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.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Marques, for being here today.
I would like to circle back to something you said a little earlier. You were talking about the PCO drafting language to bring back to Mr. Walbourne. Can you give us a sense of what that drafting language was and what they were trying to accomplish there?
As an Individual
Let me maybe start with what we were trying to do, which was to ensure that, ideally on March 2, Mr. Walbourne would get, from either the minister or the minister's team, a direct follow-up as to where things had been left after his meeting with the minister. What we didn't want was a gap where he's raised this, and now there's nothing. I didn't know what that would look like, because that, frankly, depends on what the next step is. It could have been that I went to the PCO and they said, “We have a system for that; here's who runs that system. Mr. Walbourne should talk to so-and-so or he should fill out a form.” I did not know the answer to that question. That is why I engaged the Privy Council.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
There wasn't anything in there about what Mr. Walbourne was concerned about, which was the protection of this person. It was just, here are the channels to go through. He was really looking for that kind of protection. That wasn't in the language, though.
As an Individual
My understanding was that if Mr. Walbourne was speaking to Ms. Sherman, one of the primary issues they would be discussing was, indeed, how do we make sure this complainant gets the protection or the cover that she feels she needs to move forward? That's the point of connecting them. I don't think the email to Mr. Walbourne needs to say that. I think Mr. Walbourne, certainly, given his expertise and experience.... I would have thought that's what they are then talking about.
I don't want to speak for them. You've heard from those witnesses, so I want to be a little careful. The language we wanted was to be able to have Mr. Walbourne know what he is to do next, and what he is to do next is to speak to Ms. Sherman, because she is by far—I think this makes sense with my own experience—the person who is best equipped to understand what the institutions are that can play a role here and what to do.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Thank you.
Were your conversations and your communications with Katie Telford all verbal? Was there any text messaging, any email, any written documentation? Can you tell us how you communicated?
As an Individual
I expect that all of our interactions would have been verbal. I don't have any reason to believe they were otherwise. I don't have any written notes or emails or anything like that that tell me otherwise, but I can't say for sure. I expect it would have been. In the normal course, it depends what's happening on a given day, but we would be working in close proximity and would be able to have moments in a day to exchange information.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Sure.
Now, the CDS serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. Obviously, the Prime Minister needs to know everything he can to make sure that he has the right person in the position. Do you think Katie Telford informed the Prime Minister and brought him up to speed on what was going on here?
As an Individual
Again, what I can say is that I did not do that. I made sure that she had all the information I had.
At that time, our focus is really on how we make sure that this is in the right place, both in respect of Mr. Walbourne knowing where he's supposed to go and whoever is receiving the information, or dealing with Mr. Walbourne—in this case, Ms. Sherman and the Privy Council Office—also being ready and understanding, hey, this is something that is important that may be coming, so they can therefore respond appropriately in that situation.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Obviously, you don't know if Katie told the Prime Minister. I understand that. That's fine.
Do you think, knowing the seriousness of this allegation, she should have told the Prime Minister, so that he knew what was going on? In your opinion, should she have brought the Prime Minister up to speed? This is just your opinion. Should she have done that?
As an Individual
Listen, I'm not here to pass judgment on whether and when that should have happened, and if it should have happened. All I can say here is the focus that we had at that time: We don't know what this is, but let's assume it's really serious. How do we make sure we put it in the right place so that the right people can do the right thing, which is to investigate it?
That was our focus the entire time. That's what animated me that day. I think that was her focus. As I indicated before, at this time there's not a thing the Prime Minister is supposed to take action on. In fact, taking action on that, even well-meaning action, may be inappropriate at that stage of events, for sure.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Going forward, there are a couple of things we know about Mr. Vance. He had an extension, a three-year extension. This allegation had never been resolved. You knew it was significant. Should that have been thought of at the time when his extension was brought up? You said this was very serious, as soon as you heard about it, but yet it never got closed and there was never this big follow-up. But then you have these incidents starting to happen that maybe should cause it to be reviewed again—such as his extension, such as his maybe going to NATO, such as his pay raises.
Are any of those things starting to click in, where we're saying, geez, we need to figure out what happened with this allegation that was never followed up? What are your thoughts on that?
As an Individual
First, on the seriousness, again, I'm not saying we knew it was serious; I'm saying we assumed it could very well be serious. We treated it the way we would have treated it if we had known that it was very serious. I just want to make sure that is clear.
Again, you sort of said it wasn't followed up or that it should be reviewed again. As I understand it, the right people in the system are made aware that this has been raised, and they are going to do everything they can to have that come forward.
It's not that someone is holding back an investigation. It's not that someone is giving some direction that isn't letting the PCO do what it's supposed to do. They have the information. They know who has the additional information that will be necessary for something to happen, and I have confidence that when they know what to do and know who to do it with, they are going to do that.
We are very fortunate in this country to have the public servants that we do. Suggesting that at that point someone on the political side should be trying to get involved in that and change how it is being dealt with.... I can imagine that being problematic.
