Front Burner - Trudeau's chief adviser grilled over sexual misconduct in the military

Episode Date: May 11, 2021

The prime minister’s most senior adviser has been called to task about who knew what when regarding allegations of sexual misconduct against the former head of the Canadian Forces. CBC senior defence writer Murray Brewster shares his analysis.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem, brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hey everybody, Jamie here. So if you've been listening to our show over the last few months, you know we've been doing a lot of coverage on the sexual misconduct crisis in the military. We've talked to women, survivors of sexual assaults, to politicians, to our colleagues who report on this. On Friday, the prime minister's most senior advisor appeared before a parliamentary committee, and they wanted to know who knew what about a 2018 allegation of sexual misconduct

against the former Chief of Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance. There are a lot of moving parts to this story, and one way that I've seen it laid out that's really helped me think about it is to think of two separate but very related scandals. The first is the issue being probed by that committee that I just mentioned. And there are still very real questions here about whether the buck was passed and whether or not the prime minister was intentionally kept in the dark. The second scandal is about sexual misconduct in the military more broadly and years of neglect of this issue.

And there are very real questions here about why the government thinks yet another report will fix the endemic problem. Today, CBC senior defense writer Murray Brewster is here to cover the latest. Hi, Murray. It's so great to have you back. Thank you so much for being here. Hi, Jamie. Always happy to talk. Okay. So let's focus on that first scandal, the one about allegations made against the head of the military. And let's start with the Friday testimony of Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. Before we get into her testimony, though, I just want to lay some groundwork here. And Murray, could you just remind our listeners, what kind of relationship does Justin Trudeau

have with Katie Telford? Well, Katie Telford is his most senior advisor and one of his longtime political allies. But more than that, as his Chief of Staff, she runs his office, But more than that, as his chief of staff, she runs his office. But she also has a remarkable simpatico relationship with Trudeau when it comes to matters of social justice. And she and the prime minister think a lot alike. And a lot of this government's feminist agenda, she has been the architect of one of the important behind-the-scenes movers and shakers. And that was one of the reasons why the opposition parties wanted to get her before the House of Commons committee, particularly when it comes to this matter of sexual misconduct and the allegation that was made against former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance.

the allegation that was made against former Chief of the Defense Staff, General Jonathan Vance. Right. Okay. And Murray, one question for you. I thought the Liberals, with the help of the bloc, had shut down this committee that was looking into what was or wasn't done with this complaint against General Jonathan Vance. We did this whole episode about this the other week. So tell me, why were we suddenly hearing from Katie Telford on Friday? Well, what the vote did was essentially set a timeline to stop the committee hearings and for the committee to begin to write its report before Parliament's summer recess. Right. Very controversial. We talked about this. Yeah. Yeah. But then we were getting more kind of from both the conservatives and the NDP, what I was calling Yabbit moments, which is, yeah, but we haven't heard from this particular person.

And we should talk to members of the prime minister's staff about what they knew. And so they were gently and sometimes not so gently pushing for more witnesses and more information. Mr. Speaker, the self-proclaimed feminist liberal government wants to bury the truth rather than stand up for the brave women who service in uniform. When will the defense minister take responsibility for his inaction and stop his minions on committee from obstructing the truth? And the closer it got to the prime minister's office, the more the liberal MPs dug in their heels. There were like two Friday night filibusters for the committee where they just kept talking. So it's all part of the parliamentary machinations that go on when these kinds of highly politicized issues come up.

Right, right. Lots of pressure for her to appear. I know there was also a motion from the conservative opposition for her dismissal too. So she made a decision to either keep this from him or his description of his involvement isn't truthful. Either one of those options is troubling. Which didn't pass, but sort of added to this pressure. And then she essentially, is it fair for me to say, she decided that she would testify. Well, I think that it was in the interest of the government for her to testify. We have to remember that the Liberal government's brand is also, we are accountable to Parliament. We are going to tell the people everything that

we possibly can and openness and transparency and all these sorts of things. For her not to appear, it would have been an important black eye for the Liberal brand. So I think that eventually she was going to have to appear one way or another. Your Chief of Staff is set to testify. Is it conceivable that she knew something you did not, especially when it comes to extremely serious allegations? Katie Telford has been leading on these issues for many years now. I will let Katie speak for herself, but I know this was important for her to be able to share her perspective on these issues.

