Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time today to put some important issues on the record for the House, the most important of which is ensuring that survivors of sexual misconduct, harassment or assault must feel comfortable coming forward. They must be supported when coming forward.
Eliminating all forms of misconduct and abuses of power, and creating a safe work environment for everyone on the defence team must be our collective priority. Survivors must be at the centre of all that we do. While our government has always made this a top priority, as we have learned, survivors still do not feel safe coming forward.
I am also deeply troubled by the fact the Conservatives are once again ignoring facts and playing political games with a sensitive issue, so let me take the time to lay out the facts.
In 2018, the former national defence ombudsman Gary Walbourne met with the Minister of National Defence. This meeting was a normal meeting with staff, but at the end he asked to speak privately with the minister. He then told the minister he had evidence of misconduct against the former chief of the defence staff.
The minister did not ask for any specifics or details on the nature of the allegations, as was the right thing to do. Instead, he followed a process, the proper process. He immediately had his staff reach out to both the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. They took the allegation and reached out to the former ombudsman to get details to be able to look into the allegation, but the ombudsman did not have the approval of the complainant to share that information.
Michael Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council, stated at the national defence committee that, therefore, an impasse was reached and no further action was taken. No further action was taken on an allegation the former ombudsman said was not actionable.
Let us go through the process that was taken right before General Vance's appointment as the new chief of the defence staff in 2015, under a Conservative government. The minister at the time was made aware of an allegation or rumour. He shared it with his chief of staff, who then shared it with the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office, including the former prime minister's chief of staff. The former prime minister's chief of staff then ensured that the matter was looked into.
Does that sound familiar? It was the same process. The leader of the official opposition thought it was serious enough that he had his staff reach out to the Prime Minister's Office, and he has assured this House and Canadians that the matter was looked into.
Let us explore that, shall we? We heard testimony from Ray Novak, former chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, that the Conservatives had the national security advisor investigate these rumours. How did he investigate? He went directly to General Vance and asked him about the rumours.
That is wholly inappropriate when someone comes forward with an allegation. I cannot believe the national security advisor would go directly to the person who was being investigated, but he did. General Vance gave assurances that there was nothing there. That is how the Conservatives dealt with it. That is it, and that is all.
We do not know if there was any follow-up. We do not know if it was looked into, but the leader of the official opposition assures us it was looked into. That is shocking, considering all we have heard with regard to the former national security advisor looking into the rumour by asking General Vance his opinion. That is not an appropriate process. Frankly, it is disconcerting that the former Conservative government took the accused General Vance's word for it, especially considering there was already an active investigation into him being conducted by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, or the CFNIS.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of the very troubling news we learned last week. The CFNIS was actively investigating General Vance in 2015. More specifically, it was investigating General Vance right up until July 17, 2015. Do colleagues know what also happened on July 17, 2015? General Vance was appointed as the new chief of the defence staff.
We then learned through an ATIP request that the commanding officer in charge of the investigation was facing pressure to wrap the investigation up. Pressure from whom exactly? Was it the former minister of national defence, the former prime minister, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence or the current leader of the official opposition?
Surely, we can all agree that politicians should not be involved in investigations, so exerting pressure on an investigation to conclude would be completely inappropriate and, perhaps illegal, yet we still have not received a definitive answer from the Conservatives on who was giving that pressure. No one has answered. No one has provided details.
Could the leader of the official opposition finally give us an answer? So far, the Leader of the Opposition has provided absolutely no details. He has just stated that the way he handled it in 2015 was the proper way and the right way.
However, let us continue with the troubling news from last week because not only was the investigation facing pressure and then abruptly ended, but the investigation was actually officially closed on July 21, 2015, which was four days after General Vance was appointed. Why was the investigation closed four days after he was appointed? Why was it not closed before he was appointed? Why did the Conservative government appoint General Vance in 2015 when an active investigation by the CFNIS was still ongoing?
All of this is incredibly troubling. We not only have rumours that were not investigated properly, but we also have a chief of the defence staff rushed through appointment, even though there was an active investigation ongoing. All of this was because the Conservatives wanted to appoint him before the 2015 election, which was called only a few short weeks later.
Now, the only thing we have heard from Conservative politicians are concerns about the process our government followed, the one that ensured the highest ranking civil service was aware and engaged on the issue, the one that went as far as it could before the former ombudsman stated that he could not provide the information because the complainant had not signed off on it. It is the same process the Conservatives followed in 2015.
The Conservatives say those rumours were acted upon in 2015. What action was different from those we took? They would say that the national security advisor was involved.
Well, the national security advisor in 2018, Daniel Jean, stated that he would not know of the details or be involved in the investigation at that point because there were not enough details to investigate. In fact, he said:
...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.
We know why the NSA was not involved, but the top civil servant in Canada was. So then, what is different about what happened in 2015? If the Conservatives can stand up and explain to this House how it was different, I would be shocked, because it was not. It was the same.
Let me lay out the facts one last time. In 2015, the Conservatives followed the exact same process we did. The Conservatives appointed General Vance when there was an active investigation into him. On the rumours that the leader of the official opposition says were looked into, the only thing we know about how that was looked into is that the national security advisor went directly to General Vance and asked his opinion. Finally, there was pressure on the investigation into General Vance to conclude. This is very concerning, and the House deserves answers from the opposition leader. Canadians deserve answers, and survivors deserve answers.
I will close by saying that the process failed survivors under the Conservative government and under ours. The Prime Minister has clearly stated that this needs to improve, so survivors of sexual violence and harassment receive support and a means to come forward without fear of reprisal.
