National Defence Committee on April 6th, 2021

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

As a member of the Canadian Forces, when a minister of national defence—the highest office in the land for the Canadian Forces—speaks and praises an individual, an outgoing CDS, for his behaviour, we, certainly I, as a Canadian Forces member, would believe that I should emulate that behaviour because that is a standard to which I should rise.

Are you saying I should not take your comments at a change of command parade in that light?

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

Madam Chair, when I give my talks I base them on the information that I know of an individual.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

We will go on to Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

Just before I get to my main question, which will be on independence, Minister, where did you do your pre-deployment training in 2006?

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

It was in Edmonton.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

On this very serious systemic problem we're dealing with, which is affecting hundreds of forces members and members in the department, the experts have suggested that two main items are responsible or need to be dealt with to fix the situation. One is culture and one is independence of the process. Congratulations to a couple of committee members who have asked about culture already, and you've responded. I'm going to ask about independence, and I'll ask Dr. Preston and General Eyre, too.

Minister, many in the defence community are advocating for an independent body that would report back to Parliament. What are your thoughts on this?

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

Madam Chair, when it comes to independent bodies, they are something that I welcome. In fact, there are a number of independent bodies that write reports on the actions not only of the military, but also of CSE.

When it comes to government, it is extremely important to be accountable to Canadians, and when it comes to the independence of agencies to review various things, that is something to be welcomed, because it makes sure we are moving in the right direction. More importantly, it's an independent look at where we might have missed something, so we can look at improving processes or putting resources where they're needed.

In addition to independence when it comes to Parliament, we also need to look at the work that needs to be done inside the Canadian Armed Forces. Currently we are also looking at what type of independence needs to happen internally as well, so we can rebuild the confidence of our members.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Dr. Preston, I think there's been some suggestion there could be even increased independence of SMRC. Do you have any comments on how that could be improved?

[Dr. Denise Preston]

I think about the independence of SMRC on at least a weekly basis, and I have done since I started at the centre, because it is very complicated. We have been set up structurally, in terms of my reporting relationship, consistent with what Madame Deschamps recommended, but we have not been given the entirety of the mandate that Madame Deschamps intended. Therefore, that has undermined our ability to perform some aspects of our mandate as independently as she envisioned.

There is absolutely room to review our governance, whether we continue to report within the department or outside the department. It's critical to look at mandate when you're looking at the particular structure or the form it's going to take. It may be the case that some of the functions SMRC is doing right now should reasonably be maintained within the department because of the need to work very collaboratively with people. However, it may well be that other aspects of our mandate, especially if it becomes more enhanced in the way Madame Deschamps envisioned, might better be performed by a more independent entity.

That is all to say it's important that all of this be further examined.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you. I think that would be a great item for our final report.

General Eyre, to your credit I think you referred to this already, but just give your comment on changing the systems so they're more independent.

[LGen Wayne D. Eyre]

I think the important thing here is the effect to be created. Right now, the overarching effect that we need is trust and confidence from the perspective of the victims in the system.

You'll note that a quarter of a century ago, in the Somalia report, an independent inspector general was one of the recommendations, and we pushed back against that. Well, I think the time for pushing back is over, and the imperative of re-establishing that trust and confidence has to take primacy here.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I think my time is almost up, so I will cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, it is, Mr. Bagnell.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Over time, we learned that, when the former ombudsman, Mr. Walbourne, approached you, Minister Sajjan, you passed the information on to the Privy Council Office. The Privy Council Office contacted the ombudsman, who refused to send the Privy Council Office any information. In the chain of command, the ombudsman's office doesn't report to the Privy Council Office, but to the Minister of National Defence. The ombudsman's office can't pass on confidential information, for example, to the Privy Council Office. In the end, there was no investigation. So we hit a dead end.

Do you find it normal that, ultimately, the dead end was your office?

