National Defence Committee on April 30th, 2021

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

That's what I do understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

It will supersede our work plan, and it means that those draft reports might not get done. That's what it means.

I want it to be perfectly clear. If you give me the direction to suspend, I will do so, but that's what it means. It supersedes the work that we need to do to get those draft reports published. Okay?

Is it the will of the committee to suspend?

[The meeting was suspended at 3:56 p.m. See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting back to order.

Good afternoon and welcome, everyone.

This is a resumption of meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, which started on Friday, April 30, 2021.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Members are attending in person or remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. For your information, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure that it is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

I remind all members that all comments should be addressed through the chair. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly, and when you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to the speaking list, we will continue with our usual practice.

We are resuming debate on Mr. Bezan's motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

Madam Chair, based upon the presence of Ms. Telford at committee, I withdraw my motion so that we can carry on with hearing from Ms. Telford.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bezan.

We still need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

(Motion withdrawn)

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 9, 2021, the committee is resuming its study addressing sexual misconduct Issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance.

With us today by video conference is Ms. Katie Telford, chief of staff to the Prime Minister.

Welcome, Ms. Telford. I would now invite you to make your opening statement.

Thank you.

[Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Thank you for your important work looking into how to address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I understand that you invited me to this meeting to tell you what I know about the information that the ombudsman raised with Minister Sajjan about former Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance. I am here to provide a clear account of how this matter was brought to my attention, as the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and the steps that followed after I became aware.

On March 2, 2018, I was told by Elder Marques that the then-defence ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, had pulled the Minister of National Defence aside after a meeting had ended to raise an allegation of personal misconduct against then-chief of defence staff Jonathan Vance.

Elder told me that Minister Sajjan's chief of staff was seeking advice from our office on how to proceed in order to ensure that the allegations were properly addressed. Elder updated me and the Clerk of the Privy Council about this conversation immediately, and I was of course very concerned.

The clerk advised us that PCO, not political staff or politicians, should follow up on the matter. He said he would engage Janine Sherman, deputy secretary to the cabinet, who is responsible for senior personnel, which includes advising on Governor in Council appointees and handling advice on any complaints made against them.

As you have already heard, I was not given the substance or the details of the allegation, and as you have already heard, my office and the minister were not given the substance or the details of the allegation. We did not know what the complaint was about. Regardless, I operated as though it could be serious.

As the clerk recommended, PCO was the appropriate body to follow up with the ombudsman and to provide advice back to the minister on next steps. Through Ms. Sherman, PCO provided advice to Minister Sajjan and his office. Specifically, her advice was for the minister to contact Mr. Walbourne and to redirect him to the Privy Council Office. The minister did this right away.

Elder was engaged with PCO, who had taken carriage of this issue, and I trusted him to ensure that all appropriate steps were being taken by the correct people, and he kept me updated.

I was later told that despite repeated attempts by PCO, Mr. Walbourne would not provide any information on the allegation, and that without any details, they were unable to do anything. I was assured that they would remain engaged and would advise us if they were able to obtain any information at all.

I was, however, troubled by this result. I understood that Elder was pressing PCO to see whether anything else could be done, but the answer was no. I wanted to make sure not only that this didn't get dropped if the complainant wanted to proceed but that no one was in harm's way. That's why I talked to Elder, who asked the appropriate officials in PCO to ensure that no one's safety was at risk, and I was told that there was no safety issue. Although I remained concerned, there was simply no information at all.

I have certainly wondered what else could have been done. It breaks my heart to think that anyone, any woman, not only had to endure harassment and inappropriate behaviour, but did not have a safe place to talk about it and get justice or support.

I want to reiterate that you can't build a safe workplace without having a safe place for people to report misconduct. That is why the work of this committee could be so important.

At the time, the situation we were faced with was that we had clearly been told that this matter should be handled by the PCO and that it would be inappropriate for political staff or politicians to be directly involved. The last thing I wanted to do was to deny agency to the complainant or put their privacy or safety at risk, or to compromise an independent process that was supposed to be there to get at the truth.

This matter was brought to the attention of the clerk. My office was engaged to ensure the appropriate officials were following up. Our role was to facilitate the minister’s office in getting the direction they needed from officials on next steps. Based on the advice we received, that was where our involvement in the matter had to end.

