Evidence of meeting #22 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ombudsman.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Janine Sherman  Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office
Lieutenant-Colonel  Retired) Bernie Boland (As an Individual

2:35 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Okay.

When you contacted Mr. Walbourne on March 2, 2018, did you inform him of what the meeting was about?

2:35 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

My exchanges with Mr. Walbourne on March 5 and 6 in particular indicate, I think, that I was clear that I did want to do the follow-up based on his conversation with the minister and that I was clearly not seeking any information that he would not be able to share, but that I was looking to understand the nature of the complaint.

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

He was under the impression that you were calling him in on something else.

Back to the question about having to bring this allegation against a senior government official before, when that happened, when was it, and who instructed you to do that? We're just trying to understand the process. When was it that you had to do that before, and who instructed you to do it?

2:35 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

When I answered “yes”, I was answering fairly generically. As I've mentioned, my role in supporting the government in the context of managing GIC appointees does require me to have sensitive conversations with individuals at different points in time. That is in fact one of the reasons that the confidentiality that we bring to bear is so important—

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

I understand that, but we wanted to know who. We're not getting that information.

We're going back to March 2, 2018. To what extent did the decision not to investigate the allegation against the chief of the defence staff when it was officially reported to the PMO on March 1 have to do with the charges that were brought against Vice-Admiral Norman eight days later?

2:40 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

Madam Chair, I'm not sure I understand the question.

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Let me clarify for you.

Here we have allegations against the chief of the defence staff being brought to your attention on March 1, 2018. A mere eight days later, charges were brought forth against the vice-chief of the defence staff based on evidence that was no more substantial than the allegation.... In one case, the vice-chief of the defence staff was investigated and an investigation started, but nothing for the chief of the defence staff.

I'm trying to understand why there is a difference between how the two were treated.

2:40 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I cannot speak to the situation with the vice-chief of the defence staff. I had no engagement in that at all. I don't have information on that.

As I have mentioned, based on my conversation with the former ombudsman, I did not have information about the nature of the complaint or specifics that would have enabled further action.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Baker, please.

March 26th, 2021 / 2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Thanks very much, Chair.

Ms. Sherman, before I ask my first question, I wanted to reiterate something that I had said in our last committee meeting. You were not present, but the other committee members were.

During that meeting, I and a number of members went to great lengths to highlight that we thought the victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment would want us to be talking about how we move forward. That was in the context of a discussion we were having within the committee. I wanted to highlight that subject again as we get to the tail end of this meeting because I think this meeting reflects that we, for the most part, aren't doing that at all. I think that's a shame. I think we all have a duty to do that and should make that a priority going forward.

With that in mind, Ms. Sherman, I'm going to ask you a question that follows up on Mr. Spengemann's last question how you approach a culture change. At the tail end of your answer you spoke to the need for certain structures to be put in place. I think that's when your time ended. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on what kinds of structures you were referring to. Could you give some examples of that?

2:40 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

Thank you for the question and for your remarks.

When I was speaking about structures, we often have policies, processes and frameworks that are constructed and intended to support the objective they are initially developed for. Particularly where we're looking for change and innovation in how we actually manage within the public service—not just in the context of complaints and harassment and workplace well-being—we do need to make sure that those systems remain relevant and effective.

To get back to the safety and security of the workplace, if people are not comfortable coming forward and if there are fears of reprisals, all of the systems we have in place aren't doing what we need them to do. My comment was really focused on understanding why that is.

You can't proceed with change management.... You may have an objective, but you need to also understand where you're coming from and why you aren't getting there. Systems and structures need to be adapted based on the real experience of people who are trying to use them for the purposes for which they're intended. When that's not working, we need to hear from people and figure out how better to develop and design systems and structures.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Thank you.

Chair, how much time do I have left?

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

You have a minute and a half.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Okay.

Ms. Sherman, further on that topic, perhaps you can provide examples of something you have witnessed. I am not necessarily asking you to comment specifically on the case of the Canadian Armed Forces, or even the Canadian context at all. I'm thinking about best practices. Others have faced these challenges, other institutions, not just in Canada but around the world, and have resolved them to some degree or to a great degree.

I'm hoping to learn from that. I think this committee needs to learn from that. Are there examples of best practices that you've seen that we should review?

2:45 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

We certainly can always learn from others. One of the things we do try to focus in on in terms of innovation in the public service is not reinventing the wheel but taking good practices from others. In some cases, we know that they exist within the public service. We look at those and think about scaling up in terms of something that has worked well in one situation and might be applicable to another. Innovation is certainly a theme and an underlying principle of the change we're trying to achieve.

I think in terms of best practices, I will keep coming back to what we call in the public service renewal world the “user experience”. There are examples of departments that have, for example, looked at how their call centres run. With dropped calls, client dissatisfaction, people not getting the answers they need, or people waiting too long on the phone, there are instances of where a particular department or agency has taken that apart, looked at what's happening, and put out a challenge, for example, to different groups: How can we fix this? What are the issues?

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Thank you, Ms. Sherman.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

2:45 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To date, the Minister of National Defence has said that, if he had decided to take action, to meet with the ombudsman and hear the information that the ombudsman wanted to share with him, that would have constituted interference.

Do you share that opinion, Ms. Sherman?

2:45 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

Madam Chair, I'm not an expert in.... I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not in a position to provide a view on a legal concept such as that.

2:45 p.m.

Bloc

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

All right, but you're still trained in public administration. Unless I'm mistaken, you have a lot of experience and you hold a very senior position. In your opinion, would the Minister of National Defence have been interfering if he had met with the ombudsman to review the evidence he had to show him about a situation of concern?

2:45 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

I'm not sure what the question is. Encroachment of...? It may be an issue with translation. I apologize. I'm not sure what you mean.

2:45 p.m.

Bloc

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

Actually, I am referring to what the minister said. I find it very surprising. I thought it might be enlightening to hear from someone who has a long history in senior public service.

In the opinion of Mr. Lick, the new ombudsman who replaced Mr. Walbourne, it would not have been interference. Lieutenant-Colonel Leblanc, who heads the Canadian Forces national investigation service, agrees.

In this case, I am wondering whether the Privy Council Office may have advised the minister not to look at that information. Was that really the recommendation to him?

2:50 p.m.

Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office

Janine Sherman

Thank you for that clarification.

No, I would say that we had not provided any advice or information to the minister when he met with Mr. Walbourne. My understanding of that meeting is that they had a discussion. This is from the testimony to date. They had a discussion themselves, and we would not have provided advice in advance of that.

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

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

So you gave no advice or instructions to the Minister of National Defence