National Defence Committee on March 26th, 2021

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

That would have been up to Michael Wernick, who was the Clerk at the time, but most likely, as well, to Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff.

[Janine Sherman]

I have shared information to say it was within the Prime Minister's Office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

The time—even extra time—is up.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We'll move on to Mr. Bagnell please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Madame Chair.

I wanted to start by acknowledging that it's Purple Day to enhance the understanding of epilepsy.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming. It's very helpful to help improve our understanding and to improve the processes at DND.

Ms. Sherman, I have a couple of questions for you, but I want to make sure that in the answers you don't say anything that would jeopardize the ongoing investigation.

In a general sense, could you let us know what process the PCO follows when there are allegations of any type of misconduct that are brought against one of its GIC appointees?

[Janine Sherman]

I would be happy to provide some background in terms of the processes we use.

First of all, I think the process is always dependent upon the nature of the complaint. Our role in the Privy Council Office is to provide advice to decision-makers throughout a complaint process that involves a GIC appointee. As I've mentioned, every case is unique, and our advice has to take into account the specifics of a circumstance.

There are four main principles that really underpin our approach. They are a respect for procedural fairness to all parties; supporting investigations that are independent, fair and free from bias; safeguarding personal information of all of those implicated, in accordance with legislative frameworks, and notably, as I have mentioned, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act; and respecting the confidentiality of the advice that we provide back to ministers and to the government of the day.

In general terms, when we have information to provide advice on an issue that is related to the conduct of a GIC appointee, we base our advice on those legislative and policy frameworks that govern workplace well-being.

We could, depending on the nature of the issue, the specific case [Technical difficulty—Editor] a course of action that would be an administrative review. It could be referral to an independent third party for investigation, or we could need to refer the matter to the appropriate police authorities, whether that is local police, RCMP or the CFNIS. It all depends on the nature of the information that is brought forward.

If a complaint comes forward that falls under the purview of the new Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, which came into force in January of this year, we would provide advice to our colleague on how best to address the complaint under that policy and legislative framework.

Our role is really providing advice to decision-makers and the officials who are overseeing the complaint at various stages throughout the process. At the initial stage, we can advise on best practices for determining whether an occurrence that was described in the complaint meets the test for the definition of harassment, and that is set out in the Canada Labour Code.

If the complainant, the principal party, requests an investigation, we can then advise on ensuring due process, for example, ensuring that the complainant and the responding parties are able to review portions of the draft report in a way that protects the appropriate level of confidentiality.

We would also advise officials on the steps that will follow upon the conclusion of an investigation in terms of assessing the findings and providing advice to a decision-maker. We do that in support of what the outcome would be from the investigation.

Then we also provide advice for the Governor in Council at the conclusion of a complaint process. That could range from a recommendation to take remedial actions—training and development, for example—or potentially a recommendation for removal if the findings of the investigation are such that the appointee has lost the confidence of the Governor in Council.

I hope that answers your question.

Thank you.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, that's very helpful for all of us to understand the process.

I wonder if there is anything more you could share with us about the meeting you had in March with the ombudsman or the email exchange that you mentioned in your opening remarks, which you had with him on March 5 and 6.

[Janine Sherman]

You've seen the emails. The important thing to note is that in my exchange the former ombudsman was clear that the information he held was being held in confidence. He had presented options to the complainant, and he was waiting for their direction. Based on whatever they determined to do, he would act in respect of that direction.

I knew in meeting with him that he had provided a complainant with some options and courses of action that could be taken. In my emails to him, my efforts were not to get in the way of a process that his office may wish to pursue on behalf of the complainant, but to find out more about the nature of the complaint so that we could provide some advice in the context of my responsibilities around supporting the Prime Minister and the minister in respect of managing a GIC appointee.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval now has the floor.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Sherman, earlier in your remarks, you mentioned contacting Mr. Walbourne, who was then serving as ombudsman, after you were informed of the situation by Mr. Sajjan. At that time, you saw no evidence that warranted an investigation or the need for further action.

Does this mean that, in your view, Mr. Walbourne's concerns were unfounded?

[Janine Sherman]

I would not make any pronouncement, I think, based on my conversations with the former ombudsman as to how well-founded the complaint may be.

The point to be taken from my conversation with Mr. Walbourne on March 16 was that he did not provide information that would have enabled us in our role to take further action.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

My understanding is actually that you tried to find out the identity of the victim, while Mr. Walbourne wanted to protect that information.

Isn't it rather because Mr. Walbourne would not reveal the identity of the victim to you that you decided not to pursue the allegations?

[Janine Sherman]

I would say that is not correct. My [Technical difficulty—Editor], which is with Mr. Walbourne, made it clear that I was not seeking confidential information. I was not trying to determine anyone's identity. It was to see if we could have information about the nature of the complaint.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Okay.

Did you contact General Vance? Did you discuss the situation with him?

[Janine Sherman]

In response to that question I think the indications from the email exchanges and what I've said about our conclusion from that discussion were that there was no information provided that would have enabled further action to be taken.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

So I gather that you did not discuss the situation in question with General Vance, since you had no information that you believed would require further action.

[Janine Sherman]

That is correct. There was no information provided that would have enabled us to take further action. I think the other element to be conscious of was the confidentiality of the information that the ombudsman held. He indicated certainly in the email exchanges that that was of paramount importance. He would not proceed with any actions unless he had written consent from a complainant. Therefore I was not in a position to share any information. Because of that confidentiality, I should clarify, he did not provide information that would have enabled us to take further action.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I imagine you also followed up with the minister, did you not?

[Janine Sherman]

As I have mentioned, my responsibilities were with respect to the Privy Council Office. I did return to the Clerk with the outcome of my conversation with Mr. Walbourne.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

In your testimony on February 19, you were quite vague. You said you could not talk about the allegations that led to the investigation because you did not want to interfere with the investigation process. I have a hard time understanding that, because the only thing you are telling me today is that you had no information that would have allowed you to go further.

Did the information brought to your attention by the ombudsman seem to be about a serious situation? Did the information seem credible?

[Janine Sherman]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I have mentioned, the outcome of my conversation with the former ombudsman was that we did not have information on which to take further action. I cannot therefore make any comment about whether I did not have information about the nature of the complaint.

Could I ask you to repeat...there were two parts to the question.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

First, was what the ombudsman reported to you credible? Second, was it serious? Did you consider the information to be credible and serious, or in a word, reliable?

[Janine Sherman]

Thank you for that clarification.

We do the follow-up because we take concerns being raised seriously. We always do. I think by virtue of the fact that we sought to speak to the ombudsman, to better understand whether there was information outside of confidential information that could be shared and that would enable us to take further action.... I was not provided with information at that time.

I also want to loop back to your comment about being vague. We did not have information in 2018. The ombudsman had information. As I mentioned, he was clear that it was provided on a confidential basis.