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.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
You were talking earlier about the line of sight and all the things that you're crediting General Vance for. Did the allegations against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman play into that line of sight as well? We know he was charged on March 8, 2018.
As an Individual
Yes. Admiral Norman was charged by the RCMP, acting independently, and the director of public prosecutions, acting independently. Where it's relevant, I guess, is that it destabilized the senior ranks. To have the vice chief facing criminal charges is a very unsettling thing, as you'll remember, and it led to a cascade of dominoes and to further changes in the senior ranks. There was a wave of.... They had just done a major set of appointments and retirements on March 2. Then Norman was charged and they did another set of appointments and retirements, I think in April or May. The cumulative picture is that of an organization that is very unsettled at the top.
Liberal
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much.
I'd like to begin by correcting some of the things that have been raised during the course of this committee meeting by some of the members of the committee.
First of all, with regard to female general officers, from 2015 up until now, in fact, in 2015 there were six women at the level of general or higher. Now there are 15. That should answer the question in terms of promotion of women.
The other thing I'm very concerned about is this. We've heard now from multiple members of this committee that there were allegations against General Vance that were widely known. I think we should go to the testimony that in 2018, as everyone who has testified has said, they were not aware of other allegations. The only people who were aware of allegations as far back as 2015 were Mr. O'Toole and his chief of staff. I think we have to be careful, because if the opposition members are aware of multiple allegations, we know there is an ongoing investigation, so I very much hope that anybody aware of any other allegations will bring those to the proper authorities so that they can be part of the current ongoing investigation.
Having said that, I would like to go to Mr. Wernick for, again, some clarifications.
Mr. Wernick, we've heard certain things in the course of this meeting and previous meetings from members of this committee. We heard members refer to how in 2018 there were substantiated claims of sexual misconduct, and how the government, the minister and PCO took no action, treated them as a hot potato or disregarded them. In some cases, there were innuendoes, but those were deliberately put aside. Would you, Mr. Wernick, say that is an accurate portrayal of what happened in 2018?
As an Individual
I'd just repeat what I said today. We did take carriage of the file on March 2. Within 24 hours of Mr. Walbourne's going to see the minister, we had taken carriage of the file and reached out to Mr. Walbourne to see what we could find out. We reached an impasse in mid-March and were unable to proceed further.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Wernick, do you think it was an appropriate action for the minister, immediately following his meeting with Mr. Walbourne, to take this to your office, to the PCO?
As an Individual
I think he had the alternative of accepting the envelope and immediately giving it to somebody to send over to us. He could have acted as the courier and said, “Okay, I'll take it from you, but I'm sending it to PCO.”
I think Mr. Walbourne could have found some redacted version of the information to give to us that might, hypothetically, have given us more to go on.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Do you think the outcome would have been any different, given that in her testimony Ms. Sherman said that she asked Mr. Walbourne to give de-identified information, information about the nature of the allegations, even if it was not the name of the individual, and Mr. Walbourne, according to Ms. Sherman's testimony, was unwilling or unable to give that information? Would we still have been, then, at exactly the same impasse?
As an Individual
It's impossible to know what the details of that alternative timeline would be.
I don't want to sound critical of Mr. Walbourne. I think he was acting in good faith according to his understanding of how the system should work, but so was Ms. Sherman.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Do you believe that if Mr. Walbourne had come back and perhaps had gone back to the individual who had complained and got her permission to move forward, or even told her that the PCO wanted to start an investigation—there's no evidence at this point that he did so—and if there were actually more information...? If the person were willing to come forward or there was a willingness to provide more details about it, even if not the name, would you, would PCO, would your office, then, have pursued that?
As an Individual
I think there is at least some threshold such that if we had had more information, we could have pursued it further. It's not an easy case when you have a single incident between a single person and.... There are not going to be a lot of witnesses. There's not going to be a lot of corroboration. This is the really difficult part with issues around sexual conduct, or any form of conduct or bullying or harassment. If you don't have corroboration by witnesses, it comes down to he-said-she-said and so on. Getting to the bottom of it is not an easy thing to do. That's why having professional, trained investigative bodies is a good idea.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I think what we're seeing here is that it is a systemic problem, and you said that earlier in your testimony. Really what we're talking about is that the processes in place and the environment that women or men are in, in terms of how well they feel they can come forward, need to be fixed.
Would you ultimately say that what happened here or what went wrong here is actually indicative of a more systemic problem rather than individual behaviours by any individual person?
As an Individual
I don't want to diminish the seriousness of any individual behaviour, particularly of somebody who is in a position of trust and leadership responsibility. Conduct and behaviour at the top matter a great deal. I'm not trying to deflect from the seriousness of the issue and why this committee would want to be looking at it and how this was responded to.
I think collectively the system failed. It let down the complainant and let down the women and men of the armed forces. I deeply regret that. In fact, I would like to apologize to them if my decisions, or decisions not to do something, prolonged this. I sincerely apologize to the men and women of the forces for that.
On the other side of the ledger, if the committee wants to argue that suspending or firing General Vance in the summer of 2018 would have made everything right, I don't think Canadians would believe that either.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wernick, for your apology, but ultimately, if I understand this correctly, ensuring that the military has a chief of the defence staff who is beyond reproach lies with the Minister of National Defence. Was that not your testimony?
As an Individual
These positions are chosen by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, yes.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much.
Could we go to the briefing note in which you outlined a path, if I understand you correctly, whereby the chief of the defence staff could be replaced. That was in the June-July 2018 time frame. Is that correct?
As an Individual
This was the note that combined the recommended performance rating with the issue of when a change of command should take place.
My recollection of the note is that it must have gone in early July, although that's just out of my memory. The Privy Council Office can easily confirm the date it was sent, because there's a document log.
Conservative
As an Individual
It went to the Prime Minister, but all notes go from the Privy Council Office floor at 80 Wellington Street to the Prime Minister's Office floor at 80 Wellington, so it would have been taken in somewhere in the Prime Minister's Office. They do the triage and sorting of what note goes to the Prime Minister when.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Did it also go to the Minister of National Defence?
As an Individual
No. A note to the Prime Minister is not shared with ministers. It's between PCO and the minister.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
The input he gave to you would have been included in that note.
As an Individual
Yes, it would have, but in our words. Senior PCO personnel collate, collect, compile and put together a note with recommendations on performance ratings. I remember sending batches of two, three or four notes per year with different categories of recommendations. They would pass through the Prime Minister's Office on their way to the Prime Minister and, ultimately, the PMO staff are the triage and gatekeepers as to what goes in the Prime Minister's briefcase every night when they get those.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
This would have been approximately three months after the allegations of General Vance's misconduct came to your attention?
