EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on National Defence NUMBER 023 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Tuesday, April 6, 2021 Le mardi 6 avril 2021 Standing Committee on National Defence CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE April 6, 2021 Committee NUMBER 023 NUMBER 023 NUMÉRO 023 23 06 04 2021 2021/04/06 11:05:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la défense nationale Standing Committee on National Defence NDDN Chair Mrs. Karen McCrimmon 2 43 PUBLIC PART ONLY -

PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT

(1105) [ Translation ]

The Chair (Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Kanata—Carleton, Lib.)) :

Good morning and welcome, everyone. [ English ] I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 23 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence. This is a very, let's say, unusual circumstance, something that we don't see very often. That's why late yesterday evening we sent you an email outlining what was given to the clerk yesterday so that everyone would be informed. We also promised that we would begin the meeting with an open dialogue about what the committee wants to do. I need to seek the guidance of the committee because this is an unusual circumstance.

I would like to open the floor. You've all read the email so you know what has been suggested. I would like to open the floor to anyone who would have comments they would like to bring forward, or options or suggestions. I'm in your hands. If anyone would like to begin, please put your hand up. We'll call on whoever puts their hand up first. Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) :

Well, I'm assuming that you're going to be inviting Minister Sajjan to provide testimony in place of Zita Astravas, which to me is completely ignoring the order that came from the House. Parliament demanded that Zita Astravas be the one to appear. I think it's contemptuous that she isn't and that the actions by the government are just playing into the larger realm that this is a cover-up. I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we do hear from the minister , that he stay for the entire time that was allotted for Zita Astravas and that questions that we had prepared for her we'll be putting to the minister.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Bezan. Ms. Vandenbeld.

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) :

Thank you very much. I would also of course agree that we hear from the minister and the officials he has with him. As has been discussed at length in the House, and also in the letter that the minister sent to the committee by way of explanation, political staff are not people who are decision-makers. They are accountable to the political member—in this case, the minister—and therefore the minister...being here, he is the one who is accountable to Parliament and to this committee, and I'm sure that the committee members will be able to ask him all the questions that they would have asked Ms. Astravas.

Therefore, I would suggest that we hear from the minister and the officials he has with him.

The Chair :

Okay. Thank you very much. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. However, I believe that Mr. Garrison raised his hand first. I wouldn't mind speaking now if that's what Mr. Garrison wants. That said, I'd still like to stick to the order of raised hands.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Garrison, would you like to go first?

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP) :

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm having a bit of a problem with the screen freezing this morning, so I apologize for that. I'm happy to have the minister before us today on ministerial responsibility, because that's what we are actually studying here. I'm not happy that the government has chosen to ignore an order from the House, but I do think it gives us a opportunity to talk about the concept of ministerial responsibility with the minister. I'm quite happy to do so today.

I should note that the reason we were calling upon staff members and staff from the Privy Council Office is in fact that the minister pointed us to them in his testimony and said that it had nothing to do with him and we had to talk to these people. In fact, it's the minister who originally suggested that we should talk to staff people, who he is now saying should not be called before the committee.

I look forward to talking to him about the concept of ministerial responsibility and who actually is responsible for the fact that the minister and the Prime Minister failed to act to remove a chief of the defence staff when there was a substantiated complaint of sexual misconduct against him.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Garrison. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with my Conservative and NDP colleagues. I must say that I'm disappointed. I don't know whether I'm surprised, but I'm certainly disappointed. We don't often complain about meeting with the minister in the committee. I'm not complaining about that. It would be good if he were here more often, as is the case in most committees. However, my concern is that the committee's wishes aren't being respected and that witnesses who were scheduled to appear are being excluded. I'm even wondering whether this is a way to prevent these people from speaking.

Why shouldn't these people be allowed to speak? I'm told that they aren't the ones making the decisions and bearing the ultimate responsibility. However, they do know things. They know what's happening and what decisions are being made. In the current situation, where we can see that the minister didn't take the proper steps, it seems appropriate to receive comments and information from the staff.

(1110) The Chair :

Okay. Thank you. [ English ] Is there anyone else? Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

Mr. James Bezan :

I would just say, Madam Chair, that this doesn't absolve Zita Astravas from appearing at committee. There's still the order from the House, and I expect it to be respected. With that, let's get on with addressing ministerial responsibility with the minister himself.

The Chair :

That seems to be the will of the committee: that we invite the witnesses who were outlined in the email that was sent to you last evening. I'm going to suspend for about five minutes to allow them to get on and get their sound checks done, and then we'll reconvene. We are suspended.

(1110) (1120) The Chair :

I call this meeting back to order. To begin, I would like to invite Minister Sajjan to give his opening remarks and to introduce his team to the members of the committee this morning. It's over to you, Minister Sajjan.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence) :

Madam Chair, thank you again for this opportunity to come speak with the committee once again. I have with me my deputy minister, the acting chief of the defence staff, and the judge advocate general to answer questions. I first want to clarify something, Madam Chair. I'm here because on our side of the House we have a deep respect for the traditions of Parliament. One of those traditions is the principle of ministerial accountability. Our government believes that ministers of the cabinet are accountable to the House of Commons for the decisions of the government and for the actions of their political staff.

We have been collaborative with members of Parliament and we have been accountable. It is our responsibility, and we have gladly fulfilled that responsibility. I'm here today because, as a member of cabinet, I speak on behalf of the government and for those who work in it. Let me be clear: Unelected political staff members are accountable to members of the cabinet, and cabinet is accountable to Parliament. The Conservatives believed in this core principle more than a decade ago, when they were in power under Prime Minister Harper.

In fact, it was a Conservative foreign affairs minister, John Baird, who spoke at committee about why the Harper government was refusing to allow its staff members to testify at committee. Mr. Baird said:

If you have a problem with my office, you come after me. You can't haul people before this committee in a hostile, partisan interrogation—people who can't fight back for themselves. If you have a problem with the government, it is ministers in our system.

They are accountable. Or perhaps the opposition would like to hear from former prime minister Harper himself:

Mr. Speaker, our precedents and practices are very clear. It is ministers and the ministry at large who are responsible to the House and to its committees, not their staff members. The staff members are responsible to the ministers and the members for whom they work.

Prime Minister Harper and his government instructed their staff not to appear. Instead, cabinet ministers went in their place. Unfortunately, the Conservatives under Erin O'Toole —who, himself, is involved in this study, lest we forget—have changed their minds on the importance of this fundamental principle of ministerial accountability. What was so important to them when they were in government has been thrown out the window now that they are in opposition.

That is regrettable and dangerous, because Canadians need to know that they can trust that the very traditions of their Parliament will not be abandoned simply out of political expediency by those seeking power. Madam Chair, the argument put forward by Mr. Baird and Mr. Harper was correct. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. Now to the very important issue at hand. Let's start by stating my position in the clearest possible terms.

I do not and will not accept any form of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence from anyone, regardless of rank or position. I am committed to ensuring that affected persons have access to a range of supports and are treated fairly and compassionately. I firmly believe in the independence of investigations. These have been my guiding principles on this issue since I became Minister of National Defence. We must take care of our people and provide them with a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. It is written into our defence policy.

It is written into my mandate letter. It is also my personal belief system. Sexual misconduct is harmful beyond measure. Our government has worked hard by responding to retired Justice Deschamps' report. We put measures in place focused on understanding the issue, preventing harm from occurring, addressing incidents when they happen and providing support to those affected. We created the sexual misconduct response centre, completely independent from the military chain of command. We launched new mandatory training and education.

We partnered with Statistics Canada to conduct surveys so we could better understand the scope of the problem. We reviewed 179 old cases that had been categorized as unfounded. We created new specialized teams within our military police and our prosecution service to address sexual misconduct. We sought out experts' external advice, and we implemented new programs and policies. Last year, we released a culture change strategy. All of this work was essential and foundational.

(1125) It is clear that Operation Honour, as we know it, has run its course. It has become clear that it has limitations. It is extremely clear that we have a lot more work to do. We will learn from what has and hasn't worked, and develop a deliberate plan to go forward. We need to make it easy and accessible for anyone at any level to report an incident, and they need to have confidence in the reporting mechanisms. That is why we will be developing an independent reporting structure to look at all allegations. As the Prime Minister and I have stated, all options are on the table.

We will continue to be guided by fairness and respect for the rule of law. [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] be upheld, because no one should ever have undue influence on an investigation. That jeopardizes the ability to achieve a just outcome. Madam Chair, there can be no denying it. Sexual misconduct is a serious, systemic problem in the Canadian Armed Forces. We must take bold action to establish a culture where sexual misconduct is never minimized, ignored or excused.

For far too long, people in the Canadian Armed Forces have been negatively affected by a culture that is influenced by outdated conceptions of what it means to be a warrior, a culture shaped by hypermasculinity—one that rewards assertiveness, aggression and competitiveness; one that sustains stereotypical gender roles and excludes people who do not fit the mould. This ideal permeates military cultures around the world. It is evident in accounts of hazing and initiations, and we see it in the continued occurrences of sexual misconduct. It was not okay in the past, and it's not okay now.

We know we must change our culture so that we can prevent sexual misconduct from happening in the first place. We must align all behaviours and attitudes with our core value: respect and dignity for all persons. Change will not happen on its own. It requires a persistent, methodical and holistic approach. People all across the organization must be invested in it. Over the past two months, Canadian Armed Forces members and civilians across the defence team have been having important conversations about the issues that persist in our organizations.

