Evidence of meeting #26 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was harassment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Yes, and that would be consistent with other testimony we've heard. In fact, everything you're saying before the committee today is consistent with the other testimony we have heard.
Would it be accurate, then, to say there wasn't enough actionable information at the time to pursue an investigation?
As an Individual
From our point of view in the Prime Minister's Office, the next step was not in our hands. I would defer ultimately to the view that was formed by those individuals in the Privy Council Office who were managing the file. My understanding is that no additional information was provided. Therefore, if you have a situation in which you understand there was a complaint but you have literally no other information—you don't have a complainant, you don't have witnesses and you don't have some other person to turn to for information, other than a person who is saying, for what may be good reasons, that they are not able to provide it—it's certainly not clear to me what the next step is supposed to be.
I don't want to speak, however, for the Privy Council. What was important from our point of view was ensuring that this was put in the right place and, frankly, that the assessments as to what next steps can happen and whether something exists now that can help in a situation like this or whether something needs to be stood up—all of those questions—were in the hands of the Privy Council.
Frankly, I had a lot of confidence that they were thinking about them the right way and taking them seriously. At no time did I feel there was a dropped ball or a lack of seriousness or a lack of commitment to dealing with what are very serious issues.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I note that Mr. Walbourne himself said the information he had was not actionable.
Mr. Marques, I'd be interested to know whether the process you used is the same one you would have followed to look into concerns brought forward about any other Governor in Council appointment.
As an Individual
I don't believe I was ever involved in another file that involved a Governor in Council appointee, but I think where you would go—your first port of call, in a situation like that—would of course be the Privy Council Office. As I indicated before, that team, especially the senior personnel team, but I think the institution more generally, are the experts on issues of tenure, of performance and of conduct in relation to Governor in Council appointees.
If this, then, were not in the military context but involved a different Governor in Council appointee and the facts were otherwise the same, and our office was being asked to assist, I think we would do the same thing. I think we would say, let's go to the experts to understand whether there is something available now that can help us deal with this or whether something can be made to deal with it. We would take those steps. I don't think it was different here because of who the particular GIC was.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Thank you very much.
We move on to Madam Alleslev, please.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wernick in his testimony said that he prepared a briefing note for the Prime Minister's Office on General Vance, including options for replacing the CDS before the next election, which was this last election.
Were you aware of the existence of this document?
As an Individual
I didn't have any involvement in any discussions or briefing notes or anything around the issue of the general's tenure. That was not something I had participated in or have any knowledge about that I'm able to share with you today.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Were you aware that those conversations were going on?
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Who would he have provided that briefing note to in the PMO? It was not you, but who would Mr. Wernick have provided that briefing note to?
As an Individual
I frankly don't know the answer to that question. There's a whole system for briefing notes. It's not an informal, ad hoc system. There's a system that brings those notes up, and they are allocated. Because I wasn't involved, I can't say.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Wernick also mentioned that General Vance's performance at-risk pay was also delayed. Would you have been made aware of that or had any knowledge, even in passing, of that conversation?
As an Individual
I don't believe I had any involvement in that issue around his pay or related issues around this particular appointment. I don't have any recollection of that, and in the ordinary course, I wouldn't expect that I would have—
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Well, that's perturbing, actually, because you were made the point man, essentially, on the allegations, and you said they were “serious” allegations that needed to be resolved urgently; yet in terms of his performance at-risk pay and his tenure or anything about his continuing in his position, you weren't in any way involved in those discussions or contacts. Is that your testimony?
As an Individual
My involvement here was to deal with a situation in which the Minister of Defence and his staff had been made aware, without any details, that there was a complaint, and to take every possible, reasonable step to make sure that that complaint got to the right place. For the reasons I've mentioned, the right place is the Privy Council. I engaged with the clerk immediately, made sure that happened, and had every confidence that the Privy Council would take every step it was able to take, so that they understood that context—
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
There would be no connection between a complaint of this serious nature and any conversation about his performance, and you wouldn't have been connecting those two dots.
