Yes. I was not going to make up my own recommendations on the performance rating, or on the term of office and when the change of command should take place, out of thin air, though I was going to the Minister of National Defence and the deputy minister of national defence as my primary sources of input on those.
There were other issues relevant to the performance rating, if I can just quickly run through them. This would have been for the 2017-18 performance cycle, so the things that were in our line of sight were that that was the first year of implementation of the new defence policy, which was released in June 2017, and the investments that went with that. There was a relaunching of the process for the acquisition of fighter jets, after a long pause. There was the deployment to Mali. There was the fact that Canada had taken up leadership and had been asked to take up leadership of the NATO training mission in Iraq. There was very good work done on closing the seam with Veterans Affairs; for the first time in many years, the CAF and the vets department were working together nicely. There had been the settlement on the apology to LGBTQ military and the $100-million settlement that had been reached that year, and frankly, we were giving him credit for Operation Honour and for work on mental health and workplace issues. There were a lot of positives going into that year.
I did raise with the minister some concerns about the turnover of senior staff, because at that point there had been a major shuffle of senior officers on March 2. By coincidence, Friday, March 2 was the date that the list of promotions and retirements came out. It was quite a shake-up. I think there's a CBC news article on that.
Then, on March 9, Admiral Norman was put up on criminal charges by the RCMP, causing another shuffle. Then there was another shuffle in the spring, so I essentially asked the minister, what's going on? That was a factor.
General Vance's ambition for the NATO job was relevant. I wanted the minister's take on whether that was realistic or not. Was he actually a contender for this, or was this far-fetched? The minister's view, if I remember it, was yes, he would be taken seriously as a candidate for the job.
Then there was the issue of keeping good relations with the U.S. military in 2018, with a very erratic commander-in-chief in the White House. General Vance had excellent relations with the U.S. military. These were all in the swirl of issues, and I concede that we lost sight of the misconduct issues. I do not recall his raising it with me, and I do not recall raising it with him.