These conversations have been motivated and informed by those who have come forward and shared their experiences, but the responsibility to address sexual misconduct does not rest on the shoulders of those who have been affected. It rests on all of us. It rests on leaders across the defence team to establish a culture where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. It rests on commanding officers to protect their people from retaliation and reprisal, and it rests on every person in our organization to intervene as bystanders and support one another.

We must continue building trust in each other and in our organizations—trust that must be earned, not taken for granted. Enough with the politics. We have to focus on the survivors and those who are coming forward. Now we must take action and change the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you once again.

(1130) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister. I will now open the floor for questions. Up first is Mr. Bezan, please.

Mr. James Bezan :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, just so you know, this isn't about politics. This is about making sure we get to the bottom of why your so-called claim of zero tolerance for sexual misconduct did not extend to General Vance and why you allowed him to walk away three years ago. Madam Chair, we are supposed to hear from Zita Astravas today. I'm hoping the minister has talked to her and has the questions we had prepared for her, so that we can get more of the information that he actually suggested we pursue. Minister, on what date did Zita Astravas learn of the allegations against General Vance?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, the very day the former ombudsman informed me, I immediately spoke with my chief of staff back at the office.

Mr. James Bezan :

Thank you. That would have been March 1, 2018.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

The very same day.

Mr. James Bezan :

Who in the Prime Minister’s Office did Zita Astravas contact about the allegations against General Vance?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

As I stated before, my chief of staff at that time informed the Privy Council Office immediately and informed the Prime Minister’s Office, as well.

Mr. James Bezan :

Who in the Prime Minister 's Office did she contact regarding the allegations against General Vance?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I believe it was Elder.

Mr. James Bezan :

Elder Marques? Is there anyone else you're aware of, Minister?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, I'm not.

Mr. James Bezan :

On what date did Zita Astravas talk to Elder Marques?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I believe it was immediately after I informed her, and then she informed the Privy Council Office.

Mr. James Bezan :

How many times did Zita Astravas contact the PMO regarding these allegations against General Vance, and what were the subsequent dates of those communications, whether they were in person, phone calls or by email?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

We're not sure exactly of the number of times. I do know that I had a number of conversations with my chief of staff, making sure to inquire if there was any progress on the allegations and if the former ombudsman had provided the necessary information. But the most important thing here is making sure that we actually had independence on the investigation. Our purpose was to inform the Privy Council Office so that an independent investigation could occur, and that's exactly what has taken place. She informed—

Mr. James Bezan :

Minister—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Sorry, Madam Chair, if you would let me finish. She informed the Prime Minister 's Office of her actions that she had taken, but the clear point here is making sure that there was independence of the investigation. That's exactly what she did when she contacted the Privy Council Office.

Mr. James Bezan :

What exactly did Zita Astravas communicate about the allegations against General Vance?

(1135) Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Exactly what had transpired: that the meeting took place with the former ombudsman and that we were contacting the Privy Council Office so that an independent investigation could occur.

Mr. James Bezan :

Minister, what was the Prime Minister 's Office response to Zita Astravas after they were made aware of these allegations, and what direction did they give back to Zita Astravas?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Our responsibility was to, first of all, given the seriousness of the allegations themselves, make sure that the Privy Council Office was informed, so that the first step of it was whoever possibly was going to come forward with information, as we thought at that time, so that action could be taken, and that's exactly what took place. Then she informed the Prime Minister 's Office of her actions. What we also wanted to do was not interfere with anything further in the investigation. So in this case we were able—

Mr. James Bezan :

What investigation? There was no investigation that had started at that point in time.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan: We—

Mr. James Bezan: Nobody had information. The Privy Council Office under Janine Sherman had said that there wasn't an investigation. They still didn't have the evidence. The ombudsman could not go out and do the investigation. Military experts and justice experts have said that there was no political interference because there was no investigation started and no direction given by you. Minister, have you always been 100% truthful when you have testified before this committee, yes or no?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Absolutely, Madam Chair.

Mr. James Bezan :

Minister, in front of this committee, you did state, “First of all, as the Prime Minister has stated, he was informed that I had raised those concerns with the Privy Council Office”. That was on March 12. Did you say that at committee, yes or no?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Could you repeat that, please?

Mr. James Bezan :

Your direct quote is, “First of all, as the Prime Minister has stated, he was informed that I had raised those concerns with the Privy Council Office”.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, I meant the Prime Minister 's Office, Madam Chair.

Mr. James Bezan :

So you misspoke there? Did you think the Prime Minister was aware that you had raised these concerns with the Privy Council Office—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No.

Mr. James Bezan :

—and with his staff?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No. As I stated, my chief of staff informed the Prime Minister 's Office.

Mr. James Bezan :

Who informed you that the Prime Minister was aware that you had raised these concerns with the—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I did not raise these with the Prime Minister.

Mr. James Bezan :

But the Prime Minister has stated in the House that he was aware of these allegations in 2018, so who would have raised those from the PCO to the Prime Minister or from the Prime Minister's staff with the Prime Minister?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Once we raised it with the Privy Council Office and with the Prime Minister 's Office, I'm not sure who, when it comes to raising the issue. Our focus was that information was provided to us. We wanted to make sure there was an independent look at the information, and that's exactly what we did, because in this case here, when it comes to a GIC appointment, we wanted to make sure that there was complete independence, especially independence from any type of political interference.

The Chair :

All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. James Bezan :

Minister—

The Chair :

We'll go on to Mr. Bagnell, please.

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here, Minister, and thank you to all the other witnesses as well. One of the members has mentioned that there are proven serious allegations against a senior member, but it's inappropriate to prejudge. Investigations are under way, and they will decide what are proven allegations. Minister, I was delighted that you spent most of your time talking about the changes that need to be made, and my questions after this round will totally be on that.

The hundreds of people who are affected, especially women who want protection, really would want committee members to be working on that. That's the biggest outcome of this committee. That's a responsibility for all of us. We really have to improve the system, and hopefully we'll be talking about that. We'll certainly be asking a lot of questions about that. We have to move forward. You've been a champion of that, and we're delighted that you outlined the flexibility to move forward and make those changes to protect people. I just want to make sure that on this round....

Is there anything else you wanted to say about the reason you're appearing here on behalf of your former chief of staff, Zita, today?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, as you stated, it's important for ministers to speak on behalf of their staff. Ministers are accountable to Parliament when it comes to their ministries. That's exactly what we're doing. In this case here, Madam Chair, what I am focused on, and what our entire defence team is focused on, is making sure we look at the current situation and find ways to create the culture change that everybody on this committee and all of us want. I look forward to the recommendations from this committee and all members of Parliament, because ultimately this is what....

When we formed government, we wanted to make sure we created an inclusive environment for all Canadians, not just in the Canadian Armed Forces but all across Canada. This is something we took very seriously. We took Madame Deschamps' report very seriously before we came into government. We're working aggressively to make the changes. We know there's a lot more work to do, but we want to continue doing that work. More importantly, we need to be able to hear from the experts. We need to hear from the survivors. We need to hear from the women of the Canadian Armed Forces, both serving and retired.

That's what's going to allow us to create that culture change. We want to move as aggressively as possible, but ultimately our objective is always going to be zero tolerance.

(1140) Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you, Minister. I know you're appearing today on behalf of your former chief of staff, Zita Astravas. Do you think she would have had anything more to add, other than what has already come up at the committee?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I've come to this committee a number of times, as well as to other committees. I have provided all the answers for all the questions. More importantly, not only do I speak for my former chief of staff, but there's nothing further she could add.

Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you, Minister. There are some senior members under investigation. The investigations will run their course. Of course, there will be no political interference and those will be taken care of. The main thing is to get on with helping the members and changing the systems of the many, many other complaints that are out there. We've heard from you, the former ombudsman, the former chief of staff to former PM Stephen Harper, PCO and numerous other witnesses. Do you think there's anything else this committee can contribute in pursuing this line of questioning and focusing on incidents that are currently being investigated by the appropriate authorities?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I've answered all the questions. With these lines of questions, regardless of how many times I'm asked, I can give answers only based on the information and the facts of what took place. What I would really like to focus on is the women and the culture change that we all agree on, making sure we get the expert advice, making sure we create the right plan, and more importantly, making sure that whatever ideas we come up with actually hit the mark so we can create the culture change. That's exactly what I think not only all of us agree on, but more importantly all our Canadian Armed Forces members deserve.

Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you. We've heard some very good testimony from experts and victims. Certainly that will be an important part of our report, but there's certainly more that we can hear. I'm looking forward to that. I'm delighted that you're open to those changes. Obviously, when there are hundreds of people, if not over a thousand, whom this has impacted in the past, we really need to make major changes. I'm glad you're open to that. It's never easy to make changes, so it won't be easy to make these difficult changes, in my opinion, but I am certainly committed to....

I know that all the other members of the committee—you heard what they said—really want to make these changes as well. They really want to help particularly the women, but not only the women, who have been victims of this type of activity.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Sajjan, today we were surprised to have you here. Usually, when we meet with a minister, it's a nice surprise. This time, I'm not sure that's the case. You're here because you decided to go against the committee's wishes to call in staff from your office who may have something valuable to say to the committee. Are you being obstructive?

(1145) [ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

As the minister responsible for national defence, I speak on behalf of my staff. I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

You seem to be saying that, by doing this, you're protecting these people. Don't you think that, on the contrary, rather than protecting these people, you're protecting yourself?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I have always taken the opportunity to come before this committee at the earliest opportunity to answer any questions. I've always been extremely open. In fact, with a number of the opposition members, I'm even open to answering their questions on a personal basis. I've been extremely open from day one, when I became minister. I actually wrote a letter to all members of Parliament saying, please, if you have any ideas on where we can improve defence, then I'm open to it. Let's take the politics out of defence. In this case, I'm here to speak on behalf of my staff. Staff should not be coming here.