As an Individual
The complaint, as I've indicated several times, is one we assumed could be very serious, and that is why we acted the way we acted. If I had known it was really serious, I wouldn't have done anything in addition to what I did. We were treating it as very serious.
Ultimately, no information was brought out about the nature of that complaint that permitted any kind of process. That wasn't our decision to make. That was a decision made by the people whose job it is to figure out what we can do, and I think that, to the extent I was involved with them, they all acted very responsibly in trying to do that.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Marques.
In your mind, then, is a chief of the defence staff the same as every other GIC appointment? There's nothing special about a chief of the defence staff in terms of being a GIC appointment.
As an Individual
I think all GIC appointments have unique features and things that are unique to them. Obviously, the chief of the defence staff is a unique feature of our military architecture for reasons that are apparent, certainly to this committee. What I'm saying is, how you deal with a complaint about personal conduct in that context when you have the information that you have in this case and don't have any other information is, I think, what was done appropriately. I—
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
I just want to say thank you very much for taking the time to be here with us today. You, of course, have been a central figure to several other issues in this government's past—
Liberal
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you very much, Mr. Marques.
I just wanted to make sure this was on the record. There was a suggestion that the allegation that people were dealing with was serious, and I'm very glad that you took it seriously, as if it could be serious, although there was no evidence as to whether it was serious.
There was another suggestion that the ball was dropped. However, given that a complaint—you didn't even know how serious it was—was immediately forwarded to the people who should investigate it, and given the fact that you needed some amount of information to investigate that wasn't yet available, the file was left open so that an investigation could occur as soon as the information became available. I'm not sure who would have dropped the ball. It just seems everything was done appropriately.
We've heard in your remarks and answers that you had limited knowledge of what the complaint was about, but you still tried to get the allegations looked into. Is that correct? We appreciate that you did that.
As an Individual
Listen, I think the committee has heard all the evidence and you will form judgments, based on what you have heard about it, as to whether there were additional steps that could have been taken or done. If you do that, I hope that's constructive and helpful.
In the absence of any additional information other than there was a complaint and the ombudsman chose to raise it with the minister, we acted on the assumption that we treat it as if it is very serious because we don't know what it is. It may be or it may not be. It may be grounded in something or it may not be, but you don't want to make that judgment. You want to act on the assumption that it is. I think that's what we did in the Prime Minister's Office.
To the extent that I was exposed to what the Privy Council Office did, they acted the way I think Canadians would expect them to act, which was to take it seriously and try to put it in the right place.
The outcome we have, though, both in this case and in everything else that Canadians can read in the newspapers, suggests to me that this committee has real work to do. I hope it is done in a way that's constructive in trying to address what to Canadians are very obviously serious issues. I don't want to pretend I have the expertise to present the answers to you. There are experts and there are survivors who have lived experience that we have to be listening to, to understand why our current systems don't work and what systems we don't have that maybe we should have.
I hope that's what you do. I'm confident you will do that. I think that's why that's important. Notwithstanding how people reacted here, there's a situation in which, ultimately, there wasn't what you would want to see in the form of an investigation.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Would you say that every independent option you had at the time was taken to ensure the allegations were looked at by the appropriate authorities, which was the Privy Council Office in this case?
As an Individual
Yes, certainly to the extent that I was made aware of what took place. People were doing their very best to have the information come out that would enable them to make sure it goes to the right place where it can be investigated, assessed and then actions can be taken in response to that.
In the absence of that information, that was a real challenge. From the point of view of a political staffer, I think we all viewed our responsibility to be to make sure no information is held by political staff or by ministers that hasn't been given directly to the Privy Council in the context of what they are dealing with. That's what we did. I think that's important. I think that is the right way to handle those situations, because you don't want something that may seem not relevant to some person to turn out to be actually relevant to some kind of proceeding. You want to make sure it is put in the right place. The right place here is the Privy Council Office.