And so let's make our way to her actual testimony, but just a little more groundwork. So pre-Telford's testimony, we know that there was a complaint against General Vance from 2018 and that it was flagged by Canada's former military ombudsman, Gary Walburn. Walburn has testified at this committee previously that he told Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan of a possible sexual misconduct allegation against Vance. I reached into my pocket to show him the evidence I was holding and he pushed back from the table, said no, and I don't think we exchanged another word. I did offer to shake his hand at the end of the meeting and said, please do get back to me with some advice to tell me what I should do

with this. The minister, as we know now, refused to look at it, and he passed it on to the prime minister's office via his chief of staff. The prime minister's office then handed it to another office, the Privy Council's office, and then it basically died, right? It didn't go anywhere. Is that a fair summary? That's a fair summary. I mean, part of the reason it didn't go anywhere was because the complainant in the case, and this was an informal allegation against General Vance related to an email that he allegedly sent in 2012, the complainant didn't want to come forward. And attempts by the Privy Council to convince Mr. Walborn to hand over either the email or the contact information of the complainant failed. And it was the considered opinion of those on the ground at the time that they couldn't do anymore.

Now, that has been challenged throughout the parliamentary hearings about what they could possibly have done. Several different routes were suggested. I think there were a multitude of options available. Discussion, the minister could have met with the victim. That may have been a possibility. The victim may have filed a formal complaint. He, I'm sure, had more options than I had.

The victim may have filed a formal complaint. He, I'm sure, had more options than I had. But in the end, that's pretty much why a full-up investigation into this informal complaint didn't take place. So let's talk in a minute about what many people say they could have done that they didn't. But first, what were the biggest questions that the committee had for Telford going into Friday? Well, the committee wanted to know whether she had briefed the prime minister. And if she hadn't, why hadn't she? Who made the decision not to inform the prime minister? And if she hadn't, why hadn't she? Who made the decision not to inform the prime minister? Who decided not to tell the prime minister? I actually didn't learn about the, I knew nothing

about the complaint. We didn't even have a rumor to go on in this situation. We knew that there was a complaint, period. I mean, they wanted to know what she knew there was, and there continues to be some confusion about precisely the information that was put into a personal misconduct complaint involving Vance, but he'd only assumed that it was sexual in nature. The important, sensitive and unusual nature of this matter was immediately obvious to me, even in the absence of any details regarding the allegation. And the prime minister has said that, you know, his staff didn't know it was a Me Too complaint. In 2018, my office was aware of the minister's direction to the ombudsman. But my office and I learned of the details of the allegation through news reporting over the past months.

Which is something that the opposition parties find incredulous. Right. You know, I know that that is one of the things that Katie Telford echoed on Friday, that she also did not know that this complaint was sexual in nature. I've had a hard time kind of wrapping my head around this as well, because Gary Wahlberg did testify that he told the Minister of Defense that this was a sexual misconduct allegation. So I'm not sure why it didn't make its way to the PMOs. Also, Global News is reporting emails that they got through access to information requests that show that the allegation was being classified as a sexual harassment allegation as well. So there were people in senior levels in government that were calling this a sexual harassment allegation as well. So there were people in senior levels in government

that were calling this a sexual harassment allegation, right? That's right. And it was the PCO or the Privy Council office, which had been charged with reviewing the informal allegation that had written down that it was a matter of sexual harassment. But it is very difficult for this particular government to admit right at the top that it knew of a sexual harassment complaint against the most senior military leader and that senior military leader continued to serve. Right, for three years.

For three years. So if we are to believe what Katie Telford testified and what Elder Marquez has testified, then there's only two things. The first is that they didn't inform the prime minister, which would be, in the opposition's view, dereliction of duty. But if they didn't, then it was perhaps for plausible deniability. So either way, it doesn't look good. I know there's a lot of people that are still finding this rather difficult to believe that the PM just didn't know. Right. And so just to recap, this is what Katie Telford testified to on Friday,

that she didn't know that it was a, you know, quote, unquote, Me Too complaint, that it was a sexual misconduct complaint, and that she did not tell the prime minister about this. Did you say anything else? Did you say why she didn't tell the prime minister about this? Or who made the decision to not tell the prime minister about this? Any other moments from her testimony that stand out to you? A couple of moments. The first was that in not telling the prime minister, many of the senior liberals seem to be hanging their hat on, well, we didn't have enough information. And there wasn't enough information that was generated from the Privy Council office review. I would just remind us of what we knew, which was we didn't know anything about the