They're not accountable to Parliament for the department; ministers are. I'm here to answer your questions.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Are you concerned about how the staff may respond to the committee's questions?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

We are here to answer all of your questions. I speak on behalf of my staff and my former chief of staff, Zita Astravas. I just want to say how important the work that committees do is. I actually welcome having these discussions. With the work we have in front of us, no one person is going to have all the answers. I not only welcome answering all your questions; I look forward to your recommendations as well.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Minister Sajjan, you aren't answering my question. I asked whether you were concerned about what your staff may say to the committee. Do you have anything to hide?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

There's an answer. I hope that it's the truth. I'm trying to understand why you're preventing staff from appearing. Will this become a new norm? In many cases, when we ask ministers to appear before committees, we'd like to meet with them for two hours. However, they disappear after the first hour and leave their staff with us. They let their staff testify. I'd like to understand why it's the opposite right now.

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Our political staff do not represent the department. My departmental staff, in terms of who you see here.... You're talking about our deputy ministers and our Canadian Armed Forces members. Here we have the acting chief of the defence staff. They are here. Political staff who work for ministers' offices are not accountable to Parliament on behalf of the department; ministers are. This is what's been done in previous governments, and this is the practice that we have now. As a minister, I am responsible to Parliament. I'm here to answer your questions.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I gather that, when it suits you, you let the officials speak, and when it doesn't suit you, you don't let them speak. You suggested to the committee on March 12 that Mr. Walbourne hadn't done his job and that he could have given his information to people other than you. Yet when we met with Mr. Lick, the current ombudsman—I don't remember whether it was in this committee or the Standing Committee on the Status of Women—he said that, if he had needed to act, he would have taken exactly the same steps as Mr. Walbourne. In your opinion, do the former ombudsman and new ombudsman misunderstand the nature of their work,

whereas you're correct?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I would like to answer the first assertion that the member made. No, my staff has never come to committee to testify. I have always spoken on behalf of my department. The departmental staff who are here before you do come with me: the deputy minister, the judge advocate general, sometimes the vice chief of the defence staff and, in this case, the acting chief of the defence staff.

To answer the other question that the member posed, it is important when information is brought forward on anybody, especially when it comes to a Governor in Council appointment, to make sure we follow the proper process without any type of political interference and to make sure that it is absolutely independent, if an investigation is to start. That's exactly what took place and it was done immediately, Madam Chair. The following day, the Privy Council Office followed up with Mr. Walbourne. I'm happy to repeat this over and over again.

It is so important that, any time any information comes up on anybody, rank or position regardless, we take concrete action.

(1150) [ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I understand that Mr. Lick, like Mr. Walbourne—

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm afraid your time is up, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. We will move on to Mr. Garrison, please.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the minister for being here today to talk about ministerial responsibility. I think this gets at the crux of the problem in the failure to attack sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces. When Operation Honour was announced in 2015, I was among those who gave credit to the Canadian military for recognizing the problem and setting out to solve it, but what we heard multiple times is that Operation Honour actually failed.

We heard multiple times in this study from witnesses that members of the Canadian Armed Forces felt that there were two different standards, and that senior leaders in the Canadian military were not held to the same standards as rank-and-file members when it came to Operation Honour. This is the crux of the problem. None of the actions can have any credibility in assuring women that they can serve equally if there's no action when there's misconduct at the highest level. Minister, my question is a very direct question.

General Vance was allowed to continue serving as chief of the defence staff after credible allegations of sexual misconduct had been raised against him. Who is the minister responsible for him continuing to serve as chief of the defence staff under those circumstances?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, as I stated before, any time information is brought forward, regardless of rank or position.... In this case, it was about the GIC appointment of the former chief of the defence staff. It was about making sure that the information brought forward, the allegations, were taken extremely seriously, and that's exactly what was done. It is important to make sure that the proper process is followed by the book. If you do not follow the proper process, you may interfere in a just outcome. I have taken very seriously my responsibility to the Canadian Armed Forces, from the day I came in.

The focus that we put on our people, the focus that our government has put on dealing with all types of systemic misconduct, especially sexual misconduct...we have taken steps. Now, when it comes to Operation Honour, yes, it has run its course. It was started before we formed government. What we are doing is looking at what worked, what things we need to keep and what things we need to change. Our team has been working aggressively, even before the allegations on the former chief of the defence staff came forward this year.

We wanted to work towards a complete culture change, something that we were already discussing. We were looking at all forms of misconduct. We had a panel put together made up of former serving members who had lived experience that includes systemic racism all the way through to gender bias and sexual misconduct, so that we could actually move forward. Madam Chair, one of the things I will always champion with all of the senior leadership is to work forward and create that inclusive environment. No, it's not going to be easy, but one thing I can assure you is that no one is going to rest.

Everybody within the armed forces, including the acting chief of the defence staff and our deputy minister, and all of you will continue to work to make the necessary changes.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Well, Madam Chair, I'm not sure how that answers the question of ministerial responsibility. Vance continued to serve under a cloud of allegations about sexual misconduct, and nothing happened. Now, the minister always leans on investigations. No investigation happened in 2018, so I want to go back to ministerial responsibility. Who is the minister who was responsible for making sure that an investigation took place?

When the minister found out that PCO was not investigating, when the Minister of Defence found out that the ombudsman's office was not investigating, was he not the minister responsible—not to do an investigation, but to make sure an independent investigation was conducted? Why was the matter dropped? Is the minister responsible for this failure to conduct an investigation or not?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, regardless of the assertions that were posed in the question, in our society, in our system, we have due process, and that process has to be followed. Regardless of what position one holds, we cannot just make a decision and try to get an outcome; we have to follow the absolute process. Just like in any other police investigation, if you don't follow the absolute process here, in this case, when information was brought forward from a GIC.... And GIC appointments are the responsibility of management by the Privy Council Office, so in this case, that was the reason information was sent to the Privy Council Office to conduct that immediate follow-up.

(1155) Mr. Randall Garrison :

So, since the Privy Council Office—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

That immediate follow-up was conducted, and then from there, multiple follow-ups continued. The information that was provided to this committee, from what I understand, from a production of papers, outlines the actions that actually took place and also states that the reason why the former ombudsman did not provide any further information was that the complainant did not want to come forward.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Minister, you seem to be saying that the Prime Minister , then, is responsible for the fact that there was no investigation, because the Privy Council Office reported to him. When the Privy Council failed to proceed with an investigation, the Prime Minister should have acted. Is that what you're telling us under ministerial responsibility?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm not sure how the member or his party decide on what type of power politicians should have, but one thing I can assure you is that—

Mr. Randall Garrison :

To order an investigation is one of them.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm trying.... I can answer the question or not. Madam Chair, may I answer the question?

The Chair :

Please answer the question.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Thank you. No politician, Madam Chair, should ever be involved in an investigation. What we need to do is allow for independent public service members to look at the facts and then decide which direction it needs to go. If you don't follow that process, you will undermine a potential just outcome for the person who has come forward.

The Chair :

Thank you very much.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Which minister was responsible for making sure there was an investigation?

The Chair :

I'm afraid the time is up now. We move on to Ms. Alleslev.

Ms. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. To follow on that question, Minister, is a minister, a politician—or, in this case, you—responsible to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces has a chief of the defence staff who is above reproach and has not carried out and is not carrying out any sexual misconduct?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, it's all our responsibility, including the person, anybody who's—

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

No, Minister, is it your responsibility?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, if I could try to answer the question.... I'm getting cut off. If it's okay, Madam Chair, I could try to answer the previous question there.

The Chair :

Please answer the question.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, first of all, when it comes to any type of sexual misconduct, it is all our responsibility. When it comes to the Minister of National Defence, under the National Defence Act, I have the direction, a ministerial responsibility for the direction the Canadian Armed Forces goes. That direction we put in our defence policy, and we put it in our defence policy to make sure that we have a workplace free from harassment, and we put our people number one, Madam Chair. We know that we have not—

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Thank you, Minister. Were you in 2018, and then in 2019, satisfied that the chief of the defence staff, General Vance, was beyond reproach and was not, or had not been, engaged in sexual misconduct in any way, shape or form?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, when it comes to any information that has come forward, what we need to do and must always do is make sure that any information is sent to the appropriate authorities—independent appropriate authorities, not politicians—to launch investigations or to stop investigations so that the independent officials can make the determination of where—

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Minister, you stated you were involved with—

The Chair :

Please let the minister.... He's here for three hours. Let him finish, and then we'll carry on. I'll give you a bit of extra time at the end.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Thank you.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I stated before, it is important that the process be followed so that an independent investigation can occur. Again, no politician should ever interfere with an investigation. No politician should ever have the power to launch an investigation on somebody or stop an investigation on somebody.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Were you satisfied, in May 2019, when you were at the cabinet meeting at which the performance management program for General Vance was discussed, that his performance had no sexual misconduct in it?

(1200) Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm not part of a management committee. Could she rephrase the question?