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

Madam Chair, Governor in Council appointments are managed by the Privy Council Office, not by ministers. In this case here, because information was provided about a Governor in Council appointment, I wanted to make sure that the information—by the way, information provided by an ombudsman, who knows the process, because that's when they get selected for the job.... I wanted to make sure that the independence remained so that.... Because I didn't know at that time who the person was, what types of allegations they were, I wanted to make sure that it was dealt with properly and independently, and that's why it was given to the Privy Council Office.

So, no. As the minister, yes, I'm in charge of the Canadian Armed Forces. The chief of the defence staff does report to me when it comes to the National Defence Act. However, the appointment and management of Governor in Council appointments like the chief of the defence staff is not under the Minister of National Defence. It's under the Privy Council Office. I believe Ms. Sherman has provided information on this already.

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

Minister Sajjan, the bottom line is that the ombudsman's office doesn't have the authority to conduct an investigation.

Lieutenant-Colonel Éric Leblanc was asked whether it would have constituted interference for you to approach the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to report an issue and request an investigation. He told us that it would not and that it would only constitute interference if you decided to get personally involved in the investigation process. In the end, there was no investigation.

What was stopping you from doing this? Wouldn't this have been the correct approach?

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

That's a very good question. Let me clarify that.

If an average person off the street provided information, it would be a different story. Here, you have the ombudsman, who actually has in the directives where the information can go, and the JAG can actually provide you with these on this: to the provost marshal, to the judge advocate general as well, and it also can go to the NIS. The JAG can clarify that if I've missed something there.

In this case here, because we're talking about a GIC, handling of information here is extremely important. I understand where everybody is trying to go in saying “if I could have done this”, but I'm telling you, I wanted to make sure that whatever the information was, it was done independently, so that down the road, if it ever came to court, there could be no—any type of—reason why a person might get off. I wanted to make sure we protected the integrity of the actual process. I was actually extra prudent in making sure this was done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Garrison, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, I want to return to how you knew there was a possibility of a criminal investigation when you refused to look at the evidence. If you hadn't looked at the evidence, how could you possibly know that you were protecting the integrity of a possible criminal investigation?

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

Madam Chair, that's actually a great question. It is making sure that if anything does turn into an investigation, you need to be able to assume that something could get to a point.... I don't want to make an assumption right away that it may not. That would be prejudging whoever came forward and also the information. What I wanted to do regardless of the information is that I wanted to make sure we give power to the person so they can actually provide it to an independent agency, so in case it did get into an investigation, it could be protected.

That's what you need to do to make sure.... You can't make the assumption that it may not go somewhere. I would rather be on the safe side, so that it could possibly turn into an investigation up to and including that it may actually get to court.... I wanted to make sure that entire process was going to be protected.

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

Well, whether we agree or disagree on that aspect of your job, there's another aspect to being minister of defence, and that's making sure that the chief of the defence staff is a leader who upholds the highest standards and is beyond reproach. It's not a job that you automatically get promoted into. It's a job for which you're selected for your leadership capabilities. General Vance clearly stayed beyond what had been the normal number of years as your chief of the defence staff.

Did it not ever occur to you that, given the concerns about sexual misconduct in the military, a different chief of the defence staff might have been able to provide better leadership at that point than General Vance was able to do, given that you knew about allegations of sexual misconduct?

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

First of all, the information that was provided.... Because, Madam Chair, we're speaking in hindsight of what we know, the information that was provided, what it's important to state here, as I said before, is to follow the actual process, and that's exactly what was done.

In the National Defence Act, I have a responsibility to give direction to the Canadian Armed Forces through the chief of the defence staff, right? In terms of managing the actual process, the Governor in Council appointments are actually done through the Privy Council Office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

Next is Madam Gallant, please.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister: Were you ever told that Gary Walbourne refused to provide the information to PCO?

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

Madam Chair, to answer the question, I asked him a number of times if there were any updates or any further actions we needed to be taking. It was I think a number of months later that I learned that nothing further, no information, was provided and nothing, no follow-up, could be done in that case by PCO.