Almost exactly three years later, in March 2021, we all learned about the nature of the complaint in public media reports. It was the first time I had heard any details about the 2018 complaint. As you can imagine, I have been thinking about the whole thing a lot lately.

I’ve thought about the amazing women of the armed forces, some of whom I am so honoured to have spent time with. I’ve replayed our conversations and I’ve thought about what more I could have asked them or what else I could have done to create a safer space. I’ve thought about the many actions the government has taken in the last five years and realized how much more there is to do.

I have wondered if I could have pushed harder on the advice for implementing the Deschamps report. Could I have pushed harder at the stock-take with the Prime Minister that pulled together the leadership of the armed forces and all the leadership of the S and I community to specifically speak about action in regard to gender and inclusion?

I have wondered if I could have seen through General Vance’s briefing that appeared to show progress on fighting sexual misconduct in the military, including at that stock-take, where, when the Prime Minister asked who wanted to start, the general was the first to speak up and seemed to have a plan.

I have wondered if I should have further questioned the general when he told me about his commitment to #MeToo not long after this movement and awakening began; when he told me how frustrated he was that orders were not enough to bring about change; when he told me that it was personal for him too.

Above all, though, I have thought about the brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who face unthinkable and unacceptable harassment and sexual misconduct in the line of duty.

Clearly, the current system is not working and must change. Clearly, a lot of work still needs to be done to ensure that survivors can speak out and receive the support they need, and that appropriate investigations can be conducted.

The measures we have taken since being in government have not gone far enough, nor have they moved fast enough. That’s why we recently announced new funding to work to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces. It's why we're moving forward to implement new external oversight mechanisms to bring greater independence to the processes of reporting and adjudicating sexual misconduct within the military.

The bottom line is this: Women and men in uniform must have a system that works and that they can trust. Until we get there, I will not stop pushing to make that happen.

Being a feminist is not really part of the official job description of a Chief of Staff, but I believe it should be. With the support of the Prime Minister, I have made it an essential part of my job. That's why I have put so much energy and countless hours into it, just as I have done with so many other accomplishments of this government.

Over the past five years, we have invested in shelters and services for women fleeing violence. We have created a national strategy to end gender-based violence. We have appointed a Canadian Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security. We have invested millions of dollars to review tens of thousands of assault cases that had been dropped because they were considered unfounded. This is another example where we have learned a lot because of extensive public reporting on the issue.

In our own offices, we have brought in systems and processes to protect staff for the first time, systems that I hope allow people to come forward—and some already have—to get the support they need and that take allegations seriously. Much more has been worked on, and there is still much more to do.

Let me conclude by saying this: I am a feminist, and yes, I believe that “Time's Up”. These are, for me, not just words or slogans or about a brand. This is certainly not about partisanship. This is about why I get up in the morning to do the work that I do, the core of who I am and what I fight for. I will never stand down on my advocacy or shrink from giving the best advice I can with the information I have.

It is unacceptable that women and men in uniform do not have confidence in the institutions that they are a part of. That's because the system, for far too long, has allowed perpetrators to hide in HR processes while denying survivors the support they need.

There is no silver bullet here. What the #MeToo movement is uncovering and discovering is sometimes messy and complicated, because systemic discrimination is entrenched. As we work to fix it, we won't always be right. It is exhausting and emotional work, and triggering for many, including, I’m sure, many of you. It's personal and professional, and it's work that must be done.

I was at breakfast with General Whitecross a few years ago. I remember her saying to me that if the Prime Minister and I were serious about making life better for women, we had to be ready to put everything on the table. That is what we have always tried to do and what we will continue to do. However, if I may, I'll take this opportunity to say to General Whitecross, and to all the other incredible women and men who have served and who continue to serve our country in the armed forces, that I know there is even more we can do and must do. I am recommitting to doing everything I can to assist with that.

I would encourage all members to focus on clarifying with me now the facts on what was known and not known and what could be done and could not be done three years ago, so that we can all move forward on the extremely significant and challenging work ahead. We owe that much to the survivors.

I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Ms. Telford.

I will now open the floor for questions.

First up is Mr. Bezan, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Telford, for appearing today.