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

I was asking about the performance management review program. As minister for General Vance, you are involved in that process. Is that correct?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, when it comes to the people who work for me, whether it's the deputy minister, the chief of CSE or the chief of the defence staff, it's usually sometime in late fall that we get a call for about 15 minutes by the Clerk to discuss how things are going in the department with their folks.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Were you satisfied that there was no question that General Vance's performance was beyond reproach and he was not involved in any allegations of sexual misconduct of any kind?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, our responsibility in this case, if any information is ever brought forward, is to immediately take it to the appropriate officials so that action can be taken. That's exactly what took place here.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Minister, performance is about your judgment—your ministerial accountability and your judgment. Were you satisfied that General Vance's performance, his behaviour, was beyond reproach?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, when we discussed the work that.... The questions I answer when the Clerk asks about the people.... It's a list of questions on the work they do. Obviously I can't get into that, for privacy reasons. I don't get involved with the performance pay, as the member is asserting here. I have never been involved in deciding their performance pay.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Not the amount of pay, but whether or not their performance was worthy of being rewarded and being continued—that is your responsibility. Were you absolutely satisfied with General Vance's performance?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, that's not how those questions work.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Were you part of the cabinet meeting when the order in council that went to the Governor General to increase his salary was discussed?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I am not involved with the decision on salary increase.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

What about a recommendation on a salary increase, as signed by cabinet to the Governor General, the OIC in May 2019?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I have not been asked about a performance pay increase by the former chief of the defence staff.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

It was an order in council cabinet meeting. You were not part of that, even though you are the minister responsible for the CDS government in council.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, as I've said many times, I am not involved with performance pay.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. I let it go a little longer. We move on to Mr. Baker, please.

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I ask my questions—and I really want to focus on how we address the issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military, so that's where my questions are—I just wanted to say something in response to something I heard from a member who was speaking previously. The member said the minister should have ordered an investigation.

It's important to remember, and we've heard this at committee over and over, that all a minister can do is refer to authorities, who can then undertake an investigation so that it protects the victim, follows due process and is done professionally, in an unbiased way. Obviously, if the minister ordered or directed an investigation, that would be interference. Now, what I wanted to do was ask about military sexual trauma, and I want to direct my question to Dr. Preston at first. Dr. Preston, to your knowledge, what support is offered for those in the Canadian Armed Forces with military sexual trauma?

Dr. Denise Preston (Executive Director, Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, Department of National Defence) :

A range of supports are offered to members who suffer from military sexual trauma. One large service provider would be Canadian Forces health services. They have a range of mental health professionals who would provide whatever sort of supports a person might need within their own unit. If the needs of the member were actually beyond what they were able to provide, members would be referred to external specialized service providers. We also provide a range of supports through the sexual misconduct response centre. That includes a 24-7 confidential call line as well as a response and support coordination program.

If members choose to participate in that program, it provides ongoing support from the time they disclose an incident until such time as they don't need services any longer. That can include information, referrals to other services, accompaniment to appointments, advocacy, assistance with workplace accommodations and a range of services. There are also other, non-specialized supports. The chaplains are a resource that members will frequently go to for confidential support. The chaplains would then typically refer them to either SMRC or health services to get more specialized support.

(1205) Mr. Yvan Baker :

Thanks, Dr. Preston. I'd ask you to be brief in responding to these next ones, because I do have a couple more questions, if I can get them in. Is military sexual trauma peer support offered? Should military sexual trauma be treated as an operational stress injury?

Dr. Denise Preston :

With respect to the first question, peer support is not currently offered. However, there is work under way to get an online peer support platform established. As well, we have produced a joint proposal with VAC to develop both an online and in-person support program for members and veterans. To the second part of your question, yes, I agree that military sexual trauma should be considered an OSI.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

Thank you very much. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

The Chair :

You have a minute and a half.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

My next question is for you, Lieutenant-General Eyre. I've learned from women who have served in the forces that they often need different sizes of equipment and clothing that are not normally carried in stock on bases. How do we ensure that women get the protective equipment they need, such as bulletproof vests and other clothing and equipment, without it costing the unit or at the base level having to pay for it out of their own budgets? Could we have a separate fund, if you will, or a separate budget that is used exclusively for this purpose so that we can help fully integrate women into the armed forces?

Lieutenant-General Wayne D. Eyre (Acting Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence) :

I thank the member for his excellent question. As the army commander, this was something I was seized with. We began an initiative called the soldier operational clothing and equipment modernization. We wanted to modernize, for fit and function, the next-to-body equipment, the load carriage, and the body armour that our soldiers are dressed in. Using anthropometric data, or body scans, we ensure that we can fit the entire size and shape of the force so that they are better protected, the clothing they wear is better fitting, and they feel prouder about serving in the military.

One of the biggest complaints I would receive from young soldiers was that they did not have faith that their body armour would actually protect them. That's what this initiative was aimed at. It was to improve the confidence that each and every member had in their equipment to be able to do the job.

The Chair :

Thank you. I'm afraid your time is up, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

Thank you.

The Chair :

We'll go to Mr. Barsalou-Duval, s'il vous plaît .

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Sajjan, at the time, you refused to meet with Mr. Walbourne, who wanted to share information about allegations of a sexual nature. If today, in 2021, Mr. Lick were to contact you to share information of the same nature, would you still refuse to meet with him?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

First of all, on the assertion that the member has made, I did not refuse to meet with the former ombudsman. In fact, I actually had a formal meeting with our entire staff. He asked to meet with me privately, and I met with him privately. We had a discussion, in fact, about the current investigation that was currently going on in his office. At the end, he raised those concerns. He did not ask me for advice. However, I gave the advice, and the advice was to make sure that we handled this information properly. That's why it was followed up immediately.

If anybody had provided any of this type of information, I would always follow the proper procedure. That's exactly what I did in the past, and that's exactly what I'll do in the future.

(1210) [ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, but you refused to meet with Mr. Walbourne on at least a dozen occasions, according to what he told us. Is that incorrect?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

What you're referring to are regular meetings. In fact, we used to have regular meetings, and we did have meetings. It's not refusing to meet. Sometimes when it comes to scheduling issues.... In fact, I took every opportunity I could to actually meet with him. We met quite regularly to discuss the work that the ombudsman’s office was doing, to talk about some of the things early on when we were developing the defence policy, looking at some of those things. I did not ever refuse to meet with the ombudsman.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

So Mr. Walbourne is making things up when he says that you refused to meet with him after the meeting regarding General Vance.

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Could you repeat the question, please? After the meeting...?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Mr. Walbourne told the committee that you refused to meet with him a dozen times after he tried to talk to you about the General Vance case. Now you're saying that this isn't true and that you meet with the ombudsman very often, whether it be Mr. Walbourne or Mr. Lick at this point.

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

After that meeting, the former ombudsman gave his letter of intent to resign. He was on leave, I believe, at that time. However, when it came to the information that the former ombudsman provided, we took many opportunities.... Well, the Privy Council did, including my former chief of staff, who actually emailed him directly to ask for the information. No, I did not refuse to meet with the former ombudsman.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We'll move on to Mr. Garrison, please.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I guess my concern still remains that we had someone come forward with a substantiated allegation of sexual misconduct. We know that, in effective policies dealing with sexual misconduct and sexual assault, victims who come forward have to be believed until there's some reason not to believe them. In this case, we had a credible allegation for which the military ombudsman had evidence that the minister—you, Minister—refused to look at. You've invited.... You said a few minutes ago you've invited personal questions about this.

I want to ask about your relationship with General Vance. How long have you known General Vance, and what were the circumstances under which you first met?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I'm sorry, but what was the first question? Perhaps you could repeat it.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

How long have you known General Vance, and what were the circumstances under which you met? That's the question I would like you to respond to, Minister.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, you had an earlier question.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

There was no earlier question. The question I'm asking you now is this: How long have you known General Vance, and what were the circumstances—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No. Madam Chair, I think it's unfair to make an assertion and then try to ask a question. I think that's extremely unfair for a member to do something like this. I will answer the member's question very directly, Madam Chair. I was not friends with General Vance, and I'm not friends with General Vance. Does that answer your question very directly?

Mr. Randall Garrison :

So you have no personal relationship—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, I do not have a personal relationship with General Vance.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

General Vance had no role in your appointment to positions in Afghanistan.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I'm sorry...?

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Did General Vance have any role in your appointment to positions you held in the military in Afghanistan?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

The positions that I held in Afghanistan...?

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Yes.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Yes, in my second deployment to Afghanistan, he was the commander of the task force at that time.

(1215) Mr. Randall Garrison :

You reported to General Vance at that time.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Yes, I did.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Thank you very much, Minister.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, if you don't mind, the member makes an assertion here—just because I served my country, and I serve—that seems to leave Canadians with the message that I had some type of personal relationship. I have served four deployments. I've served a U.S. general. This is one of the reasons I take serious concern with the member's assertions here. As I stated before, I'm not going to let him define what my experience was in my deployment or what my experience was in the Canadian Armed Forces. I know that the member does not like this, but I'm sorry. I am not going to allow him to do so.

If he wants to ask me a direct question.... Do I have a personal relationship? I answered him no. If he wants to ask a question, sure, but please do not leave an assertion, because I find that extremely distasteful.

