National Defence Committee on March 26th, 2021

[Janine Sherman]

I think what I might do is just give a bit of an explanation of the process.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Is it the defence minister who initiates that? Who initiates that?

[Janine Sherman]

It comes about through the annual performance management program of which the CDS is one of the GICs to whom that applies.

I can clarify that at the time the CDS was appointed, his salary was fixed at what we call the DM2 range. His salary is within the same compensation structure as deputy ministers. The fixing of his salary at the DM3 range was done in 2017, so two years into his position. Those determinations are made on the basis of the scope and complexity of an individual's responsibilities, the experience that they bring to the job and develop in the position, as well—

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Are you saying that they're just automatic, they just happen on their own automatically and aren't initiated by anybody?

[Janine Sherman]

No, they don't happen automatically. It is through the performance management program where—

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Would the defence minister be involved in that and in initiating this process?

[Janine Sherman]

The defence minister is consulted in terms of the performance management program for GIC appointees.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I apologize—

[Janine Sherman]

He would not make that decision himself.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I apologize for interrupting, but do you know if Minister Sajjan was consulted in this review?

[Janine Sherman]

The minister is consulted in the annual performance management program in respect to GIC appointees within his portfolio.

I would like to clarify, though, just because I think this question has come up, my responsibilities in terms of managing GIC appointees throughout their tenure and in particular the performance management program is that those annual reviews are the basis for salary adjustments either in terms of level or progression through a salary range. We also manage economic increases that are approved by the Governor in Council, often retroactively.

The minister is consulted through the performance management program. Many factors play into that. I have described that in my previous appearance. I'm happy to give more detail that might be helpful, but in terms of the decisions on how the setting of the salary are managed, the minister himself does not make that decision. It goes through the annual process.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

And his pay raise would have to go to cabinet for approval.

[Janine Sherman]

The salary increases, as I mentioned, in terms of from one level to the next economic increase and movement inside a salary range, are approved by the Governor in Council. That Governor in Council approval is basically, as you will have heard, the Governor General approving on the advice of cabinet. Cabinet itself, and I should clarify, is not necessarily a full cabinet at all points in time. It can be a subcommittee.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Do you know who—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you. I've let it go as long as I could. We're a minute over time.

Mr. Spengemann, please go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I'd like to join my colleague, Mr. Bagnell, in acknowledging that it's Purple Day, a day on which we amplify our efforts to raise awareness for epilepsy.

I'd like to thank both of our witnesses, Ms. Sherman and Colonel Boland, for their service and for appearing today.

Ms. Sherman, in a previous phase of my career, I had the privilege of serving in the PCO. Could I ask you to back up for a minute? Canadians who are watching will be finding themselves, periodically through this committee and other conversations, in acronym land. We're talking about the DND, the CDS, PMO and PCO.

What is the PCO, and why is it so important to have an independent, professional, impartial organization, a central policy-planning agency, at this moment in the midst of an important question and investigation going forward?

[Janine Sherman]

I appreciate the question, and I apologize if I am using acronyms randomly or too frequently.

The Privy Council Office is, effectively, the department for the Prime Minister. Our responsibilities are to support the cabinet decision-making process that supports our system of government. There are various parts of the Privy Council Office, of course, that are aligned with supporting the whole variety of cabinet decision-making processes.

I won't go into those details, but, as you've mentioned, our role is to be a non-partisan, professional public service. We are able to provide advice impartially and based on principles of good governance to the government of the day. We serve each government as it comes into office. We provide continuity in terms of the structure and operations of government. We provide advice and support to the government in managing, and achieving the priorities it brings to governing as duly elected representatives of Canadians.

Our role is very important in that context, in terms of providing the advice and support that will enable decision-making systems of government to function effectively.

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

Similarly, why is it so important in Canadian public administrative thought and practice that a minister or other elected officials do no drive, do not taint and are in no way involved in investigations of the kind we're discussing today?

[Janine Sherman]

That is an important principle of Westminster government. The elected representatives do not carry out investigations, and manage the details of those kinds of things, because they are elected. The separation of their role from the independent and non-partisan public service is important in ensuring independence and fairness. All of those principles are necessary in terms of ensuring fair outcomes, and procedural fairness for individuals through processes, such as investigations.

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

Ms. Sherman, the committee is tasked with another issue that is as important, if not more important, as the issue we've been discussing for the last hour and a half, which is how to transition out of the culture that's currently prevalent in the Canadian Armed Forces with respect to sexual misconduct.

In a 2018 article, you've been described as a leading member of the civil service on Parliament Hill. It said that your daily jobs included attracting and retaining talent, and fostering innovation within the bureaucracy. You've spent a substantial amount of time at the Canada School of Public Service prior to being appointed to your current position. Terms like “change management”, “change agent” and “challenge function” are prevalent in Canadian administrative thought.

What recommendations do you have for this committee to tackle the question of culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces in a deeper and substantive way?

[Janine Sherman]

Thank you for that question. It's enormous, but I thank you. It raises very important issues.

We know that change management is difficult in any context, and culture change in particular is challenging.

My work in terms of the other part of my job, public service renewal, is very much about ensuring that we have an organization in the public service that is up to the challenge, agile, inclusive and equipped. That's the frame in which we think about change management.

One of the most important things I believe in is certainly commitment from the top, but more importantly the engagement of the people who are affected. I think when you're thinking about the Canadian Armed Forces, it is important. The voices that are being brought to bear now are providing a very important message. One of those messages—I think of my work in terms of the safe workspaces initiative that we did in 2018—was that you need to make sure you have the structures and processes in place, but you need to make sure they work for people. You need to understand, if there are systemic barriers to people coming forward and to some of those voices being heard, and you need to make room for that conversation and act on the real experiences that people are having and try to make sure that there is a way to adjust, adapt and provide the structures and systems that support people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much.

We go to Madam Gallant.

Go ahead, please.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you to the witness, who made the decision not to involve the national security adviser in the allegation?

[Janine Sherman]

I would not presume that there was an explicit decision to not involve the national security adviser. As I have mentioned, the situation we were in was that we did not have information that would have enabled further action. We wanted to be cognizant of the issue the ombudsman had brought forward and at the same time respect the confidentiality that was being accorded to the complainant, so the decision in terms of next steps or what would or could be done was very much taking into account those elements.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you very much. Okay.

Have you ever been asked to do a task such as this, to get the information on allegations against a senior government official? Have you ever been asked that question before? Just yes or no is okay.