Liberal
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Marques, for being with us this afternoon.
I want to take you back to earlier testimony from our colleague, Mr. Garrison, who characterized the events as a failure to investigate and a failure to follow up. In your opinion, was there a failure to do so?
As an Individual
All Canadians who are watching what is happening on the file of harassment in the military are rightly shocked and concerned, and I think they share—and I certainly don't want to speak for the committee—what I expect the committee members probably also feel, which is that we are going to need really meaningful reform efforts, structurally, institutionally and culturally, to make sure things get better. Those are not overnight solutions.
Again, I would commend the committee to listen to the experts and the survivors to make sure that those recommendations are properly informed in that way. As part of that, a key question is how to make sure, when something occurs and when someone has a complaint they want to bring forward, that you have a system they are confident in, that they are not going to hesitate to participate in and that will let them ultimately have that matter be treated the right way—a way that doesn't revictimize them but is in fact supportive of them as they go through that.
I think people want that, and I think that when they see a situation where there's a complaint but for some reason that complaint is not reviewed, that is a situation no one is happy about. Part of the important work of this committee is figuring out how we make sure that doesn't happen.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Marques. Those are very important reflections, and I'm grateful for them.
Over the course of the case, for the length of time you were involved in it and within your reach as a government official, was there a failure to follow up? Did anybody not do what they appropriately should have or could have done?
As an Individual
Obviously, I can speak only to things I witnessed and people I interacted with, but as I said in my opening statement, this file was not closed, as far as I was ever informed. No one here was not taking it seriously. No one here was not doing, as far as I can see, everything in their power to do what I think we would all say is the right thing, to try to make sure that things come to light. Never was there a suggestion that we should have any other priority in mind, yet despite all that, you had the outcome that you had.
I think Canadians are rightly frustrated by that. I'm frustrated by that as well. That needs to now inform how we make sure, going forward, that it's less likely to ever happen again. That's what I hope the committee does.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Marques, the committee heard from a number of witnesses, including the former Clerk of the Privy Council himself, Mr. Wernick, that there was an impasse with respect to this particular case. Can you expand, from your perspective, on what that impasse was?
As an Individual
I don't think I have full information on this, so I want to be a little careful that I'm not speaking in place of others who may have better information. I did understand at that time that there was a question about whether the consent of the complainant to move forward was going to be there for some further process. Obviously, that is a very important consideration in any case like this. It's hard in the absence of knowing the circumstances to say anything too insightful about that, so I want to be careful.
I could understand why that would make taking the next step complicated and difficult. Ultimately, I think we all hoped that consent or partial consent to have some or all or whatever information shared could take place if that meant that there could then be some type of proceeding, some type of review, that would let people understand what happened. Unfortunately, as I understand it, that did not ultimately take place.
Liberal
Liberal
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Marques, since we began to study this topic, almost everyone that has come before the committee has told us that it wasn't their fault, or that it was not their responsibility, or that they did not know whose fault or whose responsibility it was. They have all been somewhat passing the buck.
People also said that they were not able to see evidence or obtain information. Actually, the Minister of National Defence is the only decision-maker who had the opportunity to have the information in his hand and to see the evidence, and he refused to have anything to do with it.
The result was that the proper decisions were not made and the Chief of the Defence Staff stayed in his position for another three years in spite of this unacceptable situation. Would that not be the problem?
As an Individual
What I don't know and I don't want to speculate on is the terms under which Mr. Walbourne said he was sharing that information. What I think we can agree on is that the minister certainly shouldn't then receive information and take some kind of effort to investigate it. I think what you want to do is make sure that the information that's going to start the investigation goes to the right place.
I don't think the minister is the right place, ultimately. I'm not suggesting anyone did anything wrong, but it's not the minister himself who is somehow going to conduct an investigation or review. I think we would all agree that this would be not a very good system—
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
When the Armed Forces ombudsmen appeared, the former one and the new one, they both said that it would not have been interference on the part of the Minister to become apprised of the information as presented. So did Lieutenant-Colonel LeBlanc, who is the commander of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. But the Minister said that he was not the right person to come to.
However, both ombudsmen and Lieutenant-Colonel LeBlanc also told us that the Minister could very well have asked for an investigation to be launched or have suggested taking the matter further. It was not up to him to conduct the investigation but he can ask for one to be conducted. He could have shared the information he had at hand, but he refused to consider it.
Basically, he was the one with the best chance to communicate the appropriate information, because everything became stuck afterwards.
As an Individual
I don't want to speculate or offer a view. I'm not an expert in what authorities the different players would have had, so I just don't want to speculate unduly.
What you want to ensure happens is that this information ultimately goes to the right place. As for what routes would have facilitated that and whether they would have facilitated that, I think you are hearing all the evidence, so I imagine you will be in a position to make that judgment. I don't feel I'm equipped either in terms of understanding the various authorities or, frankly, because I have heard all the evidence, because I haven't. I don't want to be speculating or making judgments—