The Chair :

Thank you very much.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Well, Minister—

The Chair :

We will go on to Madame Gallant, please.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) :

When the phone call took place with the Clerk about Vance's performance as part of the performance review process, why didn't the minister raise the issue of the allegation at that time?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, that phone call took place earlier, in the late fall.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

Minister, you had said that the Prime Minister is the minister responsible for the PCO. Since the PCO did the investigation, are you saying the Prime Minister is responsible, then?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, no politician should ever be responsible for an investigation of anyone.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

So—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Politicians should not get involved. I think it is very dangerous.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

Is the Prime Minister responsible for the actions of the PCO, or inaction?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm not sure how to answer that question.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

Who informed you that the Prime Minister was aware that you had raised those concerns with the PCO?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, as I stated, my former chief of staff informed the Prime Minister's Office of what had transpired and the actions that we were taking.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

When the minister received information from former military ombudsman Gary Walbourne about an allegation of sexual misconduct by General Vance, did he review General Vance's PCO file history?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Can you repeat that question? I'm sorry; it was difficult to hear you.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

When you received the information from Ombudsman Walbourne about the allegation about General Vance, did you review General Vance's PCO file history?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I could answer the question in terms of the actions that we had taken. We took the information very seriously. We informed the Privy Council Office of what had transpired. They contacted the former ombudsman, and my former chief of staff informed the Prime Minister's Office of the actions that we were taking.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

So, you did not review General Vance's PCO file history. Was there a reason for that?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm not sure what the question is. PCO file.... I'm genuinely asking. I'm having a hard time understanding what the question is when it comes to “PCO file”.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

The PCO file, the personnel file on General Vance.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, again, that would be interference. I don't get involved with the personnel files that the Privy Council holds on Governor in Council appointments.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

Minister, you ordered an investigation into racist incidents in the Canadian Armed Forces, yes or no?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I have ordered an independent panel to look at the issue of systemic racism, gender bias and misconduct in general, yes.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

So, you initiated that investigation, but—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

That's not—

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

—you did not ensure that an investigation was started on the allegations against General Vance.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, that's not an investigation, and not even a review of an individual. That is to look at a wider problem, which is our responsibility. I'm not trying to look at the actions of one person. Those are the things that the chief of the defence staff would do, or the deputy minister would do, based on the responsibility they have and the mechanisms that they have. I would not—I hope no politician would ever—make ministerial inquiries or launch investigations on individuals.

(1220) Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

Thank you. Minister, when, where and in what capacity have you served with General Vance outside Afghanistan?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I've only served under his command in Afghanistan.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

If today the same allegation about General Vance were brought to you, through the ombudsman about a GIC appointment, what is now the policy of dealing with it?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

This is one thing that we're going to be reviewing, to see whether we have the right policies in place. In terms of GICs, this is something that the Privy Council will have to take a look at. Our responsibility is making sure, when it comes to a GIC appointment, again, that we put it in the hands of independent public service officials so the information can be looked at. We are going to be looking at independence inside the Canadian Armed Forces. However, it's not the responsibility of ministers to look at GICs; it's the responsibility of the Privy Council Office.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. [ Translation ] Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.

Mr. Yves Robillard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Sajjan, what are the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces doing to ensure better support for survivors who come forward?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Thank you very much for the question. I'll actually allow Dr. Preston to answer that question, but we wanted to make sure, from day one, that when somebody finally comes forward.... Imagine what they have gone through. We wanted to make sure that they not only have the appropriate emotional support, but they also have the proper advice as to what they can do.

For example, one of the things we're currently looking at is how, when somebody has any type of misconduct that has come up, they can have one place to go so they can get the appropriate support, they can have the appropriate legal advice and direction, and they will be supported all the way through the process. Dr. Preston, can you add some more details to that, please?

Dr. Denise Preston :

Yes. Thank you. As I mentioned earlier, there are a range of supports that are available to members, either through health services or through the sexual misconduct response centre. Members can also be referred to specialists in the community. The other service that is available is that we currently have a contribution program where we fund nine sexual assault centres that are in close proximity to bases across the country. That provides opportunities for people to seek support outside of the military if they would rather speak to non-military service providers.

We are looking at a number of service enhancements right now—for example, the response and support coordination program that I spoke about earlier, which provides ongoing support from beginning to end of a person's journey. It is currently offered as a centralized model, so we offer it from Ottawa, but we will fly staff out to provide accompaniment, for example. We are in the process of expanding that program to have regional centres so that there's more proximity to supports.

We're also looking at a number of other service enhancements—for example, the provision of independent legal advice to members, as well as looking at peer support programming, both online and in-person peer support.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves Robillard :

Dr. Preston, would you say that survivors don't come forward because they're afraid of retaliation or because they're afraid that their case won't be taken seriously?

[ English ]

Dr. Denise Preston :

What I would say is that, for any survivor, whether they're a survivor in the military or outside of the military, it's a very difficult decision to come forward. In fact, outside the military, in the civilian world, only about 5% of sexual assaults are actually officially reported to the police. Within the military, there are actually higher reporting rates. It's around 20% to 25% reporting. However, I should note that 40% of those reports are made by third parties, which is actually disempowering to victims. There is a whole host of reasons why people don't come forward.

These are tremendously embarrassing and very sensitive, very personal situations. There is a lot of self-blame that people have to get over before they even choose to come forward. Then, if they actually overcome that, what you say is true. There are concerns around not being believed, about retaliation and about career impacts. There is a whole host of fears, and it's not just the fear of retaliation. People actually experience retaliation, so it's grounded in reality.

There are concerns around a lack of faith in the system—that processes are not timely and that members do not get the information they need in order to fully participate in the process—and also a dissatisfaction with the outcomes of processes, whether it's the disposition that's arrived at or the length of time it took to get there. There is a whole range of reasons people are reluctant to come forward.

(1225) Mr. Yves Robillard :

Thank you. [ Translation ] Rear-Admiral Bernatchez, clearly survivors who attempt to report sexual misconduct have issues, especially when the officers involved are high-ranking officers in the Canadian Armed Forces. In your opinion, how could this issue be resolved so that survivors no longer have to deal with it?

Rear-Admiral Geneviève Bernatchez (Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence) :

I want to thank the member for his question. It should be noted that the military justice system plays an important role in addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces. The system works in partnership with the other systems in place in the Canadian Armed Forces to provide education and to prevent sexual misconduct. I want to point out that, when an incident of sexual misconduct occurs, the victim or survivor has the option of reporting the incident to the civilian police system or to the Canadian Armed Forces police system, meaning the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

Clearly, as Dr. Preston said, victims and survivors face a number of challenges and roadblocks. As we move forward, we need to make sure that we listen to them, give them more support and respect them. We need to restore their confidence not only in the military justice system, but also in the civilian criminal justice system and in the chain of command.

The Chair :

Thank you.

Mr. Yves Robillard :

Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

We will go to Mr. Benzen, please.

Mr. Bob Benzen (Calgary Heritage, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here with us today. Minister, I'm just curious about something. You said that you had worked under General Vance's command in Afghanistan. I'm curious; have you worked in another location with him or alongside him in any other place?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, I have not.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

Did you have a posting to Toronto where you worked with him, or alongside him? Did you have offices side by side?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No.

Mr. Bob Benzen: You never—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan: [ Inaudible—Editor ] in Vancouver.

Mr. Bob Benzen: I know. I'm just saying—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan: I was a reservist in Vancouver. I did not work in Toronto, no. I did not have any class B. I can explain that too—no class B, no class C, not even class A working in Toronto, no. Maybe somebody else might look like me, because there are a lot of turbaned members in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

No, no, it was just a question. You mentioned earlier today that every year, annually in the fall, you get a 15-minute phone call from the Clerk of the Privy Council where you talk about the chief of the defence staff. You have a little conversation. It's only about 15 minutes long. What kind of questions do you get asked in that 15-minute conversation about the chief of the defence staff? What do you talk about?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Well, we actually talk more about the deputy minister.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

Okay.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Obviously, since my deputy minister is right here before me—

Mr. Bob Benzen :

That's fine.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

—I'm not going to be talking about—

(1230) Mr. Bob Benzen :

So you don't talk about the chief of the defence staff.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, I said we talk about the deputy minister, we talk about the chief of the Communications Security Establishment, and then we talk also about the chief of the defence staff at that time—

Mr. Bob Benzen :

My question was only in terms of the chief of the defence staff. What do you talk about?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that during that conversation it's not just about the chief of the defence staff. For example, they'll talk about the work in the mandate letter that we had. For example, when it came to the defence policy, the work that was done there, the operations that are currently under way—those are the types of things they're responsible for.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

So they're things that happened throughout the year and you want to kind of give a little review, put it in context and make sure everybody is on the same page.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Yes.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

Okay. Now, the clerk was Michael Wernick. He knew about the allegations that eventually got to him. He heard about the sexual misconduct allegations. Did that ever come up in your conversation with him in that review talking period?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, I don't recall that we did discuss that. Keep in mind also that my conversation with him would have happened the fall prior.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

Right. But you have them every year.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Yes.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

You had it 2019, in 2018 and so on. Now, that pay raise came up, and it just didn't.... There was no need to discuss that.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

As I stated, no, I did not discuss pay. I do not discuss pay. I'm not involved with the decisions on pay.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

You keep saying that you're not involved in a review, but—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, I said I'm not involved with the decisions on the review for pay. I'm not.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

Right. But the people who are making the decision about the pay are reviewing everything, including your conversations with the Clerk of the Privy Council about how he's doing on his job and how he's doing and all that. In a sense, you kind of are involved in the review process, aren't you?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No. What you're stating here is that I'm involved with a pay review and that—

Mr. Bob Benzen :

I'm not saying that. No.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I'm saying there is a review that's conducted every late fall. They have a review, but during that time I don't talk about pay. I'm not involved with the decisions on pay.

Mr. Bob Benzen :

Fair enough, but that review that you just had with them becomes part of the review of how to proceed if you're going to give a raise, so indirectly, you are involved in a review.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No. Madam Chair, he said that if I'm going to give a raise as stated.... No, I'm not involved with the pay. As Ms. Sherman has also stated directly and explained to this committee, “ministers do not set the pay.”

