National Defence Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

How did you, Prime Minister Harper and his office conclude that the allegations brought against Mr. Vance were unfounded?

[Ray Novak]

Actually, I've been very clear in my testimony that in March 2015 we were briefed by officials about the matter pertaining to the general's time at NATO, that he had been in a relationship with someone who was subordinate but not in the chain of command, and that he was at that time engaged to that individual. The appointment was announced some weeks after that.

In July 2015, we were advised of an anonymous email. We were told it contained no new information, and that the investigation to the email was closed. We were also provided with a rumour that was investigated by our officials, who briefed us that there was no complainant, nothing in DND's files, and that the general denied the rumour. That's the information that was available to us at the time.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

At any point during your time with Prime Minister Harper, did you ever share the allegations or any concerns you had about General Vance? In terms of the allegations, did you share these with anyone else, anyone taking up a position in the office subsequent to yourself or to a subsequent team?

[Ray Novak]

The only allegations I'm aware of are the ones I've spoken about. The issue related to how the general met his wife, and the rumour that was passed to me in July 2015 that I asked the Privy Council to investigate.

Those are the only allegations I'm aware of. They were discussed, as I indicated to the member and to the committee, with the Privy Council Office and the Minister of National Defence's office at the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Novak, for joining us today. I'm sorry that it was so early out in Vancouver, but we're probably all jealous of the lovely springtime. You're way ahead of us. However, thank you for joining us today. I thought you brought a lot to our discussions.

We'll sign you off, and thank you, once again, for joining us.

[Ray Novak]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know you also served in uniform so I thank you for that, and I appreciate the opportunity today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, do you want to deal first with the subcommittee report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes.

Thank you, everyone. You all got a copy of it. It really deals with the scope and what we're going to work on for the military justice survey. Is everyone all right with it or does anyone want to read or review or debate it?

Does the committee wish to adopt the report?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you. That's excellent. It's the one piece that's been hanging around for a while, so we really needed to get it so we could move ahead with preparing for the next study.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

Madam Chair, at some point in time over the next week or two, I think it would be good to have a subcommittee to just organize the work of committee, knowing that we have two reports that have been drafted as well as another study that we want to get under way while we're still dealing with the study on sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

Based upon the evidence that we received today, I move the following:

That the Standing Committee on National Defence, concerning its study of addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance and Admiral Art McDonald, invite Daniel jean, former National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada; that the witness appear for no less than two hours; and that the meeting be held in public and be televised.

To that motion, I think, based upon what we have heard now and how important a role the national security adviser played in the original screening and vetting of General Vance back in 2015, as well as the role that the national security adviser played, as Mr. Novak said, in the appointment process of General Natynczyk and General Lawson, that it is crucial that we have Daniel Jean, who was the national security adviser at the time these allegations were presented to the Minister of Defence in March 2018, appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We have Madam Vandenbeld, and then we have Mr. Baker.

Go ahead, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know there was a notice of motion for a different witness. The member—

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

I'll get to that. Don't worry.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Bezan just mentioned that perhaps there should be a steering committee meeting to look at what the further studies should be. I would imagine that would also include what further witnesses, if any, there should be. Having heard the testimony today, I can think of a few people who were mentioned today who might be invited as witnesses too. I didn't come prepared today—

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

I'd love to hear from Katie Telford.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

—to put forward those names.

I know we have our witnesses for Friday, as you mentioned this morning, and since there was a motion saying two maximum in two hours, that would fill up Friday.

I know we have two constituency weeks coming up after that. I would imagine there would be plenty of time for the steering committee to sit down and look at all the different names, and maybe some that other members are also interested in bringing, and then at that time it could see whether or not it's necessary to pursue this study further, or whether it's also possible to have more panellists per meeting. I think the steering committee could then report back to us on that.

I also would just like to say that, given everything that's happened, I am very eager to get started on the military justice study. I think if we look at what survivors are saying right now, there are a lot of questions about the military justice system and its ability to look at things like criminal sexual assault and other things. I think that's a very important study.

