National Defence Committee on March 26th, 2021

[Janine Sherman]

The personal information of an individual in their performance review process.... The performance review process takes into account all aspects of performance: leadership, management, the corporate responsibility, corporate commitments across the government. There are various elements, and an allegation or the existence of an allegation or an investigation that is going on would not be...it would be taken into account in the context of an ongoing investigation.

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

Can you confirm that there are red flags in General Vance's file—

[Janine Sherman]

I cannot—

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

—dating back to 2015 and 2018?

[Janine Sherman]

I cannot confirm the details of personal information in a person's file.

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

So—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Madam Vandenbeld, please.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Sherman. I want to thank you for your many years of public service and for your testimony here today.

I'd just like [Technical difficulty—Editor] in your testimony that depending on what the results would have been that you were to find out, you could have launched a third party investigation. You could have referred even to the military police or to any other sources and, ultimately, you could have removed the chief of the defence staff because it's a GIC appointment. Is it safe to say, then, that when it comes to an allegation like this, your office—the Privy Council Office—was the proper independent authority?

[Janine Sherman]

As I have described our role, we do provide independent, non-partisan, professional public service advice to support ministers and the Prime Minister in managing the GIC cadre...particular appointees where issues arise. It is something that we would have worked...either with the portfolio in any of those avenues you've described, investigation or otherwise, to ensure that kind of follow-up was done.

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

Thank you.

You obviously can't talk about it, and you of course didn't know at the time, but we have heard through media reporting that the evidence in question was actually an email, a suggestive, inappropriate email from 2012. Had the recipient of that email provided the ombudsperson with permission to share that email with you, would you then have taken that further?

[Janine Sherman]

It is difficult to speculate on things that didn't happen. I will speak to generalities in terms of the process that we can undertake. When information is brought forward and we have facts and details to look at, we would take the appropriate action, as I have mentioned, in assessing how to best proceed with such information to help with the management of the GIC appointee in question.

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

You mentioned in your testimony today that you wanted to do follow-up and that the ombudsperson had actually given the complainant other avenues. Do you know what those avenues were and do you know whether the ombudsman actually went back to the complainant to let her know that PCO wanted to investigate and wanted to do follow-up?

[Janine Sherman]

I am not aware of what the ombudsman would have done following our conversation.

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

Okay.

Would it be appropriate in something like this, where you have somebody who has not given consent to release the email in question or any information, whatever it might be, to go to the person who is allegedly the perpetrator and alert that person, tip them off, that somebody was complaining about them, or would that violate the consent of the individual, assuming that the individual might be able to figure out who it was?

[Janine Sherman]

Madam Chair, that is an important consideration. As I have spoken about [Technical difficulty—Editor] apply to how we manage issues of conduct of a GIC appointee have to take that into consideration. The wishes of the person who is affected or is bringing that forward, and the inability to provide any details to the potential respondent, would be a matter of concern as well, so it's very difficult. It depends on the specific situation, but in general we take the wishes of the complainant into account.

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

Would you say that the real concern, the real issue here—we had a situation where the person didn't want to come forward, with very little ability then to follow up—is the fact that people are afraid to come forward, that there is still a culture, a fear of reprisal? Would you say that's what we ran into here, this larger cultural issue of people being afraid to put their name forward?

What kinds of ideas would you have on how we fix that?

[Janine Sherman]

I don't have enough information on the specific situation Mr. Walbourne raised to make that kind of an assessment.

I have said, and I would repeat, that we need to find a way to make sure that people will come forward, and whether there is fear of reprisal or concern about how broadly that information might be shared, we need to make sure that we have independent, safe spaces for people to come forward to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I would like to express the thanks of the entire committee to our witnesses today. You have provided very important testimony.

Committee, are we good to adjourn?

The meeting is adjourned.