Mr. Bob Benzen :

I understand that, but here's what the problem is. Canadians all across this country.... I just talked to my neighbours and I said, “Your superior is going to have some input on your pay review; he's going to have some input on your job review ever year. Do you believe that the Minister of Defence doesn't have an input on the chief of the defence staff?” And they go, “He has to have an input. He's his boss.” Every Canadian across the land, from coast to coast to coast, knows that the boss has an input, and you keep saying over and over again that you don't. Canadians aren't buying this. Can you explain to them why, as his boss, you're not involved in this?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Given how you set things up in terms of trying to paint a picture before trying to say that we're going.... I don't know how you set the discussion up with your neighbours. I'm here to tell you what the actual process is. More importantly—

Mr. Bob Benzen :

It's very simple.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm trying to answer the question.

The Chair :

Please answer the question.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Ms. Sherman came and explained the full process to this committee. She explained the process that they have. During this time, yes, there is a conversation that occurs, I think in the late fall, which I'm not disputing. I'm also stating that I don't get involved with pay. She also stated, “ministers do not set the pay.” How you set the conversation up with Canadians, for whatever purpose, that's up to you, but I'm here to—

Mr. Bob Benzen :

Well, I think you—

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We move on to Mr. Spengemann, please.

Mr. Sven Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here once again. We've had some very fulsome testimony before the committee. We've reached some conclusions with a greater level of intensity than before. I think one of those conclusions is that there is ministerial accountability. Exempt political staff are not accountable to the Canadian public, but ministers are.

I think there is also a very strong view that has emerged, which was supported by Prime Minister Harper's former chief of staff, that it is not appropriate for elected officials to either launch or otherwise become involved in or call for an investigation. I think this is very important for the committee to take note of. Minister, I wanted to take advantage of the fact that we have you and the senior-most leadership team of the Canadian Armed Forces with us once again and to ask you one more time to take a closer look at the question of culture change.

You said in your opening remarks several weeks ago that we need “a complete and total culture change” and that “the time for patience is over.” In the course of testimony, the committee has received an indication that there is a bit of a tiering within the Canadian Forces, that the openness towards change might be more represented in junior ranks or in junior levels of the Canadian Forces and that there's a challenge in the more senior ranks. I'm quoting one of our witnesses here with respect to brass reluctance to change.

Could you and your colleagues tell the committee what we should focus on in terms of taking the issue of systemic change within the Canadian Forces forward in a tangible way under the mandate that we have left in front of us? What kinds of things could we zoom in on when it comes to culture? There are positive aspects to culture, and there are also negative aspects to culture. How do we crack this nut? How do we really achieve the change that women and men in the Canadian Forces, and aspirants who would want to serve in the forces in the future, deserve?

I'll let you lead off, and then I'll have some follow-up questions for your team as well.

(1235) Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Thank you very much for that really good question. When it comes to culture change, this is something we've been focused on for some time. I've said this publicly. Culture change is about making sure that we look after our people from the ground up.

It's making sure that the people we recruit are looked after all the way through and making sure we have an inclusive environment so that everybody, regardless of who they are—gender, sexual orientation, religion, colour, it does not matter—when they decide to join the Canadian Armed Forces, they have a fair and equal opportunity to succeed, and for us to value their skill set. Obviously, we have had resistance to change, but this is something that we work quite aggressively to deal with. We also need to look at making sure that as survivors come forward, they have the support.

Ultimately, we're trying to prevent any of these types of misconduct issues from happening. That's going to happen through culture change. The discussions that we're having, we've been having for some time. It's something that the independent panel is working on. The culture change is going to happen. First of all, it is the senior ranks fully engaged in working towards that culture change, making sure that at the lower levels, as leadership is being selected, things are done properly there. Ultimately, it is going to be all our responsibility to get this done.

Mr. Sven Spengemann :

Thank you very much, Minister. Deputy Minister Thomas, is there a way structurally and systemically within the Canadian Forces to increase levers for allyship for male serving officers and NCOs to be rewarded for the kind of behaviour that really leads to culture change in a more systematic way?

Ms. Jody Thomas (Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence) :

I'm not sure if there is a way to reward people, but I think there is a way of educating people and building allyship. I think there is a misperception that the only problem is sexual assault. Sexual assault is a criminal act. It's very serious and it has to be taken seriously, but I think for many women in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence it's the daily effort to be heard and respected that is the problem. It's the sense of entitlement of some senior people in the organization that it's their institution, not everyone's institution.

It's the difference between being integrated and being inclusive. I think there's a fundamental lack of belief in the rights of equality, equity and inclusion, and there's a misperception that if you haven't assaulted somebody, you have done nothing wrong. It starts with changing that perception and holding people to account so that there is room for every voice and people are more equal and they are treated more equitably in the department.

Mr. Sven Spengemann :

Deputy Minister, could allyship and gender equality leadership be reflected in a performance evaluation in the Canadian Forces?

Ms. Jody Thomas :

Absolutely, they could be in the Canadian Armed Forces, although that's more General Eyre's to speak to than mine. Certainly, for senior leadership in the Department of National Defence, it absolutely could be and will be.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

(1240) Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Sajjan, based on your answers from the beginning, I almost get the impression that you're the victim in this situation, meaning that you're completely powerless and that you've done everything right. It's a little hard to understand, after hearing testimony from the ombudsman, Mr. Lick; his predecessor, Mr. Walbourne; and Lieutenant-Colonel Leblanc. Every time they were asked whether it would have constituted interference if the minister had decided to identify the issue and take the necessary action, they all answered no.

So I'm trying to understand why you continue to maintain that, if you had taken action, it would have constituted interference, when all credible experts in the field say that this isn't the case.

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, the member's impression is wrong. Any time information is brought forward, action must be taken, and action was taken...immediately going and speaking to my chief of staff so that action could be taken. She immediately went to the Privy Council Office so that independent action could be taken, and it was taken the very next day. Then we also followed up. That's how seriously we took it. We followed up immediately with the appropriate independent people. What I'm trying to say here is, don't misquote when I say that a politician should not be involved with investigations. They should never be.

No politician, no minister—whether it's previous ministers or future ministers—should ever order an investigation on an individual in the Canadian Armed Forces or stop an investigation.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Minister Sajjan, the outcome was that the chief of the defence staff remained in his position, despite allegations of a sexual nature against him. Are you satisfied with the outcome of your work?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, the outcome we see now is, obviously, not one that we would have wished, but it is important regardless of what...when somebody comes forward with information that we take it seriously. In this case here, as I stated again, information was immediately taken—not held for a little bit, Madam Chair, but immediate action—so that it could go to the right people and the appropriate action could be taken. Then if you look at the testimony from others, plus the information that has been provided, it clearly also shows the follow-up that took place with the former ombudsman.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We'll go on to Mr. Garrison, please.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm still having some screen-freezing problems. I apologize. Mr. Minister, the reason I asked you about your relationship with General Vance is that we have heard, in public, testimony that Major Vance's sexual misconduct problems were well known among senior leaders in the Canadian military. Major Brennan told Mercedes Stephenson this in an interview. I believe the date was in February.

It's very important to understand why you didn't want to look at evidence when we've heard allegations—and I've certainly heard them from others privately who fear retaliation—that the misconduct allegations were multiple and were well known. So the reason, before I was cut off in time, was that I was giving you a chance to say that you knew nothing about these allegations and you had heard nothing about General Vance's previous conduct.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Yes, that is true. I did not know about General Vance's previous conduct, so not only to answer your question there.... Absolutely, the allegations that are brought forward by Major Brennan are extremely disturbing. Now an investigation has started. It is, again, very important for me and all of us to make sure that there actually is a just outcome and to allow the investigation to take its course. I was not aware of this. I'm happy to answer any more direct questions like this.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

In 2018, I still fail to understand why you wouldn't look at the evidence from the military ombudsman. There was no ongoing investigation. The military ombudsman at the time said so. The current military ombudsman said there couldn't have been an investigation going on. There was no investigation going on anywhere. Why would you not look at the evidence that the military ombudsman said substantiated the allegation?

(1245) Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'll try to make this as clear as possible. The question that's been asked has been asked in considerable hindsight. Imagine when somebody has brought information before me. My purpose immediately was to make sure whatever information the ombudsman had, I didn't want to accept, because I didn't want to possibly taint it. Immediately, based on my own experience as a detective, I know that when it comes to investigations, you have to look at when something comes forward: it can possibly go to court and the last thing you want to do is interfere with that.

In this case here, I took it so seriously, wanting to make sure that the information went to the PCO, which is in charge of Governor in Council appointments, because that is the right thing to do, so it could make the determination and follow up independently of any politicians, including myself. Then, if the course went a different way, other decisions could be made. It was to protect the integrity of the investigation, Madam Chair. There was no other reason. I can't say this any other way. That's how seriously I take things based on my former experience as a detective.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We'll move on to Mr. Bezan, please.

Mr. James Bezan :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on that, Minister, in the Royal Canadian Navy's recent investigation into the red room comment on a Zoom call, which was investigated and then dismissed, you ordered the CFNIS to do a review of that investigation. Is that political interference?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I did not order the CFNIS investigation. I do not direct the CFNIS investigation. I asked the acting chief of the defence staff to take a look into the issue. If the member wishes, the acting chief of the defence staff can elaborate further.

Mr. James Bezan :

No, that's fine. I just wanted to see how that went.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Okay.

Mr. James Bezan :

But you did ask the acting CDS to do the investigation—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No—

Mr. James Bezan :

—a review of the investigation. I get that. How did it come about that Admiral McDonald stepped aside as CDS after the allegations against him came to light? Did you ask him to step aside?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, Art McDonald voluntarily stepped aside.

