In testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Defence yesterday, former Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick suggested that other priorities – including the purchase of new fighter jets – “caused us to lose focus” on the allegation of sexual misconduct involving Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance.

CTV reports: “[Canada’s former top bureaucrat] said at the time there were other preoccupations including the implementation of new defence policies, a renewed acquisition of fighters jets, Canada’s deployment to Mali, the Armed Forces’ leadership of the NATO training mission in Iraq, and the fact that Vance had good relations with the U.S. military at a time of turbulence in the White House.”

The Ottawa Citizen also reports: “Those included the RCMP charge laid against Vice Adm. Mark Norman for allegedly leaking information about shipbuilding, concerns about how U.S. President Donald Trump was affecting defence issues, attempts to purchase new fighter jets, and significant turnover and upheaval in the senior military leadership.

Wernick told the standing committee: “I concede in hindsight that they probably caused us to lose focus on the issue of sexual misconduct.”

An allegation against Vance came to light in March 2018. Military ombudsman Gary Walbourne raised the report with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan at that time. Wernick and Sajjan met in May and June 2018 to discuss Vance’s performance, but neither of them raised the allegation against Vance in those meetings.

This somewhat coincides with the acquisition schedule for new fighter jets.

In January 2018, the Government of Canada held an open information session with over 200 participants from more than 80 companies to provide information on how it planned to buy new fighter jets. By October 2018, a draft version of the request for proposals was released to eligible suppliers for their review and feedback.

Military police launched an investigation into the sexual misconduct allegation in February 2021 after Vance retired from the military.

Several years ago, a report by former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps on sexual harassment in the military found: “There is an underlying sexualized culture in the CAF that is hostile to women and LGTBQ members, and conducive to more serious incidents of sexual harassment and assault.”

She further noted: “There is a broadly held perception in the lower ranks that those in the chain of command either condone inappropriate sexual conduct or are willing to turn a blind eye to such incidents.”

In this 55-minute video, Peace Brigades International co-founder Daniel N. Clark talks about the beginnings of PBI and its core philosophies of making space for peace, nonviolence and non-hierarchical, consensus-based decision making.

The video is from April 1, 2001 and features Clark speaking from Walla Walla, Washington with a Lafayette College class in Pennsylvania.

At the beginning of his talk, Clark notes that he began to think about “social defence” after US President Jimmy Carter reinstated in July 1980 the requirement for all 18-25-year-old male citizens to register with the Selective Service System.

The Selective Service System is a US government agency that maintains information on those who are potentially subject to military conscription.

It was around that time when Clark was thinking about “organized, unarmed intermediaries” and a “non-violent peace brigade” that he was invited to what would be the founding meeting of Peace Brigades International in August-September 1981.

He further noted the founders decided it was time for another experiment with Gandhi’s vision of a Shanti Sena (Peace Army) articulated in 1931 as a “living wall of men and women” who would interpose themselves between conflicting parties.

Clark also notes the World Peace Brigade model from 1962 that also sought to engage in non-violent intervention in areas of crisis and conflict.

He explains: “What we are trying to do in Peace Brigades basically is to create a political space for people in their own countries who want to act. It’s our goal to create a space that is safer than it would be without an international presence for them to act nonviolently.”

With an international presence, he explains: “It lessens the ability and proclivity of the security forces to attack them, to kidnap them, because the reality of it is if we have an American, German or Spaniard there with a camera and putting themselves in the same situation, then the stakes are higher. It’s going to be known all around the world.”

Clark also highlights: “People ask isn’t this too much to ask for someone to go to a foreign country and expose themselves to attack and maybe even death, torture, all of which may not have happened, but are possibilities.”

He then notes: “It’s important to put this in perspective, we don’t think anything about asking people to join the army, navy or the air force. Why is it so different and unusual to ask someone to go out without killing anybody to uphold values?”

Clark also talks about PBI’s Emergency Response Network (that twenty years after his talk still co-exists with our growing social media presence).

And interestingly with respect to the armed opposition movements at that time, Clark notes: “It’s not our position to criticize guerilla movements, they are living their own reality… We don’t tactically advise anybody to whether they should take violent or non-violent action, it’s our role is to create space for those who want to act nonviolently.”

To watch the full video to hear more from Daniel in his own words, please click here.

#PBI40years

Composite photo by Airforce Technology.

There are crucial questions that remain unanswered about the timing of the proposed $19 billion purchase of new fighter jets.

The Government of Canada is in the process of selecting a new fighter jet for the Royal Canadian Air Force. It plans to choose either the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, or the Saab Gripen.

It has stated: “The initial evaluation of proposals is anticipated to be completed by spring 2021, at which point Canada may choose to enter into dialogue with two or more compliant bidders and request revised proposals.”

The Future fighter capability project website also notes: “Contract award: 2022”.

Troy Crosby, the assistant deputy minister of materiel at the Department of National Defence (DND), recently told the Canadian Press the purchase is on schedule.

But these questions remain unanswered:

1– Given the evaluation of the proposals was to be completed in “spring 2021”, is there a more specific date beyond the assistant deputy minister’s comment to the Canadian Press that “the evaluation being completed this year”?

2– If the deadline is “Contract award: 2022”, by what specific date will that final decision be made and the contract actually signed?

3– Given the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) does not plan to do a life-cycle cost analysis of the purchase until one aircraft is selected, when will that study begin?

4– When would the PBO table that report in the House of Commons?

5– What length of time (days, weeks, months?) will there be between the tabling of the PBO report and the signing of the contract to purchase the fighter jet?

The Government of Canada says the acquisition of the new fighter jets, associated equipment, and setup to enable entry into service will cost $15-19 billion.

But the No Fighter Jet Coalition recently released this report that estimates the actual cost of Canada purchasing 88 new fighter jets could total $76.8 billion.

When will more information become available so that there can be an informed public discussion about the costs of these fighter jets?