As you know, there's been a lot of talk about this. Both Mr. Wernick and Mr. Marques have testified that they understood that this was a sexual misconduct allegation. Even official documentation from PCO and PMO said that it was sexual harassment.

Who made the decision not to inform the Prime Minister about these allegations?

[Katie Telford]

I'll start by pointing out that in the testimony of Mr. Marques, Mr. Wernick and Ms. Sherman, they all spoke about not knowing the nature of the complaint. They had no details of the complaint. They did not know what the complaint was.

I'll just remind you of what I did and what I am aware of. I can tell you what I did do—

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

Who made the decision not to tell the Prime Minister?

[Katie Telford]

What happened was that the minister sought advice on how to deal with this unusual circumstance through his office to my office, and I sought the appropriate advice and the appropriate person to give him that advice. In this case, it was the Privy Council Office.

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

Did you make the decision to keep this away from the Prime Minister, even while this was going on through March 2018, yes or no?

[Katie Telford]

No. I'll tell you what happened in early March 2018.

The minister, through his office, contacted my office to seek advice, and we sought the appropriate advice from the Privy Council Office. The Clerk of the Privy Council at the time said that the appropriate people to follow up with were in his office. Actually, as you heard from Ms. Sherman, from the clerk, I believe, and from Mr. Marques, the first step they took was to assist the minister and then to recommend to the minister that he redirect the ombudsperson to the Privy Council Office.

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

You knew there were allegations against General Vance, so only one of three options is true. One, you made a decision not to tell the Prime Minister. Two, the Clerk of the Privy Council made the decision not to tell the Prime Minister. You two both tell the Prime Minister everything every day on multiple occasions.

Or is it number three, which is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has told you, and has put out an edict, not to make him aware of personal misconduct issues of anyone who is an order in council appointee?

Which one is it?

[Katie Telford]

It's none of those. The minister contacted our office to get advice on how to deal with this unusual circumstance that he'd been faced with. He contacted us immediately. We immediately followed up. We immediately took it seriously because of the potential of what it could be. We didn't know what it was, so we took the appropriate steps to figure out who the appropriate people were to talk to and follow up—

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

Your appropriate steps amounted to nothing. You guys took no steps and didn't protect the complainant here. You left General Vance in position.

Who did you conclude with or instruct not to tell the Prime Minister about these allegations? Was it Michael Wernick? Was it Elder Marques? Was it Minister Sajjan? Who did you conclude with to keep our Prime Minister in the dark?

[Katie Telford]

Actually, the first concern was about the complainant. That's why it was really important for us to think about who the appropriate person was to do the follow-up in this unusual circumstance. The appropriate people were not politicians and political staff, but the Privy Council Office, which handles—as I believe Ms. Sherman, the deputy secretary to the cabinet, talked to you about—Governor in Council appointments on any number of things, including issues around discipline.

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

We're talking here about personal misconduct, sexual misconduct. These issues need to be dealt with. They're personnel issues. These are order in council appointments, and they fall under your portfolio and purview in the advice that you give to the Prime Minister.

Are there any other personal misconduct issues that you decided not to inform Justin Trudeau about, yes or no? Is it one, five, 10 times that you've kept him in the dark on issues of personal misconduct?

[Katie Telford]

I want to remind you about what we knew and didn't know in March 2018. As I said in my opening statement, all we knew was that the ombudsperson, at the end of the meeting, pulled the minister aside and suggested that he had a complaint and an envelope, as I understand it. The minister immediately sought advice and wanted to ensure the appropriate next steps were followed, and that's what we did.

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

We know all this, Ms. Telford.

[Katie Telford]

Well, you seemed confused about it, so I wanted to clarify it.

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

No. You guys dropped the ball. That's what's happened here.

Let's get to the personal misconduct issue that you didn't follow up on. On what day did you inform Justin Trudeau about the allegations against Admiral Art McDonald, the chief of the defence staff? What date did that happen?

[Katie Telford]

I'll remind you what my role was in this. I was informed of what was happening and I wanted to ensure the appropriate steps were being followed immediately and that it was being taken seriously, because we didn't know what it was, and that the appropriate people were following up. We were doing all of this to ensure that the complainant was being protected.