Mr. James Bezan :

That's after he became aware of allegations that were being looked at against him for sexual misconduct.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

He voluntarily stepped aside.

Mr. James Bezan :

Yes. Did you ensure after the fact that the so-called review or investigation done by PCO came up with nothing? Did you ask for a review of that process and inform General Vance that there was an investigation against him so that he could make that independent decision to step aside so that the chain of command could function freely in that investigation?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, there would have to be an investigation to have started and a lot of other circumstances to occur for that to happen. In this case here, obviously the member knows exactly what took place. What I wanted to do is to make sure that the information went to the independent people so the decision could be made of where the information could go, but as the member knows from the various testimony, exactly what took place....

Mr. James Bezan :

Minister, as you know, there was no real investigation done against General Vance, so there isn't a possibility to politically interfere, but you have a responsibility under the National Defence Act to use all tools at your disposal to ensure the governance and management of the Canadian Armed Forces. That includes

section 45 of the National Defence Act, to do things like convene a board of inquiry to look at “any matter connected with the government, discipline, administration or functions of the Canadian Forces”. You had Zita Astravas, as your chief of staff, follow through on.... You said earlier today that there were multiple meetings with your chief of staff on this issue. Who, aside from Elder Marques, did she talk to in the Prime Minister's Office? When did she talk to Katie Telford?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'll address the first question and the assertions that the member made.

Mr. James Bezan :

I'd like you to address the second question first. Then we can move to the first.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Actually, no, Madam Chair, I'll do the first one. It's chronological.

Mr. James Bezan :

The first one is just a statement.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No. You can't just make a statement and leave an assertion out there.

Mr. James Bezan :

I can. It's my time and I—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I'm trying to answer your question.

Mr. James Bezan :

My question for you, sir—

The Chair :

Minister, please answer questions in the order they were given.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Thank you.

Mr. James Bezan :

It wasn't a question first. It was a statement; it was not a question.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I followed the process, that when it came to—

Mr. James Bezan :

The question is—

The Chair :

Mr. Bezan, please allow the witness to speak.

Mr. James Bezan :

Madam Chair—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, as he's talking about investigations, there was an investigation launched in 2015 that I'm aware of and that, as I think the member knows, the current leader of the Conservative Party knew about when he was a minister, and—

(1250) Mr. James Bezan :

[ Inaudible—Editor ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm trying to answer the question.

Mr. James Bezan :

Minister, which—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I'm sorry, there might be some lag here. I'm trying to answer the question. The 2015 investigation that the leader of the Conservative Party, who was a minister at that time, provided the information.... The funny thing is, we are following the exact same process, making sure the public officials take a look in the direction that it needs to go. There was an investigation. The difference here now, Madam Chair, is that no investigation was obviously started. Having said this, if an investigation had started, it might have been a different story, but there was none.

Mr. James Bezan :

At the very least, Minister—

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

That was the difference between the incident that took place—

Mr. James Bezan :

Madam Chair, the minister is just bringing up the clock now.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

I'm happy to answer the second question now, if you'd like. As I stated before, once the information was provided to my former of chief, she contacted the Privy Council Office and she made the Prime Minister's Office aware, not only of what had transpired but also the action that she was taking.

Mr. James Bezan :

When did she talk to Katie Telford, chief of staff to the Prime Minister ?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

She did not talk to Katie Telford, but as I stated for you before, she provided information to the Prime Minister's Office, to Elder, and we wanted to make sure there was no political interference. We had to allow the process to take its course.

The Chair :

I allowed this to go a little longer. We're now on to Madam Vandenbeld, please.

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Since it has come up in today's testimony, Minister, I would like to thank you for your military service to this country and for the many years that you served honourably. Thank you. I would actually like to address my questions to General Eyre. I welcome General Eyre and note that this is the first time you are appearing at this committee as the acting chief of the defence staff. I welcome you here in your new role. I would like to refer back to some of the things, General Eyre, that you said when you appeared before the status of women committee last month.

It was a very important statement that you made about Operation Honour. We all know that when we are trying to find solutions and ways to change institutional culture, we can do things with very good intentions that can sometimes have impacts that were not intended. I think you referred to the duty to report as one of those things. One of the words you used.... I've heard responses from some of the survivors that this was actually something very welcome. You indicated that Operation Honour had “culminated”. I wonder if you could elaborate a little on what you meant by that, and also on what comes next.

What do we do now to make sure we learn the lessons, but also to make sure we don't repeat any of the errors we've made in the past?

LGen Wayne D. Eyre :

Madam Chair, thank you for the question. This one could take some time in unpacking. The first thing I have to say is that we don't have all of the answers. I think having that realization up front will help shape our response here. The framework we have adopted is one of listen, learn and act: listen to our grassroots level, listen to victims, listen to outside experts, listen to internal experts, listen to academics and hear what they have to say about where we need to go. We need to learn. We need to do a stock-taking of all of the reports that have been done.

We need to do a stock-taking of Operation Honour to see what has worked and what hasn't worked. Then we need to act. In acting, we need to gather all of the various suggestions, reconcile the ideas that are out there and put them into a deliberate plan, because culture change doesn't happen overnight. That deliberate plan also has to have some very quick hits. In terms of Operation Honour and the term “culmination”, culmination is a very specific military term for an operation and means that an operation can go no further, that it has run out of resources, that it has run out of steam.

It needs to transition to something else. It's very clear that Operation Honour has to transition to a deliberate plan that will address the shortfalls that our people are identifying. As we go forward, we need to view culture change from a victim's perspective. Yes, we can talk about the advances we've made over the last 15 or 20 years, but for a victim, that may not matter. Changing our frame of reference, I think, is very important as well. You talked about the duty to report. The more I hear, the more I am convinced that we need to change the “duty to report” to a “duty to respond”.

It's important that we expect our military members to report wrongdoing when they see it, but we also have to give the victims agency. We have to give the victims a say in how their case is followed through. Changing the duty to report to the duty to respond I think is going to be a very key aspect of that. The ideas keep coming in. We need to reconcile those, but we're well on our way.

(1255) Ms. Anita Vandenbeld :

Thank you very much, General. Could you also talk a bit—and I would also like to hear from the deputy minister on this—about how we build trust within the defence team? We have seen that trust has been broken, despite all the best efforts. At this point, it's very important to rebuild trust. How do we do that? Could I have a short answer from both the deputy minister and the acting chief? Thank you.

LGen Wayne D. Eyre :

Trust takes years to build, but can be destroyed in one incident. That's one of my biggest concerns now. Trust in senior leadership is challenged at this point. To re-establish that trust and re-establish trust in the reporting system for misconduct, if that means bringing in an external independent reporting body, well, so be it, if that's what it's going to take for our people to have trust in the system. That trust in the chain of command is going to be built back up, step by step, incrementally, because there's not just one trust switch that we can click.

Ms. Jody Thomas :

Madam Chair, to follow on General Eyre's comments, I think what we need to do, as General Eyre said, is to start with some listening and not ordering. You can't order trust to be built and you can't order culture change. It doesn't come from NDHQ. It has to be built out in the bases and wings from the ground up. I think we have to show evidence of change and that we have heard what the problems are, and I think move swiftly to change the reporting structure, so that complaints can be made outside the chain of command without diminishing the value of the chain of command.

We do have to remember that it's critical when the Canadian Armed Forces are out doing things on behalf of Canadians and, for the National Defence employees who are not CAF members but support the Canadian Armed Forces every single day, include them in the plans. We need to understand and accept that civilian members are both victims of and perpetrators of this misbehaviour. Therefore, whatever we do going forward has to be inclusive of the entire defence team.

The Chair :

All right. Thank you very much. I'm going to suspend for five minutes for a health break. I don't know about the rest of you, but we've been at this for two hours. We'll suspend for five minutes, please.

(1255) (1305) The Chair :

I call this meeting back to order. We're back with round number four and we're starting off with Madam Alleslev, please.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, in 2015, the mandate letter stated that as Minister of National Defence you were to “[w]ork with senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces to establish and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination”. Is that correct?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Yes.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Does it include overseeing and ensuring necessary policy and process changes are in place to achieve that?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Yes.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Therefore, does it also include the accountability of individuals to ensure their behaviour is a reflection of those policies and leading by example?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

We have to make sure that people are held accountable regardless of rank or position, yes.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Perfect. Then, Janine Sherman, in her testimony, stated, “The defence minister is consulted in the annual performance management program in respect to GIC appointees within his portfolio.” You were made aware of the allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance in 2018. In the fall of 2018, you have said that you spoke about General Vance's performance with the Clerk of the Privy Council. We know that cabinet signed the salary increase in May of 2019, so in your judgment, you believed that the CDS was deserving of the performance increase. Is that correct?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I disagree with the assertion that the member is making, and also, Ms. Sherman stated that ministers do not set pay.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

I didn't say “pay”. I said that you commented, you influenced, you were consulted on performance that might be deserving of whatever reward would come. My question, Minister, is, did you tell the Clerk of the Privy Council in the fall of 2018 that Vance had performed in accordance with the standards and therefore was deserving of continuing in the position and whatever rewards may come?

