Evidence of meeting #28 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 misconduct.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Madam Gallant, please allow the witness to finish what she is saying first, and then for your next—
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Just a yes or no is what we need to know.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Madam Gallant, like her colleague previously, is not allowing the witness to answer questions. Ms. Telford has information and I believe is attempting to answer the question. I would like to hear the answer and the folks at home would like to hear the answer. I would ask that you ask Madam Gallant to allow Ms. Telford to finish her answers before asking her next question.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you.
Go ahead, Ms. Telford, if you'd like to finish your answer, please.
2:15 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I'll say two things. It's important to remember that there wasn't an allegation in terms of any content around an allegation to speak of. There was a complaint that the ombudsperson raised with Minister Sajjan that he was not able to do anything with, that we were not able to do anything with, and that the Privy Council wasn't able to do anything with, and it's the Privy Council Office that puts together the performance management program, executes on that program—
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay, thank you. It was the Privy Council Office, then, that decided not to let the Prime Minister know. My only question is who made that decision, so the answer is the name of a person.
2:15 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
The answer is that there wasn't an allegation in terms of something for which there was.... We didn't know the nature of the allegation or the contents, the details—
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, there's an additional consideration to the point that was raised repeatedly by my colleague Mr. Baker, which is that it's impossible for interpretation to follow when a member is talking over top of a witness. I would ask you once again to encourage this particular member to let the witness answer.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Thank you.
Go ahead, Madam Gallant, if you have a follow-on question.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
My question is this: Who decided not to tell the Prime Minister of the existence of an allegation against the general?
2:15 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Madam Chair, through you to the member, I would just again say we didn't have any information about the allegation. We didn't know anything about it. It was something on which all the appropriate follow-up is done through the appropriate people, and the appropriate people to do that follow-up were the Privy Council Office. I believe the Privy Council has all of the required information also to inform the performance management process, which they also manage.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to make a couple of comments before I go to my questions.
First of all, there were some things said from other members that don't really jibe with the evidence we've had today . One thing was the words “dropped the ball”. When you turn something over for an investigation in almost record speed, you've hardly dropped the ball or covered up. The words “covered up” were used once. What could be covered up when it was turned over to investigators and investigators did everything they could with actually no information?
Also, the word “serious” has been mentioned at various times. It certainly was a serious allegation, but we didn't find that out until this year. At the time, as numerous witnesses said, they had no idea what the allegation was or if it was serious or not, so just to make sure....
There has also been discussion about all the things that have been done since the Deschamps report. Both today and previously there's been some discussion on a number of things and actions that have been taken. Of course, everyone admits that it's not enough.
I just want to add to that list a very strong administrative directive, DAOD 9005-1, which I read in detail about a month ago. It really does make serious changes to the directives, the whole direction to the members of the military, to try to address this serious systemic problem.
Going on from all those moves that have been made, those improvements that have been made, which certainly haven't solved the problem yet, budget 2021 included a substantial investment to address the very issues we are discussing at committee today. I can imagine the very active discussions on this matter when the government was working on the budget, and that questions around how the budget could be tooled to support much-needed cultural change were no doubt top of mind.
Obviously funding alone is not enough, nor is it a silver bullet, but the budgets reflect the government's values, and it was clear in this budget that the government was taking this matter seriously. This is a $236-million investment to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Forces.
Ms. Telford, I know you cannot divulge the cabinet process or those deliberations that led to supporting this funding in the budget, but I'm wondering if you have any reflections from that process about the value of this investment and what you think you can do, and any other thoughts that might be relevant on this subject.
2:20 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I can speak to some of the conversations outside of cabinet that I was privy to in preparation for the announcement, and some of the steps that have been taken in recent weeks.
I can't yet speak to the value, because that's in the future, but I really hope they will be valuable steps. They were certainly taken with the intention that they would lead to real action, and quickly. It's why it was clearly described that Madam Arbour would have the capacity to make recommendations throughout her time working on this extremely important subject, and the government committed to following through on those recommendations as they came forward.
I think it was an extraordinarily important decision for the government to address what has been a concern, I think, in so many areas, but especially in an area of this import, which is to ensure that this isn't just another report. This is an assurance that there will be action, and the question really is going to be which actions are next.
We've shown that the funding is there and the commitment is there. An incredibly powerful and credible person, who happens to be a woman, has been put in charge of making sure that the right recommendations are given. As I said, the commitment is there to take action on any of those recommendations, and all of those recommendations.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Thank you very much.
We'll go on to
Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What has amazed me since the beginning of this study is that every time we hear from a witness, they tell us it's not their fault. They tell us that the reason they didn't go further is because they couldn't go further.
I can't tell you, Ms. Telford, how many times we've heard that, whether it's from you or from Mr. Marques or Ms. Sherman or Mr. Wernick or Mr. Sajjan. It's like this is a systemic problem. No one would have been able to fix it or get to the bottom of it. At least, that's what we understand from the version of events that your government is giving us.
What I can't figure out is why Mr. Sajjan refused to see the information that the ombudsman wanted to present to him. If he had agreed to see the information, he would have had all the evidence he needed to fire Mr. Vance. It would have been settled, and we wouldn't even be talking about it today.
Don't you think that's where the problem comes from, finally?
Do you still have confidence in Mr. Sajjan as Minister of Defence?