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.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Based on the facts, you were content with the decision to appoint General Vance.
What I'm getting at, Mr. Novak—and this isn't a partisan discussion—is that based on the investigation by the Privy Council Office and all other agencies involved at the time, and on the information, you were content and advised the Prime Minister, who was also content with the appointment of General Vance. That is the question I've been asking from the start.
As an Individual
I've been very clear.
When rumours were raised, I was concerned. That's why I asked for an additional investigation review from the officials responsible for running the process.
I'm not sure how I can be more clear with the member, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It would be clear to answer yes or no.
I will move on, Mr. Novak. I'm worried that this suggests that you still had concerns based on what was going on. I thought that would be a very easy answer, to say that investigations happened, they were independent and...moved on.
I'd like to now focus on what you said. PCO was guiding the process. Do you agree with me that this was fundamental and that you didn't want the appearance of impropriety by elected officials or PMO officials interfering in an investigation? You wanted this to be a clear process, especially based on the concerns that there was sexual misconduct.
As an Individual
I might ask the member to restate the question.
Is this a question about the ad hoc committee process?
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
This is a question regarding the process of receiving complaints. It was important to you that PCO lead the investigation process because you didn't want to be seen to be interfering in an investigation that involved allegations of sexual misconduct.
As an Individual
The member knows that the Prime Minister's Office is not an investigative body. Senior officials in the Privy Council Office are the ones responsible for interacting with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces with respect to this matter.
I've been very candid about what was known at the time. There was the matter of the general's time at NATO and the issue around how he met his wife. There was the rumour that was relayed to us. I've been very candid.
I think the member needs to be mindful of the fact that there are serious questions about how allegations have been dealt with in more recent years and the fact that two years later the chief of the defence staff was still serving the government.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It's disappointing that none of my questions have been answered.
I appreciate it and hope I have another opportunity, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Novak, thank you for testifying before us today. Your testimony is important, because you have information about what has happened in the past which could inform us as we move forward. We need to be very concerned about all these issues of sexual allegations.
I may have to interrupt you. If that happens, it's nothing personal, but it's to get a clear picture of the situation in the fairly limited time that we have.
I assume you have seen the testimony of Mr. Walbourne and Minister Sajjan over the past two weeks. In his testimony, Minister Sajjan told the committee that it was not the role of the Minister of National Defence to act on allegations against senior members of the military hierarchy.
Do you agree with him?
As an Individual
My perspective on this—which I think is borne out by what I conveyed in my statement—is that when the political level of government is made aware of rumours or even allegations, I believe they have a responsibility to convey them to officials immediately and ensure that the information, whatever it may be, is pursued and investigated. If there are findings, they should be reported back to the political level of the government for further decision if necessary.
That's how I acted in 2015 and I believe that's entirely appropriate.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Novak.
In his testimony, Mr. Walbourne mentioned that he would have liked to present evidence and information to Minister Sajjan, who refused to see it and subsequently also cancelled all his meetings with him.
Do you believe that, had Minister Sajjan been aware of the information that Mr. Walbourne wanted to present to him, he might have acted appropriately toward the chief of the defence staff?
As an Individual
I obviously am not aware of what information was potentially offered to the minister. All I can say is that, when I became aware of a rumour, I was concerned and immediately passed that information to senior officials and asked them to investigate. I think that's appropriate and I'm surprised that it hasn't been done in later years.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Let's say the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman comes to you, as chief of staff, and says he has evidence to support allegations that the chief of the defence staff has acted inappropriately toward members of the Canadian Forces.
Would you recommend that the Minister of National Defence meet with the ombudsman to review this information?
As an Individual
In that situation, if I had been in my role as chief of staff of the Prime Minister and information or allegations were brought to me, I would have acted exactly the same. I would have immediately conveyed that information to either the national security adviser or the Clerk of the Privy Council and requested an immediate investigation, because that is how the system is structured. It is the reason senior officials are there.
I think it's the responsibility of the political level of government to ensure that information is passed to them, that investigations are undertaken and, if decisions are required, that they be taken subsequently.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Do you find it normal for a Minister of National Defence to refuse to meet with the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman when the ombudsman rings his doorbell to tell him that there is a problem with the chief of the defence staff?
The chief of the defence staff is not just anyone. He's not a corporal or a soldier at the lowest level; he's probably the highest ranking person in the military.
As an Individual
I would concur with the member. I don't think it's normal or appropriate, particularly given the context, particularly given the issues that we're all aware of.
Clearly, structural and cultural change is badly needed in the Canadian Armed Forces, and clearly it's not acceptable that information, whether in the form of rumours or allegations, not be pursued immediately to the full extent, so that if change needs to be made, it is made promptly.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
From your perspective and experience, would you be able to tell us why a Minister of National Defence would choose to refuse to meet with the ombudsman or to be privy to such important information?
As an Individual
I'm afraid I can't explain why the minister would take that position. I've indicated that when I was in a position in which rumours were shared with me, I immediately relayed them to the most senior officials in the government and requested an investigation. I can't explain the actions of others.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
In his defence, for now, the Minister of National Defence says it was because he did not want to interfere with the investigations and did not want to conduct them personally.
From your side, do you think that looking at the information and asking questions of the people who have the information constitutes interference with investigations?
As an Individual
I'm not a lawyer. What I would say and what I have said is that political staff and ministers clearly aren't investigative entities in our system of government. However, I believe they have a responsibility to relay information they may come across to the appropriate senior officials and ensure that the information is investigated and that appropriate measures are taken, if necessary.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Would you agree with me that when you report such important information to a minister, for example, the Minister of Defence, and he refuses to see it, it is so that he does not have to justify not acting if things go wrong?
Was this a way to protect himself, rather than wanting to make the right decisions with the information in hand?
As an Individual
I'm certainly not going to speculate on how or why the Minister of National Defence acted as he did. He can speak for himself. I know he's been before the committee on a number of occasions.
All I can say is that when serious information—a rumour—was relayed to me in 2015, my reaction was to pass the information to the most senior officials in the Privy Council and request an immediate investigation so that action could be taken, if that investigation yielded any facts or information we were unaware of.
