National Defence Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Committee members will participate in person or through the Zoom application. The proceedings will be posted on the House of Commons website. For your information, the webcast will always show the individual speaking rather than the entire committee.

For those participating virtually, there are just a few rules to follow.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure that interpretation is properly restored before returning to the proceedings.

Please, before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. All comments by members should be addressed through the chair. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members.

We've put in the agenda for today some committee business that is related to our subcommittee report. What it does is lay out the scope for our next study, which is the military justice study.

If we wish to debate that or any other motion, I would suggest maybe we move that to the end of the proceedings so we have the maximum time available for our witness. Does anybody have an objection to that?

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

It's not that I have an objection, Madam Chair. I filed a notice of motion to call the current ombudsman, Greg Lick. We can deal with that at the end of the meeting.

Also, I would like to get an indication from you as to how we're making out with some of the invitations that went out from committee to the other witnesses we wish to hear from, like Elder Marques and Zita Astravas, to see where we're at with those. You can give us an update.

Also, where are we on the call for the production of papers, which was in the motion we passed a couple of weeks ago? Has PCO complied and provided those papers to the law clerk and are they now being looked at, or is there a delay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

I can answer some of those questions now or we can just wait until the end and we can discuss all of them under committee business after the witness. Would 20 minutes—

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

My preference would be that you could just give us a quick update right now on those two questions as to witnesses and production of papers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay.

The witnesses were all invited. The plan for Friday is to have Madam Sherman, who has confirmed for next Friday, and Mr. Boland. We have not heard back from any other witnesses. Is that correct?

The clerk says that he is in discussion with one other witness from that list right now, so that's all we have for now.

As for the production of papers, they are in the possession of the law clerk at this present time.

Are there any other questions? All right. Then let's leave 20 minutes. Will that be enough at the end of the meeting to do the committee business?

Then let's carry on and we'll come back to these issues with 20 minutes left to go in the meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 9, 2021, the committee is resuming its study to address 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 is Mr. Ray Novak, former chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper.

Thank you very much, Mr. Novak, for accepting our invitation. I would like to now invite you to make an opening statement. Please go ahead.

[Ray Novak, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the committee's work on this important matter. This is obviously a challenging and very difficult time for the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly for women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Madam Chair, I'll spend the next few minutes offering my recollection of the process used to replace the outgoing chief of the defence staff in 2015, in the hopes that this can constructively contribute to improving these processes in the future.

In doing so, I must note for the committee that I am relying on recollections of this period six years ago and publicly available sources and dates. I do not have access to public service records of the period. Political notes and records, including the chief of staff and executive office files, were donated to Library and Archives Canada as part of the historical collection of Prime Minister Harper's tenure.

The selection process—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Excuse me, please, Mr. Novak. The interpreters are having a bit of a tough time. Could you raise your microphone a bit? It might make it a little easier.

[Ray Novak]

Yes. Can you hear me clearly now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, we can. Thank you very much.

[Ray Novak]

That's great. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'll spend the next few minutes offering my recollection of the process used to replace the outgoing chief of the defence staff in 2015, in the hopes this can constructively contribute to improving these processes in the future.

In doing so, I must note for the committee that I am relying on recollections of this period six years ago and publicly available sources and dates. I do not have access to public service records of this period. Political notes and records, including the chief of staff and executive office files, were donated to Library and Archives Canada as part of the historical collection of former Prime Minister Harper's tenure.

The selection process for the chief of the defence staff was run by an ad hoc committee constituted for this purpose. I believe the 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.

The Prime Minister's deputy chief of staff attended meetings of the ad hoc committee, as did the chief of staff to the Minister of National Defence. Operationally, PCO's national security adviser led the process.

My general understanding was that the ad hoc committee undertook its work by reviewing prospective candidates from the senior ranks, seeking input from the current CDS and others, and building a list of potential candidates for consideration. Prospective candidates were then interviewed and assessed by the committee, and at the conclusion of the process the views of committee members were consolidated into a written recommendation that was delivered to the Prime Minister via the Privy Council Office.

This same process was used to appoint General Natynczyk and General Lawson.

