let's look at the timeline of what was going on at the same time.
In March, when the allegations about General Vance and his NATO posting became public, Madam Deschamps was already investigating the problem of sexual misconduct in the military. Her report was released in April, saying sexual misconduct was a problem and that there was a culture tolerated it.
By the time you had two additional allegations in July against the chief of the defence staff, which would have been known both to senior staff in the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office, and probably to the Minister of Defence himself and the Prime Minister, did anyone look up from this incident-based focus and ask if this was the person we should be appointing as chief of the defence staff at this time, given multiple allegations of sexual misconduct in the face of the report the government had just received from Madam Deschamps on the sexualized culture in the Canadian military?
Noon
As an Individual
Yes, the external review was commenced under our government and did report that spring. That is exactly the case.
Let's be very clear about what information was available to us at the time.
In March 2015, we were aware of the matter of how the general met his future wife at NATO. I've spoken to that. Second, we were aware of a rumour that we ask officials to investigate. That was the only information at the time.
What I don't mind saying to the member is that, obviously, looking back on this six years later, a range of very disturbing allegations have been made. When one makes an appointment to a position as senior as the chief of the defence staff, the head of the Canadian Armed Forces, one of the most historic and storied military institutions in the world, one is expecting that individual to uphold the proud record of that institution and leave it in a better place than he or she found it. Unfortunately, clearly, that has not been the case.
Noon
Liberal
Noon
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Would the Minister of National Defence, looking at defence of wrongdoing by a member of his own department, be considered political interference and negate the process?