allegation at the time. You knew there was an allegation, Madam Chair. Point of order. Point of order, Madam Chair. Point of order. Well, they would have had more information had the defense minister actually looked at the evidence that the ombudsman had offered him. So that's number one. And number two, there were other avenues that they could have pursued. There were other investigative avenues from the Privy Council office ordering some kind of workplace safety audit,

the way they did with the Governor General, to handing the matter over to the military police to investigate, to see whether or not there was some kind of code of service discipline violation. to see whether or not there was some kind of code of service discipline violation. They could have also just gone to General Vance and said, what's going on? Yeah. We're hearing this. But none of this happened. And the fact that it wasn't necessarily addressed entirely in Katie Telford's testimony was something that stood out to me.

The other thing that stood out to me was that upon reflection, she was saying that she should have asked some deeper questions. I have wondered if I should have further questioned the general when he told me about his commitment to Me Too. That's fair, but I don't know how it gets the government out of its current circumstance of what did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And so, you know, I think you're hitting on what I keep coming back to you with this issue is that, you know, every time we learn something new, you just see why people might think here that everyone has passed the buck, that this just got caught up in this.

And also that this just got caught up in this Byzantine HR process, which is obviously a huge problem for the woman at the center of the allegation. center of the allegation and also a huge problem because you know not only is this a government that takes or says that they take issues affecting women very seriously but this is also the head of the military right murray yeah no it is i mean and there there are some very very important points that seem to have been missed not in the debate, but missed by the government. The first one is that an allegation of sexual misconduct, however vague, against the most senior military commander in the country is a national security issue. I wrote about this a few weeks ago, i have to i have to come back and emphasize the point that general vance had not only canada's top secrets top military secrets but he was nato cleared so he was aware of our allies secrets as well and the idea that there is some kind of allegation puts him in an

extraordinarily compromising position. The fact that it wasn't followed up just for that matter is jaw-dropping from my perspective. And I have kept asking the government repeatedly about why the National Security Advisor, at the time, Daniel Jean, was not involved in this review and was not made a prize. Now, Danielle Jean testified and the same line comes up. Well, we didn't have enough information. I would suggest that in other countries, even the slimmest of details in a matter like this is taken very seriously in the United States, in the UK, and there are mechanisms through which it could have been investigated.

I'll see you next time. Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. their own household income. That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. And, you know, speaking of the fact that this is a really high-ranking official, the head of the military, And, you know, speaking of the fact that this is a really high-ranking official, the head of the military, and that any allegation against him is a national security issue. As we've mentioned, Vance spent three more years in charge of the military after the 2018 allegation against him. And we recently heard some testimony unrelated to that complaint from another woman named Major Kelly Brennan, who said that she had a longstanding relationship with Vance. And what else has she said? And why do you think that

it's pertinent here? Well, Major Brennan has spoken publicly twice. She did an interview with Global News. He was giving me what to say. And I kept on asking him, don't you understand you're asking me to lie? But more recently, she spoke before a parliamentary committee where she went into much more detail about her relationship with General Vance and also to some of the allegations that she made with Global about how when the story first erupted,

she claims that General Vance tried to intimidate her into silence. That was a prominent feature of her committee testimony. I didn't have the ability to say no. They were orders. He would speak until I agreed at length. But she also talked about how and claimed that two of her eight children were fathered by General Vance. He's not responsible to pay or to have those children under his responsibility. It's all up to me. That was the most sensational aspect of her testimony. And she was able to lay out her case under parliamentary

impunity because anyone who testifies before parliament has a certain immunity granted to them and it could have significant implications for the military police investigation that is ongoing against uh against general vance but how much of what she has said will be borne out remains to be seen. Right. And Vance has denied these allegations. When asked if he was the father of one specific child by name, Vance said, to Global News, I am not. And apparently when asked whether he was the father of another specific child by name, he said he didn't even know who these people are. And since we're talking about military investigations here,

I think I'll also just mention that in addition to Vance now, also currently under investigation by the military police for sexual misconduct, is the guy who replaced him, Admiral Art McDonald, and Vice Admiral Hayden Edmondson, who was the head of personnel, which I think Murray brings us to this second scandal, which is the endemic issue of sexual misconduct in the military more generally.