(1310) Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, no, I did not say those words as the member is asserting here. I answer the questions that the Clerk has every single year in the late fall when they talk about the chief of the defence staff or, more importantly, it's actually the deputy minister and the chief of the security establishment.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Minister, what did you say with respect to his performance? Was it below? Was it satisfactory? Was it outstanding? Was it exceptional? Did you highlight concerns about General Vance's conduct and performance?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I can tell you that I answered the questions, but obviously for privacy reasons I cannot get into the details of that conversation.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Minister, you spoke at General Vance's change of command ceremony in January of this year, and you thanked him for providing his help in developing a path to dignity and respect through the Canadian Armed Forces and through its sexual misconduct strategy, and you praised him for building a safer environment. Is that correct?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, at any change of command parade, as the Minister of National Defence I will be speaking about any member who is involved with the change of command.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

Minister, that sounds like you were praising him for his conduct, and that you were a hundred per cent satisfied that his example was the example that the military should take in terms of his conduct in January of this year.

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, Madam Chair. That is not the assertion.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

So the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, hearing those words praising him, should not have believed that he was a role model that they should emulate, from your comments?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, as a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, she, and I believe you, Madam Chair, know that when you're at the change of command you speak about the member. That's exactly what I did, and as the Minister of National Defence it's my responsibility to talk about the outgoing and the incoming.

Ms. Leona Alleslev :

As a member of the Canadian Forces, when a minister of national defence—the highest office in the land for the Canadian Forces—speaks and praises an individual, an outgoing CDS, for his behaviour, we, certainly I, as a Canadian Forces member, would believe that I should emulate that behaviour because that is a standard to which I should rise. Are you saying I should not take your comments at a change of command parade in that light?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, when I give my talks I base them on the information that I know of an individual.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We will go on to Mr. Bagnell, please.

Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you very much. Just before I get to my main question, which will be on independence, Minister, where did you do your pre-deployment training in 2006?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

It was in Edmonton.

Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you. On this very serious systemic problem we're dealing with, which is affecting hundreds of forces members and members in the department, the experts have suggested that two main items are responsible or need to be dealt with to fix the situation. One is culture and one is independence of the process. Congratulations to a couple of committee members who have asked about culture already, and you've responded. I'm going to ask about independence, and I'll ask Dr. Preston and General Eyre, too. Minister, many in the defence community are advocating for an independent body that would report back to Parliament. What are your thoughts on this?

(1315) Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, when it comes to independent bodies, they are something that I welcome. In fact, there are a number of independent bodies that write reports on the actions not only of the military, but also of CSE. When it comes to government, it is extremely important to be accountable to Canadians, and when it comes to the independence of agencies to review various things, that is something to be welcomed, because it makes sure we are moving in the right direction.

More importantly, it's an independent look at where we might have missed something, so we can look at improving processes or putting resources where they're needed. In addition to independence when it comes to Parliament, we also need to look at the work that needs to be done inside the Canadian Armed Forces. Currently we are also looking at what type of independence needs to happen internally as well, so we can rebuild the confidence of our members.

Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you. Dr. Preston, I think there's been some suggestion there could be even increased independence of SMRC. Do you have any comments on how that could be improved?

Dr. Denise Preston :

I think about the independence of SMRC on at least a weekly basis, and I have done since I started at the centre, because it is very complicated. We have been set up structurally, in terms of my reporting relationship, consistent with what Madame Deschamps recommended, but we have not been given the entirety of the mandate that Madame Deschamps intended. Therefore, that has undermined our ability to perform some aspects of our mandate as independently as she envisioned. There is absolutely room to review our governance, whether we continue to report within the department or outside the department.

It's critical to look at mandate when you're looking at the particular structure or the form it's going to take. It may be the case that some of the functions SMRC is doing right now should reasonably be maintained within the department because of the need to work very collaboratively with people. However, it may well be that other aspects of our mandate, especially if it becomes more enhanced in the way Madame Deschamps envisioned, might better be performed by a more independent entity. That is all to say it's important that all of this be further examined.

Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you. I think that would be a great item for our final report. General Eyre, to your credit I think you referred to this already, but just give your comment on changing the systems so they're more independent.

LGen Wayne D. Eyre :

I think the important thing here is the effect to be created. Right now, the overarching effect that we need is trust and confidence from the perspective of the victims in the system. You'll note that a quarter of a century ago, in the Somalia report, an independent inspector general was one of the recommendations, and we pushed back against that. Well, I think the time for pushing back is over, and the imperative of re-establishing that trust and confidence has to take primacy here.

Hon. Larry Bagnell :

Thank you. I think my time is almost up, so I will cede the floor.

The Chair :

Yes, it is, Mr. Bagnell. Thank you very much. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Over time, we learned that, when the former ombudsman, Mr. Walbourne, approached you, Minister Sajjan, you passed the information on to the Privy Council Office. The Privy Council Office contacted the ombudsman, who refused to send the Privy Council Office any information. In the chain of command, the ombudsman's office doesn't report to the Privy Council Office, but to the Minister of National Defence. The ombudsman's office can't pass on confidential information, for example, to the Privy Council Office. In the end, there was no investigation. So we hit a dead end. Do you find it normal that, ultimately, the dead end was your office?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, Governor in Council appointments are managed by the Privy Council Office, not by ministers. In this case here, because information was provided about a Governor in Council appointment, I wanted to make sure that the information—by the way, information provided by an ombudsman, who knows the process, because that's when they get selected for the job.... I wanted to make sure that the independence remained so that....

Because I didn't know at that time who the person was, what types of allegations they were, I wanted to make sure that it was dealt with properly and independently, and that's why it was given to the Privy Council Office. So, no. As the minister, yes, I'm in charge of the Canadian Armed Forces. The chief of the defence staff does report to me when it comes to the National Defence Act. However, the appointment and management of Governor in Council appointments like the chief of the defence staff is not under the Minister of National Defence. It's under the Privy Council Office. I believe Ms.

Sherman has provided information on this already.

(1320) [ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Minister Sajjan, the bottom line is that the ombudsman's office doesn't have the authority to conduct an investigation. Lieutenant-Colonel Éric Leblanc was asked whether it would have constituted interference for you to approach the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to report an issue and request an investigation. He told us that it would not and that it would only constitute interference if you decided to get personally involved in the investigation process. In the end, there was no investigation. What was stopping you from doing this? Wouldn't this have been the correct approach?

[ English ]

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

That's a very good question. Let me clarify that. If an average person off the street provided information, it would be a different story. Here, you have the ombudsman, who actually has in the directives where the information can go, and the JAG can actually provide you with these on this: to the provost marshal, to the judge advocate general as well, and it also can go to the NIS. The JAG can clarify that if I've missed something there. In this case here, because we're talking about a GIC, handling of information here is extremely important.

I understand where everybody is trying to go in saying “if I could have done this”, but I'm telling you, I wanted to make sure that whatever the information was, it was done independently, so that down the road, if it ever came to court, there could be no—any type of—reason why a person might get off. I wanted to make sure we protected the integrity of the actual process. I was actually extra prudent in making sure this was done.

The Chair :

Thank you. We have Mr. Garrison, please.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Minister, I want to return to how you knew there was a possibility of a criminal investigation when you refused to look at the evidence. If you hadn't looked at the evidence, how could you possibly know that you were protecting the integrity of a possible criminal investigation?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, that's actually a great question. It is making sure that if anything does turn into an investigation, you need to be able to assume that something could get to a point.... I don't want to make an assumption right away that it may not. That would be prejudging whoever came forward and also the information. What I wanted to do regardless of the information is that I wanted to make sure we give power to the person so they can actually provide it to an independent agency, so in case it did get into an investigation, it could be protected. That's what you need to do to make sure....

You can't make the assumption that it may not go somewhere. I would rather be on the safe side, so that it could possibly turn into an investigation up to and including that it may actually get to court.... I wanted to make sure that entire process was going to be protected.

Mr. Randall Garrison :

Well, whether we agree or disagree on that aspect of your job, there's another aspect to being minister of defence, and that's making sure that the chief of the defence staff is a leader who upholds the highest standards and is beyond reproach. It's not a job that you automatically get promoted into. It's a job for which you're selected for your leadership capabilities. General Vance clearly stayed beyond what had been the normal number of years as your chief of the defence staff.

Did it not ever occur to you that, given the concerns about sexual misconduct in the military, a different chief of the defence staff might have been able to provide better leadership at that point than General Vance was able to do, given that you knew about allegations of sexual misconduct?

(1325) Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

First of all, the information that was provided.... Because, Madam Chair, we're speaking in hindsight of what we know, the information that was provided, what it's important to state here, as I said before, is to follow the actual process, and that's exactly what was done. In the National Defence Act, I have a responsibility to give direction to the Canadian Armed Forces through the chief of the defence staff, right? In terms of managing the actual process, the Governor in Council appointments are actually done through the Privy Council Office.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Next is Madam Gallant, please.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister: Were you ever told that Gary Walbourne refused to provide the information to PCO?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, to answer the question, I asked him a number of times if there were any updates or any further actions we needed to be taking. It was I think a number of months later that I learned that nothing further, no information, was provided and nothing, no follow-up, could be done in that case by PCO.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

When this issue was brought to your attention, did you ask the national security adviser about what actions or a possibility that there could be a problem there...?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

When allegations came forth when the CDS was first being appointed, the national security adviser was asked about the possibility of there being inappropriate communications. Did you make such an action? Did you consult the national security adviser?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan :

No, Madam Chair. As I stated, I passed on the information to the Privy Council Office for them to decide. I think in this case here the member might be confusing the two issues, because in 2015 there was an investigation that was launched under the previous government where the national security adviser was involved. In this case here, it was because you're passing it to the appropriate people at the Privy Council Office. They would then decide where exactly the information needs to go, whether they chose the option of going to the national security adviser or if they wanted to go the CFNIS or if the