Evidence of meeting #23 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 investigation.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
In a process like that, shouldn't it be a reflex to find out if there is any history?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
You need to ask the Minister or Deputy Minister of National Defence that question. I was never aware of any allegations, past or present, against the general.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
When there are allegations of inappropriate behaviour by a senior military officer, such as the Chief of Defence Staff, whether they are criminal in nature or not, who is ultimately responsible for their actions?
People often say it's the Privy Council Office. The Minister has stated many times that he sent the information to them.
Is the Privy Council Office or the minister responsible for that?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm not sure what the answer is. I believe you would have to ask a lawyer.
As I understand it, the Privy Council Office still has an obligation to do an initial screening, a review of the facts, and to decide what procedures to follow afterwards. As someone suggested, it may be to call in the national security advisor. If early indications suggest the possibility of criminal activity, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are called right away.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Wasn't consideration given to contacting the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, for example, which had conducted an investigation in 2015?
I know you may not have been aware of what had happened before, as you said, but it might have been a good idea to call the people there to see if they had any files.
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
As I understood it at the time, the ombudsman was responsible for the case.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to go back to Mr. Wernick, about personnel changes at senior levels in the Canadian military. I think the distinction between what this committee is doing and a broader study is that we set out to discover why no action was taken when there were serious allegations against General Vance, and how he remained in office for three years.
That really is a way of getting at this question of confidence that the senior leadership understands and will respond to allegations of sexual misconduct. With all the changes that were taking place, it seems curious to me, especially in view of the government's professed feminism and in view of the #MeToo movement, that women were not moved into senior command positions in the Canadian military between 2015 and 2021. Was that a part of the discussions you would have had with the minister or discussions you would have had with the Prime Minister's Office?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
No. I did not get involved in any discussions about specific appointments below the level of CDS.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
No one raised this as an issue of concern? If you're going to confront sexual misconduct, as all studies will show, there needs to be a critical mass of women in decision-making positions in order to change the culture of an organization.
This wasn't part of the discussion?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I think in the background at all times when I was the Clerk was an effort to get to greater gender parity right across the range of appointments and communities within the reach of the federal government. It was always an issue or a driver to see if we could bend the curve, to use a phrase, towards greater gender parity.
However, specific recommendations regarding who to put into what position always come from a minister. In the case of diplomats, they come from the foreign affairs minister. In the case of judges, they come from the justice minister. In the case of military staff, they come from the Minister of Defence.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Making progress on having women in higher ranks and reaching a critical mass would have been the responsibility of the Minister of Defence. I think you just said that clearly. Am I—
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
It would have been the collective responsibility of the minister, supported by the CDS and the deputy minister, yes.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
You wouldn't have any way of knowing whether those discussions around this question took place between the minister, the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister.
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
No, and the Prime Minister's Office would not get involved in internal discussions around military staffing.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wernick, I appreciate that you are expressing regret for what has transpired since 2018, and what's come to light in the last few months.
Can you just list all the people you talked to about the allegations against General Vance when you were still in office in 2018?
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
As far as I can recall, those would have been Janine Sherman and my initial outreach from Elder Marques. I do not recall looping back to Elder. It's possible that I did—you'd have to ask him—but I don't recall a follow-up of that.
I think we reported back in March that we had reached an impasse and we had left the file open. There is a note somewhere about the processes that were followed. I don't know offhand the date of that. It would have been in the spring of 2018. We had moved on by May or June to the other issues about tenure and turnover and change of command, and the overall state of the senior ranks.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
The deputy minister of national defence would report to you. Would you not have had this conversation with Jody Thomas?
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I remember having a conversation with Jody in the context of this overall performance review about turnover, about the ripple effects of Admiral Norman being in front of criminal charges, and about whether General Vance was a contender for the NATO job and what did she think about that. It was part of a swirl of issues around the state of the military.
I had a level of concern about what was going on in the military, but I was leaving it to the deputy, the minister and the chief of the defence staff at that point. I did not get deeply involved in it at the time.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Now, Minister Sajjan said earlier today that he had an annual 15-minute telephone call with you to go over the performance review of the chief of the defence staff, but that it would also include discussions around the deputy minister. Would that be a proper way of making these tough decisions on looking at a performance review—just a 15-minute phone call—or was something done in more detail?
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I can't swear to the length of the call. I don't have my calendars in front of me. They generally went as long as the minister wanted to talk. Sometimes they were short. Sometimes they'd go on for nearly an hour and try to get input on the deputy minister, any.... It would depend on the portfolio, if that's helpful. If there were a lot of Crown corporation heads or there were associate deputy ministers, if there were other bodies, it was always a question of, “Do you have any views on any of these people that you want to share with us?”, and so on.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Minister Sajjan never flagged with you again that there was this outstanding sexual misconduct allegation. The 2017-18 period ended March 31, and of course during March 2018 you guys were in the middle of looking into the allegations.
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I can only speak to the 2017-18 cycle and the conversations in the spring of 2018. I did not raise the conduct issues, and he did not. I concede that I could have raised the issues with the minister, but the minister could have raised them with me. We did not. We talked about other issues. It probably was a hurried telephone conversation.
I remember that there was a second one in June, and we reached a conclusion that there was an issue. I had also had representations by one of the former generals—I think, actually, a former CDS—who was saying at the time, in the wake of the Norman charges and the accelerating rate of retirements and turnover, that he was worried. He had heard a rumour—and I'm sorry to pass on a rumour—that General Vance had told colleagues he was going to stay until 2022 or the NATO job came through, whichever came first. That was seven years, and he was quite alarmed by that. I was alert to the issue of when the change of command should take place, but I did lose sight of the conduct issue.