In early or mid-March 2015, the Prime Minister met with the Minister of National Defence to discuss the committee's recommendation. Prior to that meeting, the national security adviser briefed the Prime Minister on an issue relating to the leading candidate, General Vance. The NSA briefed that, while in Italy on a NATO deployment, the general was in a relationship with a U.S. officer who was subordinate to him though not in his chain of command, and that the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence had reviewed the matter and that there was no open investigation or reprimand against the general.

I believe we were also briefed that the U.S. Army review of their files indicated no reprimand of the other officer involved. In addition, we were informed that the U.S. officer in question was, by 2015, the fiancée of General Vance.

Following the Prime Minister's meeting with the Minister of National Defence, a meeting with General Vance was scheduled. I attended that meeting along with our deputy chief of staff. In the course of that meeting, the Prime Minister raised the issue of the general's time at NATO. He outlined the facts briefed to us by the Privy Council and asked if there was anything else he should know. I don't recall the general making any comment other than to state he and his fiancée were relieved that the matter had been reviewed and was behind them. The appointment was publicly announced in April 2015, and the change of command ceremony was planned to occur in mid-July.

Sometime in early July, two additional pieces of information were received.

First, the chief of staff to the Minister of Veterans Affairs contacted me to relay a rumour that General Vance had an inappropriate relationship and/or had improperly sought to further an officer's career during his time at CFB Gagetown, which I believe was in 2001. I advised the national security adviser about the call and asked him to investigate further.

Around the same time, the national security adviser briefed the Prime Minister's Office that an anonymous email had been received by a senior officer at the Department of National Defence. We were briefed that the email alleged an inappropriate relationship during the general's time at NATO but contained no new information. However, we were informed that receipt of the email triggered a further review of the matter by the Canadian Forces national investigation service.

In subsequent conversations among the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and the minister's office, it was agreed that the change of command ceremony would be delayed, if needed, to allow sufficient time for further investigation and review.

In the course of the next week or so, the national security adviser briefed the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office that the NIS had found nothing further with respect to the general's time at NATO, and that their review of the matter was closed.

As for the Gagetown rumour, the national security adviser briefed the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office that there was nothing in DND's files, no record of a complaint and no current or former investigation.

The NSA also briefed that he had discussed the rumour directly with General Vance, who responded that he had been in a public relationship with the named individual at the time and that this person did not report to him. He denied improperly acting to further her career.

As the facts relating to the general's time at NATO had not changed, and with no other known issues, the change of command ceremony proceeded on July 17, 2015.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I'd like to add a final comment.

Like all members of this committee, I have been deeply disturbed by allegations made in a number of recent interviews. Women in uniform, like all Canadians, have the right to a workplace free of harassment. Clearly, serious structural and cultural change is required so that female members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not only protected but also empowered to bring allegations forward to trusted independent investigative bodies.

I hope this committee's work contributes constructively to that process of change.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Novak.

I will now open the floor for questions.

First up, we have Mr. Bezan, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Novak for his statement. I also want to echo his sentiment that it is shocking what has been happening in the Canadian Armed Forces, and especially for the brave women who serve us in uniform.

I just want to confirm, Mr. Novak, that, unlike the current situation, where Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took no action, in the situation back in 2015, Prime Minister Harper, you, the defence minister at the time and others all questioned General Vance directly regarding any possible sexual misconduct.

[Ray Novak]

As I said in my statement, when Prime Minister Harper met with General Vance in March, he did raise the issue that was known at the time pertaining to the general's time at NATO, and I indicated in my statement what the general's response was to that.

After the appointment was announced in April, as I indicated, some months later in early July additional information was shared with us by our officials in the case of the anonymous email that was received. In that instance, the national security adviser briefed us that the NIS had again reviewed the matter, had found no new information and that the investigation at that time had been closed.

With respect to the rumour that was passed to us, that was immediately conveyed to the national security adviser and Privy Council, with a direct request to ascertain if there were additional facts or if additional reviews or investigations needed to be undertaken so that we could then delay the change of command ceremony to ensure we had any additional facts.

I have reported in my statement that the national security adviser came back advising us that in fact there was no record of a complaint, nothing in DND's files regarding this rumour, and that when he spoke with General Vance directly about it, the general denied it, said he had been in a public relationship with the individual and had not improperly furthered her career.

