National Defence Committee on April 12th, 2021

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

But, Madam Chair, we don't necessarily have the ability to stay longer. We need to be able to address the witnesses, because we have obviously done the preparation in this regard.

Please, this is a very important inquiry. We need to have the time to do it justice. I'm looking for your support in this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay.

Mr. Jean, are you available for another hour?

Rear-Admiral Patterson, I would ask you the same question.

[Daniel Jean, Deputy Minister Ret'd , As an Individual]

I can stay until 2:00 p.m. or 2:30 p.m. today. Later than that would be problematic.

I would be free on Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Rear-Admiral Patterson.

[Rear-Admiral Rebecca Patterson, Commander, Canadian Forces Health Services, Defence Champion for Women, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will have to confirm for Friday. I'm not sure of my schedule yet. I have a little bit longer. I do not believe I'm available to 14:00 today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay. When you have to leave, please let me know.

Let's at least take advantage of our two witnesses for as long as they are available. It looks as though both of them are available to us for a little while. Let's take advantage of that. We can work with the clerk and see what we can make happen for Friday.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

I do not have time available to extend. I have three other meetings right after this, so I would support Ms. Alleslev's position.

As a compromise, I would suggest that we hear the testimony. All of them can put their testimony on the record. Then we can have them come back at a later time, if it's this Friday...but we still need to hear from Elder Marques. I would hope that he would also be available for Friday's meeting, knowing that we just passed a motion that Friday will be our last time to hear from witnesses.

I would suggest that we have testimony from Mr. Jean and Admiral Patterson right now and that we have Qs and As at the Friday meeting along with testimony and an appearance by Elder Marques.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right.

Let us take advantage of the witnesses. We have kept them waiting long enough. If they're willing to stay with us for another hour, I think we ought to take advantage of that. We can discuss Friday's schedule separately. I am happy to do that.

Only Mr. Jean has an opening statement. The rear admiral just has a few opening remarks. That should at least give us an hour to an hour and a half of testimony from our witnesses today. Since they have been so generous and forgiving to stick with us through the debate of the last hour and a half, I think it's only fair that we give them the opportunity to respond to questions here in committee.

I am going to open with Monsieur Daniel Jean, former national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister; followed by Rear Admiral Rebecca Patterson, commander, Canadian Forces health services, and defence champion for women.

Welcome, both of you.

I invite you, Mr. Jean, to make your opening statement, and then that will be followed by a few opening words from Rear Admiral Patterson. Go ahead, Mr. Jean, please.

[Daniel Jean]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the committee' work on this important matter. I have had the privilege to serve this country at home and abroad for more than 35 years. This has provided me the opportunity to work closely with national security organizations like the Canadian Armed Forces both internationally and domestically.

It is obviously a very challenging time for the Canadian Forces, particularly for women. As your work proceeds to identify pathways to address these challenges, I would be remiss if I did not underline how much I have been impressed by the dedication and work of its members. Now as a private but interested citizen, I can only hope that the institution can build on its rich tradition to nurture an environment where female members can express their talent without fear of harassment or inappropriate behaviours.

I served as national security and intelligence officer to the Prime Minister for two years from May 2016 to May 2018 after several deputy minister appointments, the more recent being Global Affairs Canada and Canadian Heritage.

The role and functions of the advisor mirror the role and functions of the Privy Council Office, namely, providing independent advice, supporting the cabinet process and promoting the coherence and co-ordination of policy and programs of the national security organizations within the respect of their respective mandates.

I understand that the interest of the committee is primarily around the responsibilities of the advisor in ensuring that there is an appropriate vetting process for Governor in Council appointees at the time of selection, renewal or should allegations surface in the course of their appointment.

I wish to stress that my remarks and answers today will focus on the norms and practices that were in place during my term as advisor, norms and practices that for the most part have been in place for years.

As committee members have heard from previous witnesses, the responsibility to support the Governor in Council's appointment process resides with the Senior Personnel Secretariat of the Privy Council Office, or PCO. When it comes to the conduct of security background checks, the secretariat relies on the support of the Security Operations Division, SECOPS, that is part of the PCO. The responsibility of SECOPS is to work with the relevant mandated and expert partner agencies to confirm that the person being considered for an appointment does not pose a security risk, has no criminal background or other liabilities that could undermine their reliability to serve.

There are dozens of GIC appointments that take place every year. Given the need to protect the confidentiality of these appointments, the vetting process operates on a strict need-to-know basis. By this I mean that PCO senior personnel refers directly the names and information of potential GIC appointees who require a background check to SECOPS. The NSIA does not see the names and details of any potential appointee unless something comes up in the background check that raises concerns, from a security perspective, with the appointment.

This process respects the principle of need to know, while ensuring that senior level attention is devoted to information that could put in question the reliability of a GIC candidate to serve. The number of cases where such information surfaces is a handful. In any of these situations, the NSIA will engage very closely with the relevant senior officials in PCO senior personnel, given their lead responsibility for the appointment process.

I know that the interest of your deliberations today is to understand what happens if allegations were to surface while someone is already serving under a GIC appointment. This is also a rare occurrence. It may come directly to the NSIA, particularly if the allegations were already being investigated for a possible criminal offence, for example, by the RCMP, or a security dimension, let's say, by CSIS. In such situations, the NSIA would review the information, take the appropriate course of action and eventually engage with senior personnel.

In situations where the source of the allegation is not an established investigative body, it will most often come to the attention of PCO senior personnel. In such situations, if the nature of the allegation raises security concerns and may require the co-operation of an established investigative or screening agency, PCO senior personnel may turn to the NSIA for advice and, if warranted, follow-up actions. If the allegation does not engage security or criminality, there would likely be no reason to inform and engage the NSIA.