Obviously if we are to continue further with this study.... I think we had said four meetings, and we've already done one or two, I believe. You can correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Chair. We have one on Friday.

I think it would be good for the steering committee to get together and discuss exactly how many days are left, how much time we want to spend on different studies and which witnesses we want to bring. Again if we're going to be starting to add witnesses ad hoc, one by one, in individual meetings like this.... On this particular one, I see that there was no notice given. I just think that it's just not the best practice to be able to just say this witness and that witness. I think we need to look at the testimony today and at other testimony and see who might be the best people to bring in.

My preference, Madam Chair, would be that we would not vote on individual witnesses one by one—I've said this in this committee many times—but instead that we would have a steering committee meeting and have all of the witnesses discussed there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to come back to what I think we should be focusing on as a committee—and we've heard it from a number of those folks who have presented to us and other witnesses—which is how to address the problem with culture and ultimately eliminate sexual harassment and assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. That would be my preferred focus for our team. I think that is the best way to provide justice to the victims, to the survivors.

Right now, we're still focused far too much, in my view, on things that don't help us resolve those questions and make recommendations to government that allow us to do that.

My strong preference would be to focus our attention on those issues and on hearing from folks who we think can complete our knowledge of why this happens and how to get it resolved. That would be a much better use of the committee's time, rather than going further down this path. I think we owe it to the survivors to focus there. I would ask the committee members to consider that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We will hear from Mr. Spengemann, Mr. Bezan, and then Mr. Robillard.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I just wanted to echo the comments of my colleagues, Ms. Vandenbeld and Mr. Baker, with respect to the committee finding traction on a constructive way forward. We've heard from a range of witnesses. The most recent witness echoed the importance of having a serious look at the structural and cultural changes that are required.

I think we're coming to an area of agreement with respect to how the accountabilities flow, that it is not proper for a minister or a prime minister to launch an investigation. Mr. Novak was very clear in his testimony on that. He was equally clear, as have been other witnesses and the committee as a whole, that the well-being of members of the Canadian Armed Forces needs to be front and centre in this inquiry. This includes, most prominently, women who have had the courage to come forward, but equally, women and men who have not had the courage to come forward for reasons relating to the culture that's been described and the levels of seniority involved.

There is some important work ahead of us as parliamentarians, work that is beyond and in addition to the question of what happens with this former chief of the defence staff. That's where we should focus. I think your suggestion to use the subcommittee for a discussion of witness names as they come forward through these conversations is important. Equally, your suggestion to coordinate the committee's work with respect to crossovers and linkages to the military justice study is, I think, very important.

To deal with systemic change, we need to think about our study systemically and connect those thoughts to other areas of inquiry if we are to make sure we get to those hurdles, with respect to culture, that stand in the way. They have stood in the way, by all accounts, at least since the external review authority—which the previous witness just described—in 2015, if not for a long time before. We have some urgent work ahead and we really need to focus on overcoming these obstacles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

We'll hear from Mr. Bezan, Mr. Robillard and then Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

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

Madam Chair, I understand why Liberal members are very uncomfortable with continuing with the study, but we owe it to the Canadian Armed Forces, and especially the women who serve us, to get to the bottom of what's happened.

We had a new revelation today about the role of the national security adviser. To not call a national security adviser at that time would be a misjustice on our part and a missed opportunity to get more information and details on how that investigation took place.

We heard the minister say on multiple occasions that he handed this off to the proper authorities, and the PCO, as we've heard from Liberal members, was the proper authority. Let's talk to the person in the PCO who would have been in charge of the investigation, the national security adviser. To do otherwise would be short-sighted on our part.

Madam Chair, I know the Liberals are going to want to continue to talk this out and filibuster, but I can tell you that I am prepared to stay and debate this and other motions as we go forward.

Aside from the fact that we need to have a steering committee to look at our total, overall business, it is in order to suggest witnesses after hearing testimony. Based on the testimony we heard today about the role of the national security adviser, I think the former NSA, Daniel Jean, is a person of interest who this committee must hear from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Chair, since this next week will be the last week that we have with our constituents, I would suggest that we have a little bit of time for business in our ridings.