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

It's interesting that the national security adviser in the Privy Council Office played a major role in actually taking evidence. Even though it came to you anonymously, it was still acted upon by the government, while we have Minister Sajjan pushing away from table, saying no and refusing to look at evidence that was provided by the ombudsman at the time.

In hindsight, do you think the national investigative service received the full co-operation of General Vance, and did the NIS do their job adequately, based upon the information that we know now?

[Ray Novak]

With respect to the national security adviser, absolutely. That is one of the most senior positions in the public service of Canada. That is a position that interacts regularly with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's senior staff. It was fairly typical for me as chief of staff to the Prime Minister to speak to the national security adviser daily, and sometimes multiple times a day. That was an individual who, in this particular process, was operationally the lead of the ad hoc committee and responsible for guiding that process and interacting with the Department of National Defence and with the Canadian Armed Forces.

With respect to the member's questions about the national investigation service, obviously the Prime Minister's Office is not an investigative body. I did not have direct interaction with the NIS or the Canadian Armed Forces or the department on the matter. I was briefed by the Privy Council primarily via the national security adviser.

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

Minister Sajjan's always saying that he put the complaint into the proper authorities, meaning the PCO. The PMO's not an investigative body. Is the PCO an investigative body?

[Ray Novak]

The PCO is obviously the “most” department in the Government of Canada. The Privy Council Office is the department for the Prime Minister's Office. In an ad hoc committee process vetting a senior GIC appointment like the one we're speaking about, it is the PCO that is the conduit between the Prime Minister's Office and, in this case, the department and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Absolutely, in the case of the rumour I mentioned in my statement, it was entirely appropriate that, first, this rumour was brought to the Prime Minister's Office, and second, the Prime Minister's Office immediately conveyed that information to the senior officials in the Privy Council Office responsible for this appointment process, requesting them to review the matter, investigate the matter and report back with any findings. That's what was done.

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

Mr. Novak, do you believe General Vance lied or misled you and the Prime Minister?

[Ray Novak]

What I would say to the member is that I watched, as I think all members of the committee did, the interview that Major Brennan gave some weeks ago. It was obviously deeply disturbing. I think it's clear that she made extremely serious allegations.

If they are true, and I have no reason to doubt her, that means the general was not truthful with the Prime Minister in their meeting in March of 2015.

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

Based on your decade in the PMO, have you ever heard the chief of the defence staff referred to as anything other than “chief” or “CDS” or by the rank name? What we always seem to have happening right now is that the government wants to refer to General Vance as an order in council or GIC appointment.

[Ray Novak]

No. As far as I recall, the chief of defence staff was always referred to with that title, both verbally and in written materials received from the Privy Council.

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

Then why would you think that in all the information that came out through access to information requests, and in the aftermath of the testimony of Gary Walbourne, everything in the PCO referred to General Vance as a GIC appointee?

[Ray Novak]

I'm not sure I'm able to speak to that. I don't recall ever seeing that type of reference in written materials. Probably that's a good question for officials from the Privy Council.

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

You mentioned how the national security adviser of the day in 2015 was very involved in the vetting process, including being the lead on the ad hoc committee for appointing the chief of defence staff.

Can you just relay to the committee and to Canadians why it's important to have the national security adviser vetting the chief of the defence staff, when you look at the security clearances that are required, the physical evidence of misconduct that would have to be looked at, whether it be going through everything from correspondence to pictures to financial transactions, and how those materials come into play in the appointment of the chief of the defence staff?

[Ray Novak]

Obviously, from the perspective of the ad hoc committee, I think it's clear that the presence of the Clerk of the Privy Council and the national security adviser in the Privy Council on that committee, guiding that committee, speaks to the extremely high-level nature of the appointment. There are very few appointments that are more high-level and important than appointing a chief of the defence staff. That's why there is such a direct connection between the most senior levels of the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office when assessing an appointment like this.

Obviously, I can't speak to the interplay between the national security adviser and the department or the Canadian Armed Forces. Clearly, given what's transpired, given the allegations made six years later, we need significant cultural and structural change within the Canadian Armed Forces so that women in uniform are not only safe but are empowered and enabled to come forward to trusted independent investigative bodies.