With regard to the specific allegations this committee has been examining—and I am referring to allegations made in 2015, prior to the appointment of the previous chief of the defence staff and the subsequent allegations made against him in the spring of 2018—I wish to make the following comments.

As the committee has heard, the 2015 allegations occurred prior to my term as NSIA, and none of these have ever come to my attention either prior to or once I became the national security adviser.

With regard to the subsequent 2018 allegations which, according to testimony, first emerged in a meeting between the former ombudsman and the Minister of National Defence and were subsequently brought to the attention of officials at the PMO and the Privy Council Office, I wish to indicate that these 2018 allegations were never brought to my attention.

I also think it is important to add that this is not necessarily unusual, particularly, as I explained before, if PCO senior personnel were not able to obtain information that would have allowed and warranted the pursuit of an investigation.

Madam Chair, this brings me to the end of my opening remarks. I will be happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I would, however, like to conclude by reiterating a few important points.

Like most Canadians, I am someone who cherishes the proud history of the Canadian forces. As a former official who has served Canadians through various roles with a nexus to the national security community, I have enjoyed a fruitful partnership with the Canadian Armed Forces. I can only hope that through collective efforts, including the work of this committee, women serving in this important institution can aspire to lead and contribute to the fullest extent without the fear of harassment in any form.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jean.

Rear-Admiral Patterson.

[RAdm Rebecca Patterson]

Madam Chair, I want to thank you for allowing me to come before you today as a witness, but also, in particular, as a senior leader in the Canadian Armed Forces, and very specifically as a senior woman leader in the Canadian Armed Forces.

What I hope to bring to the table is my experience working with women within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces and help to share some of their voices as we move forward.

I'm looking forward to your questions. I certainly hope I can provide you with information you find useful and relevant as you move forward with this study.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Rear-Admiral Patterson.

Witnesses, thank you again for your patience. We really appreciate your being with us today. We know you have things to offer this committee and we are grateful for your time.

I will now open the floor for questions.

Go ahead, Madam Gallant, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We heard from Ray Novak, a former chief of staff to the former prime minister, that in July 2015 the NSIA was given charge of the investigation into a third-hand vague rumour against General Vance. Yet in March 2018, with concrete evidence of an allegation available, you were not consulted at all.

What is the threshold for the NSIA actually getting involved in an investigation against an OIC appointee?

[Daniel Jean]

Madam Chair, as I explained in my opening remarks, for the information to be taken from PCO senior personnel to the NSIA, they would have to determine that, first of all, they had enough information to assess whether it was an administrative matter or involved security or criminality. If it's an administrative matter, there would be no need to involve the national security adviser.

If the issue at stake involves possibly security or criminality, they would have to have enough information to do this. As I think has been acknowledged by many of the witnesses last week, you had a situation where there was information that the ombudsman had been given in confidence. He was not prepared to share it. The person obviously had reasons, the fear of reprisal, and didn't want to bring that information forward. However, unless you find a way to try to get that information and decide, is that an administrative matter or something that is criminal in nature, and who is best to assess that...? As many of the witnesses have said, including the judge advocate and Mr. Lick, you also have to see, what—

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

Thank you.

[Daniel Jean]

—is the will of the witness as well?

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

Okay.

Does the national security adviser have the power to request investigations?

[Daniel Jean]

If the national security adviser thinks, for example, there is a criminal situation that has taken place, as any official, as a client he can basically write and ask the RCMP, if it's a federal crime, to investigate this. It's not an issue of having the power; it's the issue of being able to present evidence because of the crime that has been committed or possibly committed.

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

Does the Clerk of the Privy Council have the authority to start an investigation, to request an investigation?

[Daniel Jean]

To be clear, as a senior official you always have the right if you think there is sufficient information to trigger an administrative investigation. If you think the transgression you're looking at may involve or result in criminal action, you would normally then invite the RCMP to look at what you have and they would be conducting the investigation.

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

What's required, then, is the information. It is the RCMP then that conducts the investigations.

What's the full range of options the national security adviser has available to them when made aware of a complaint involving a Governor-in-Council appointee?

[Daniel Jean]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, unless it's coming from one of the investigative agencies such as the RCMP, or CSIS in the case of security, most of the time this information will first come to senior personnel. They will assess whether it's an [Technical difficulty--Editor], whether it is a possible criminal action.

If they think there's a possible criminal action, most likely they will engage with us, and then we would look at whether we have enough to invite the RCMP, as an investigative body, to look at it. Then we would write to the RCMP asking them to look at the matter.

In these exchanges that happen, the RCMP might say, “Well, right now we don't have enough; you need to provide us a bit more to allow us to go forward with an actual investigation.”

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

In the case of a chief of the defence staff, he or she holds sensitive security clearances, both Canadian and now with NATO.

Would it require absolute proof of misconduct before an allegation became a potential national security threat, or what is the threshold on that?

[Daniel Jean]

As you know, and I believe you heard it from the former Clerk of the Privy Council last week, the chief of the defence staff, as a GIC appointment, serves at pleasure.

People tend to look at both the administrative and the criminal process of investigation as the same. They are different. The thresholds are different.

If through looking at the information you were to decide that the transgression is serious enough that it undermines the role to play, of course, information and advice could be presented to the Governor in Council to stop the appointment, but you have to have sufficient information to be able to determine that.

I think as you have seen from all the testimony so far, the problem has been that the information was not made available because the victim had fear of reprisal and was not prepared to share the information.

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

Are foreign intelligence agencies or covert government operatives known to exploit sexual misconduct incidents if they become aware of them through surreptitious means?