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.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Do you still trust Mr. Sajjan?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Mr. Barsalou-Duval, your time is up.
We move on to Mr. Garrison, please.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think what's clear to us now is that the phenomenon that Madame Deschamps identified of there not being a good path for complainants and not being consequences for perpetrators of sexual misconduct in the military was definitely illustrated by this allegation against the chief of the defence staff. It would seem to me that, as I said, alarm bells should have gone off when it was a possible complaint of sexual misconduct against the chief of the defence staff, and it would seem to me that this should have been job one for the Minister of Defence.
I had a look at the mandate letters that were issued by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Defence. The first one makes no mention of a sexual misconduct issue whatsoever, even after the previous government had already received Madame Deschamps' report. The next two, in 2019 and 2021, make a bland statement about making sure there's a workplace free of sexual harassment. At no time did the Prime Minister direct the Minister of Defence to implement the recommendations of the Deschamps commission.
Can you explain why this direction was not given to the Minister of Defence?
1:55 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Unfortunately, I don't have the mandate letter from 2015 in front of me, but I actually do believe there is language, not perhaps specific to the Deschamps report, but there is certainly language around efforts around inclusion. I believe it's even as specific as—I'm going on a bit of a distance of memory here—addressing, certainly, inclusion issues and perhaps even harassment. Regardless of what was in the mandate letter, I can tell you about the work that was being done over the course of the first mandate, and I referenced some of that in my opening statement.
We actually had a stocktaking with the leadership of the S and I community, security and intelligence services. Actually, it was a meeting led by the Prime Minister, with Minister Sajjan and a number of other relevant ministers who were there. I can remember Minister Sajjan speaking at that committee about the enormity of pulling everyone together to specifically talk about inclusion, and looking for plans. We asked for the numbers in advance so that we weren't simply looking at numbers, that we were looking at action plans.
As I said in my opening statement, I am not here to say any of that was perfect. There is clearly so much more work that needs to be done. I've been doing a lot of reflecting on that meeting, and the meetings that followed and the work that followed, on what more could have been done. You're right, more needed to be done and more needs to be done.
2 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Madame Deschamps' report specifically called for creating an independent complaints process, and also for a centre for providing services to survivors that was independent of the chain of command. Neither of those happened.
Yes, a sexual misconduct support centre was set up, but it was not independent of the chain of command administratively; and no independent complaints mechanism was created.
No matter what else was going on, how could those two key recommendations have been neglected by this government for six years?
2 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Madam Chair, I actually did find it in my notes, so I would just like to put it on the record that, yes, in the mandate letter in 2015, there was a line that said, “establish and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.” Let me also concede that obviously there is so much more work to be done on that front. I'm not trying to suggest we have accomplished that, by any means, at this point.
In terms of why the Deschamps report was not fully implemented, we've heard a lot about that of late. You've heard me reflecting on that personally. There were debates on what more could have been done in the first mandate, but as you yourself said, many steps were taken. There clearly are more that need to be taken, and taken quickly, though. I believe that's why...or I don't believe, I know, that's why I was party to the discussions as to why the recent announcement ensures that actions can be taken very quickly as Madam Arbour makes recommendations.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Thank you very much.
We'll move on.
Mr. Paul-Hus, you have the floor.
May 7th, 2021 / 2 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Telford, with all due respect, I find your comments today to be completely inconsistent.
If you are telling the truth, you are confirming that on March 2, 2018, you did not see fit to inform the Prime Minister of the allegations. You say that you were not aware of the nature of the allegations, when there are several emails that prove that the Privy Council Office knew that these were allegations of sexual misconduct.
So I would like to know what happened in July. Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council Office, confirmed that a memo was sent to the Prime Minister recommending that General Vance's salary be increased and that he be paid hazard pay. This document was sent by Mr. Wernick to the Prime Minister, so you must have it.
Can you provide it to us?
2 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I would be happy to follow up on that. I would need to consult with the Privy Council Office on that note that they provided to the Prime Minister.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
I would like the committee to receive it before May 30.
By March 2, Mr. Wernick was aware of the allegations. A few months later, he recommended that a pay raise be given to General Vance. He discussed this with you and the Prime Minister. At that point, would it not have been appropriate to discuss the allegations?
Given that the information was known in July, that the ombudsman had filed a complaint and even resigned because of your reaction, was it not appropriate to talk with the Prime Minister about the problem with General Vance before giving him a pay raise and allowing him to continue to fulfill his mandate?
2 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I am not aware, and I certainly was not aware then, that the ombudsperson resigned because of anything that you're suggesting.
This note that you're referring to—as I was trying to correct your colleague on earlier—was a note through the usual performance management system that is managed through the Privy Council Office, through the deputy secretary—
2 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Ms. Telford, you say that you were not aware that in March, as a result of what happened, the Canadian Forces ombudsman sent a letter of resignation, because he was very surprised by the situation. As chief of staff to the Prime Minister of Canada, you say that you did not know that the Ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces had sent a letter of resignation. That kind of information is pretty important, in my opinion.
Let's go back to the discussions. We were talking about the recommendations that the chief of staff continue to serve and that he receive a salary increase. You and the clerk were aware that a few months before, in March, allegations had been made against him. Shouldn't that have been discussed with the Prime Minister?
At the beginning, you said it was not the responsibility of politicians to deal with such a case. I'm sorry to contradict you, but it is the Prime Minister who appoints the chief of staff and is responsible. So we are talking about the role of the Prime Minister with respect to the chief of staff.
Don't you think it would have been important to discuss this with the Prime Minister at that time?
2:05 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
You're asking about the performance pay system. I just want to be clear that you're referring to a raise and a bonus.
There is a performance pay system whereby all eligible Governor in Council appointees go through an annual performance management process. There is a set of agreed-upon principles that they use to assess this performance. The performance management program is quite extensive. It covers all of the deputy ministers and associate deputies.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I understand that, Ms. Telford. I am talking to you about when the clerk sent the recommendation to the Prime Minister. At that point, there has to be an authorization. Does the Prime Minister have to sign it?
How does it work in those cases, whether it is to authorize or deny such a request?
2:05 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Yes, the performance management note was a note from the clerk for the Prime Minister. The clerk provided all of the relevant information that applied through the performance management process in that note.
As you know, I went to the Privy Council Office in March 2018, as the first staff.... Actually, Mr. Marques went to the Privy Council Office as an immediate first step, so they had all of the information on this—
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
You are not answering my question, Ms. Telford.
I want to know if the Prime Minister has to sign—
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Paul-Hus is consistently interrupting the witness, and I'm not able to hear her responses as a result. I'd ask that you ask the member to allow the witness to finish her answers before asking his next question.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Chair, if you will allow me more time, I will gladly wait until the interpretation is over.
Ms. Telford, I am going back to my question. I would like to know if the Prime Minister signed off on authorizing the pay raise for General Vance.
2:05 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
Yes, I believe he approved that note, an order in council note.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
As his chief of staff, I'm sure you know how this works under normal circumstances.
Did the Prime Minister or anyone else, through the automatic signature device, sign off? Was that done, yes or no?