National Defence Committee on April 6th, 2021

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister Sajjan, based on your answers from the beginning, I almost get the impression that you're the victim in this situation, meaning that you're completely powerless and that you've done everything right.

It's a little hard to understand, after hearing testimony from the ombudsman, Mr. Lick; his predecessor, Mr. Walbourne; and Lieutenant-Colonel Leblanc. Every time they were asked whether it would have constituted interference if the minister had decided to identify the issue and take the necessary action, they all answered no.

So I'm trying to understand why you continue to maintain that, if you had taken action, it would have constituted interference, when all credible experts in the field say that this isn't the case.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, the member's impression is wrong. Any time information is brought forward, action must be taken, and action was taken...immediately going and speaking to my chief of staff so that action could be taken. She immediately went to the Privy Council Office so that independent action could be taken, and it was taken the very next day. Then we also followed up.

That's how seriously we took it. We followed up immediately with the appropriate independent people. What I'm trying to say here is, don't misquote when I say that a politician should not be involved with investigations. They should never be. No politician, no minister—whether it's previous ministers or future ministers—should ever order an investigation on an individual in the Canadian Armed Forces or stop an investigation.

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

Minister Sajjan, the outcome was that the chief of the defence staff remained in his position, despite allegations of a sexual nature against him.

Are you satisfied with the outcome of your work?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, the outcome we see now is, obviously, not one that we would have wished, but it is important regardless of what...when somebody comes forward with information that we take it seriously. In this case here, as I stated again, information was immediately taken—not held for a little bit, Madam Chair, but immediate action—so that it could go to the right people and the appropriate action could be taken.

Then if you look at the testimony from others, plus the information that has been provided, it clearly also shows the follow-up that took place with the former ombudsman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

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

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm still having some screen-freezing problems. I apologize.

Mr. Minister, the reason I asked you about your relationship with General Vance is that we have heard, in public, testimony that Major Vance's sexual misconduct problems were well known among senior leaders in the Canadian military.

Major Brennan told Mercedes Stephenson this in an interview. I believe the date was in February. It's very important to understand why you didn't want to look at evidence when we've heard allegations—and I've certainly heard them from others privately who fear retaliation—that the misconduct allegations were multiple and were well known.

So the reason, before I was cut off in time, was that I was giving you a chance to say that you knew nothing about these allegations and you had heard nothing about General Vance's previous conduct.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Yes, that is true. I did not know about General Vance's previous conduct, so not only to answer your question there.... Absolutely, the allegations that are brought forward by Major Brennan are extremely disturbing. Now an investigation has started. It is, again, very important for me and all of us to make sure that there actually is a just outcome and to allow the investigation to take its course. I was not aware of this.

I'm happy to answer any more direct questions like this.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

In 2018, I still fail to understand why you wouldn't look at the evidence from the military ombudsman. There was no ongoing investigation. The military ombudsman at the time said so. The current military ombudsman said there couldn't have been an investigation going on. There was no investigation going on anywhere. Why would you not look at the evidence that the military ombudsman said substantiated the allegation?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

The question that's been asked has been asked in considerable hindsight. Imagine when somebody has brought information before me. My purpose immediately was to make sure whatever information the ombudsman had, I didn't want to accept, because I didn't want to possibly taint it. Immediately, based on my own experience as a detective, I know that when it comes to investigations, you have to look at when something comes forward: it can possibly go to court and the last thing you want to do is interfere with that.

In this case here, I took it so seriously, wanting to make sure that the information went to the PCO, which is in charge of Governor in Council appointments, because that is the right thing to do, so it could make the determination and follow up independently of any politicians, including myself. Then, if the course went a different way, other decisions could be made. It was to protect the integrity of the investigation, Madam Chair. There was no other reason. I can't say this any other way. That's how seriously I take things based on my former experience as a detective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Bezan, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to follow up on that, Minister, in the Royal Canadian Navy's recent investigation into the red room comment on a Zoom call, which was investigated and then dismissed, you ordered the CFNIS to do a review of that investigation. Is that political interference?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, I did not order the CFNIS investigation. I do not direct the CFNIS investigation. I asked the acting chief of the defence staff to take a look into the issue. If the member wishes, the acting chief of the defence staff can elaborate further.

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

No, that's fine. I just wanted to see how that went.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Okay.

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

But you did ask the acting CDS to do the investigation—

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No—

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

—a review of the investigation. I get that.

How did it come about that Admiral McDonald stepped aside as CDS after the allegations against him came to light? Did you ask him to step aside?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, Art McDonald voluntarily stepped aside.

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

That's after he became aware of allegations that were being looked at against him for sexual misconduct.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

He voluntarily stepped aside.

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

Yes.

Did you ensure after the fact that the so-called review or investigation done by PCO came up with nothing? Did you ask for a review of that process and inform General Vance that there was an investigation against him so that he could make that independent decision to step aside so that the chain of command could function freely in that investigation?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, there would have to be an investigation to have started and a lot of other circumstances to occur for that to happen. In this case here, obviously the member knows exactly what took place. What I wanted to do is to make sure that the information went to the independent people so the decision could be made of where the information could go, but as the member knows from the various testimony, exactly what took place....

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

Minister, as you know, there was no real investigation done against General Vance, so there isn't a possibility to politically interfere, but you have a responsibility under the National Defence Act to use all tools at your disposal to ensure the governance and management of the Canadian Armed Forces. That includes section 45 of the National Defence Act, to do things like convene a board of inquiry to look at “any matter connected with the government, discipline, administration or functions of the Canadian Forces”.

You had Zita Astravas, as your chief of staff, follow through on.... You said earlier today that there were multiple meetings with your chief of staff on this issue. Who, aside from Elder Marques, did she talk to in the Prime Minister's Office? When did she talk to Katie Telford?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Chair, I'll address the first question and the assertions that the member made.

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

I'd like you to address the second question first. Then we can move to the first.