National Defence Committee on April 6th, 2021

Yes. The general nature of the issue came to our attention in March. The performance discussions were in May and June, and I sent that note in, I believe, the first 10 days of July.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

Would the performance conversation have included a conversation around at-risk pay as well?

4:05 p.m.

As an Individual

That's what the consequence is, not the input. What happens is that people get two kinds of pay. The economic increase is your basic salary and adjustments for inflation. Those are largely set by collective bargaining, which the government then matches for judges and other categories. Roughly, whatever the unions got, GICs get. That's decided by Treasury Board.

The performance pay is the system that is on the website, and has been for over 10 years, which is the pay at risk, or performance pay. Some people call it a bonus. I would call it a holdback. It's the amount of pay that is affected by the performance rating.

Conservative

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

Whose decision would it have been not to proceed with replacing the CDS as a result of that note to the Prime Minister?

As an Individual

There was no explicit decision not to act. It was simply that the note sat and sat in the Prime Minister's Office and didn't come back. My recollection is—and Janine could confirm this—that everybody else was getting their economic increase and performance pay by the fall of 2018. General Vance's note, however, was stuck in a siding. I had sent it, but we had not got a response to it, so basically it sat somewhere in the Prime Minister's Office between July of 2018 and early 2019.

I think it was finally.... There would have been a note asking him to unblock the performance pay, at least, and that's—

Conservative

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

So unblocking—

As an Individual

That's the order in council—if I could just finish the thought. The performance pay cycle was finished after I left, in May 2019. General Vance would have got a reset on his salary and a cheque for the performance pay for that year.

Conservative

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

Therefore, the performance pay would have been paid out while unresolved allegations of misconduct remained.

As an Individual

Yes, not specific allegations, but there was an open bracket about—

Conservative

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

There was an open bracket of unresolved allegations around his conduct despite this performance pay.

As an Individual

Yes, performance pay was given that year, the 2017-18 year, based on all the other factors, which I mentioned in an answer a little while ago.

Conservative

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

Thank you.

Mr. Lick, could I ask if you could table your testimony to the status of women committee? Thank you.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

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

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you.

Mr. Wernick, you mentioned in a couple of your other responses that you could elaborate more fully on a couple of items. Have you had a chance to do that, or could you do that?

As an Individual

I think I have covered them. You'd tell me if I'd missed any, in some ways. For the 2017-18 performance rating cycle, I've clarified when those conversations took place, and I gave you some sense of all the other factors that would have gone into the performance rating that year. I think that was a fair description.

I spoke to Minister Sajjan in May and June, and apart from the general issue of performance rating, what came up—the gist of the conversations as I recall them—was really about turnover and instability in the senior ranks of the military. When should the change of command take place, and was General Vance a serious runner for the NATO job? That was the bulk of the conversation I had with him.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you.

As Mr. Lick advised—and I agree that we should get on with dealing with the major structural problems—independence and culture change are two of the biggest ones, probably, as mentioned by other witnesses as well. I'm delighted that Mr. Lick, with that attitude, is in his position and can help and encourage us to move on and get these changes done.

You mentioned the possibility, Mr. Wernick, of making these changes in a bill, but said a bill would not be enough. Could you outline again what would be in a bill to address independence and culture change, and what other items could be included? Those are the two major problems that the victims and the experts in the field who have dealt with victims have told us.

What would be in a bill to change those two major items—culture change and independence—and what could be done outside the bill, especially from your knowledge, because you might have heard from other countries about these important changes that many women in the military would benefit greatly from?

As an Individual

You may be pulling me out of my depth, but I think the core would be a reset on the legislative framework, and it would take a bill to do that. There would be a whole set of administrative practices within the Department of National Defence and within the Canadian military.

There is a link that I would draw out, which is that it's not unrelated to the military justice system, because at some point you're committing offences against military law. There's a debate to be had as to whether these issues of conduct should be handled through military law or civilian law. Different countries have come up with different answers to that.

From what I found in my Google searches, there's a review of the military justice system under way, led by Mr. Justice Fish, a retired judge, and he's going to give the government advice on the military justice system. I think it would be really important to work through the boundaries and the fence posts between the military justice system and whatever recourse system you're building, which would be focused on non-criminal conduct issues. It would be really important.

From other issues that have come up, there are features that you will have to pronounce on, as the people who make laws. Do you want to continue that guarantee of confidentiality? How can you assure it? How much discretion do you want to give people? Is it “shall” conduct an investigation or “may” conduct an investigation, because these words matter, and whose decision is it at the end of the day? There are design principles in here.

What I have found—and I don't mean this to sound snarky—is that we have about 14 officers of Parliament, and there are problems of fence posts and swim lanes, where they seem to cross into each other's lanes sometimes, between a human rights complaint, a Public Service Commission complaint, a whistle-blower complaint or an integrity complaint. Drawing the boundaries and the fence posts with other processes is probably the most important thing to get right here, so that there's a nice clean line of sight for people to come forward and for consequences to occur. It's a design of machinery of government issue. I know it sounds terribly bureaucratic, but you probably only get one shot at getting it right.

There are other reports to draw on. You can go back as far as the Somalia report. I read that it recommended an independent inspector general function, so where does that fit into all of this?

It's not an easy problem. I'm not going to suggest exactly how to do it. It might be a good idea for this committee and the status of women committee to have a joint meeting and work on the problem.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

Bloc

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Wernick, earlier I asked you if you were aware of the allegations against Mr. Vance when he was first appointed in 2015. You told me that you were not really aware of them. That makes me wonder a little.

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Vance was initially appointed by the Privy Council Office. As far as I know, the first investigation, which took place in 2015 and involved rumours of an inappropriate relationship and so forth, was conducted as part of his appointment. So it was a pre-appointment check.

Often, when you appoint someone to any position, you check their record and other documents, and if you find any questionable evidence, you make sure that it's not an issue.

Did the Privy Council Office lose those documents, those records, or am I misunderstanding how this works?

As an Individual

I don't believe I can really give you a full answer. I was not the clerk at that time. I was appointed in January 2016, so I was not involved in the process of selecting or appointing General Vance. The previous government, Prime Minister Harper's government, was in power, and my predecessor Ms. Charette was the clerk. I myself was never aware of any allegations or processes that had taken place previously.