And General Vance was in charge of stamping this out with this program called Operation Honour. And thanks to information tabled in Parliament recently, we've now got some new numbers on the breadth of this problem during Operation Honour. And what are these numbers and can you put them into context for me? And can you put them into context for me? Well, there were, according to figures that were collected under the statistics gathering methods of Operation Honour, there were 581 sexual assault reports that were made between 2016 and 2021. Now, at the beginning of the statistic collection effort, officials were getting a lot of what they call historic cases and claims. But even still, that's an extraordinary number when you look at

the number of people who are in the forces, reg forces. You're looking anywhere between 60,000 to 65,000 people who are part of uniform part of the the reg force so that to have 581 claims of sexual assault is extraordinary but there were also a further uh over 200 complaints of sexual harassment and since operation honor is now going to be discontinued i think the way i wrote it in my story was that you know these statistics will mark the epitaph of the operation because those numbers tell a complete story by themselves. Right. And in addition to these numbers, the stories that come from the women are incredibly harrowing

and incredibly heartbreaking. You and I have talked about them on this show before, and we're hearing even more of those stories now too. And I just want to play for our listeners and then get your reaction. The story of one Air Force technician named Emily Tulek. And here's what she shared with Parliament recently. I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in July of 2018. And since then, I feel like I've experienced a lifetime worth of sexual assault and misconduct. I am here today to tell you that I was raped only one month into my basic training in Saint-Jean. One month.

I was also sexually assaulted during my training in Borden, and I have been groped and kissed unwillingly at group parties and mess events, and these degrading behaviors are more common than you think. On top of all that, I have put up with misogynistic and sexist comments all throughout my career, from you only got in because you're a girl to an instructor looking me dead in the eyes in Borden and saying, if you've had daddy fix everything for you in your cozy little life, let us know so we can give you a hand. And while I believe in the importance of the military and i hope to

continue my career and service my country to the best of my abilities my experience with our military justice system however has been quite negative her testimony was the watershed moment for at least me from a personal perspective in in covering this because she reminded me a lot of my own daughter and it was heartbreaking to hear what she had to say because you could tell that she was so full of enthusiasm and optimism and just the kind of qualities that we all expect and need in the Canadian military. And then to just witness how her experience has changed her was heartbreaking. And I think that, if anything, her testimony has opened a lot of eyes about Operation Honor, testimony has opened a lot of eyes about Operation Honor because she is only a recent member of the military and her experiences took place while Operation Honor was going on.

Right. It's a devastating critique of what continues to take place in the military. All right. So, you know, we've talked about how this government handled the allegations against Vance and their explanation that they feel like they did everything that they could here, even though that's been widely criticized. Now I want to talk about what they say they're going to do on this issue of addressing sexual harassment and misconduct in the military more broadly. And so they're appointing former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour to examine this. So this is another independent external review. There was one done and finished in 2015 on this issue, that is supposed to chart a path forward for an independent system that people could report misconduct to. So Murray, what has been the reaction to how the government has responded, particularly from the victims of military sexual misconduct, the women that we've just, we've been speaking about here. Among the survivors that have spoken to me and also to our colleague, Ashley Burke, who's done

some extraordinary work on this as well, there is an impatience. They would just like to see the government get on with implementing some of the key recommendations of the Deschamps report from 2015. And they don't understand why they haven't been implemented to this point. And they are also, at the same time, very hopeful because the conversation now today, as opposed to 2015, is much broader. We have had more women and men come forward about sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. And there is a wider public discourse. And I think that there's a hopefulness among the people that I've talked to that finally something is actually going to change for the better. Okay. Well, we'll have to watch and wait and see. Murray,

thank you so much for this as always. You're welcome, Jamie. All right, so some other federal news before I say goodbye today. Remember last week we did an episode on the controversy over Bill C-10? It's the Liberals' much-criticized bill designed to update Canadian regulations on online streaming services like Netflix. It's also the bill that triggered a freedom of speech debate over user-generated content on platforms like YouTube or TikTok. Well, after saying that the bill would not regulate what individuals post online, the Heritage Minister, Stephen Gilboa, went on TV and said that your

posts could be regulated if you had a large enough following. And then he changed course once again and said no, in fact, your posts would not be regulated. And then on Monday, news broke that Bill C-10 was being put on hold until the government gets an assessment about whether or not these potential restrictions violate people's rights to freedom of expression. We will definitely be keeping an eye on how this story develops. But that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner. See you tomorrow.