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.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you to Mr. Marques, what was your role in the Prime Minister's Office, that the chief of staff would have chosen you as the correct point of contact in the PMO regarding the General Vance allegations?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't have a specific explanation that I would speculate about as to why I was asked to place that call. I don't think it's—
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
What was your role in the capacity of adviser? Were you in charge of certain issues?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
The nature of the role was not defined in relation to specific departments or specific issues that would fall to me. The way the office was structured at that time, there would be a policy team where all—
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I just wanted to know why she chose you, Mr. Marques.
How many other people knew about this issue in the PMO? There was you, Ms. Telford....
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I recall speaking with Ms. Telford about this issue. I don't have any recollections of speaking with anyone else in the Prime Minister's Office at that time about the issue—
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
That's not what I asked you. I asked you who else in the PMO would have known about this issue.
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I am being very careful today to answer about what I know and not to speculate about what I don't, so what I am trying to say to you is I know that I spoke to the chief of staff. That's how my involvement in this issue originated. I would have been dealing with her and making sure she knew what I knew about what was then happening. I'm confident that happened, and I can't really speak to whether there were other conversations. I'm not here to speculate.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
We'd like you to provide the names of all the individuals in the PMO who you feel should have been, or were probably, involved in this investigation.
On April 6, Mr. Sajjan was asked who in the PMO informed the Prime Minister that there was an allegation against General Vance. His answer was, “Once we raised it with the Privy Council Office and with the Prime Minister's Office, I'm not sure who”. I'd like to know from you, being in the PMO, who informed the Prime Minister of the allegation against General Vance?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
As I indicated in my opening statement, I did not brief the Prime Minister on this issue, and I'm not aware of any briefings of the Prime Minister on this issue, so I'm not in a position to answer your question. That's really as much as I can say on that.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
This is a pretty important issue, the individual in charge of Canada's military and knowing all our security secrets having this type of allegation made against him. Did you suggest that the Prime Minister be briefed on this matter?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
At that time, as I indicated, we didn't know any details about what the allegation was. Our focus at that time was on making sure that the allegation got to the right place. The only person who I understood at that time had information about what was the allegation was Mr. Walbourne, and the proper place for that to be looked at and for consideration to be given as to what to do with it, where to put it, how it was looked at, how it was examined, was the Privy Council Office. That's the connection we wanted to make at that time, and I'm confident that was done.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Did you make any notes on this issue? Did it just kind of fly by and it was all verbal? Did you take any notes, briefings, so that if the Prime Minister asked, you'd have something to refer to?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Why would the Prime Minister have been kept in the dark about Canada's top soldier, who holds that very sensitive security clearance?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
At the time I was involved in this issue, what we had was a suggestion by Mr. Walbourne that there was a complainant who had an allegation, which we assumed could be a serious allegation. We knew nothing else, and our job was then to make sure that allegation got to the right place. The right place is not the Prime Minister's Office, ultimately.
April 19th, 2021 / 2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay, so there wasn't just an allegation, there was evidence that he had. Back when they were first looking at General Vance for the position of CDS, there was a mere rumour that there was something in his past and they consulted the national security adviser because he holds such high clearance, but there was no such step taken at all that we can find by this Prime Minister's staff.
Did you just not consider that this type of information getting in the hands of other people might put the general in a predicament and make him subject to potential blackmail?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
You can't go further up the chain than giving it to the Clerk of the Privy Council, and I did that, and I had confidence that he was taking carriage of this matter and that he and his people would do everything they could to make sure it was dealt with appropriately.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Marques. Thank you for your testimony before the committee today.
We have also heard from Janine Sherman , Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, who is in charge of senior personnel and public service renewal. She also advises the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on Governor in Council appointments. She stated that, although she did look for additional details on the matter, she was not specifically seeking details on the complainant's identity.
She also stated her understanding that the complainant wanted to remain anonymous. That is also confirmed by the documents we have received. I am referring to exchanges of emails between herself and the former ombudsman.
You have already answered this question, but I just wanted to be sure that I understand correctly.
Can you tell us whether you had a conversation with Ms. Sherman?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I just want to reiterate that I definitely spoke directly to Ms. Sherman. I believe I spoke to her on more than one occasion. There was email correspondence. I think there were phone calls. She was the point person, I understood, in the Privy Council Office to be dealing with this matter, which makes sense given her role in respect of senior personnel more generally.
I am going to leave the specifics as to what she was saying to Mr. Walbourne to those witnesses. I was not part of any of those conversations. I had no interaction with Mr. Walbourne, nor did I try to. The issue around the anonymity and how much information is needed is probably an important one in the sense that I think the challenge, in the absence of really knowing any information, is that it may not be possible to identify what the possible routes are that could lead to a resolution, and by resolution I mean an investigation of the issue.
Figuring out what route is the right route may in part depend on understanding more context about either what happened or whether there had been some other process related to it, and so I think these were all details that, frankly, I was not engaged in, quite deliberately. As I look back on those issues, that is what I think was happening there, and those are important questions, because, especially if the environment is one where survivors are not confident that the institution is well equipped to protect them and to support them through a process, that is going to be a problem.
That's why I think testimony about what happened here and who said what to whom at what time is important, and I am happy to share what I know. I'm trying to be as candid as I can be, but ultimately this committee also has to make sure that it's not just focused on that chronology and trying to say, “Ha, here is something of interest,” but is going out and listening to people who have lived experience and have been on the wrong end of what seems to be a very problematic institutional structure and institutional culture when it comes to these issues. I hope that is part of what this committee and others are looking at, because I think Canadians, in watching what is unfolding in the media, are rightly shocked and concerned and want to make sure things get better.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Do you know whether Ms. Sherman tried to follow up on this situation with the ombudsman?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Indeed, my understanding was that the issue of whether the ombudsman felt he had the consent of the complainant to share all or part—I don't know—of the information that he had was that there had been an initial conversation and that this was an ongoing process, which makes sense in the sense that I don't think it is right to think of survivors as having one moment to consent or not to do that.
I think that can be something where that answer is different at different times. That was my understanding of where that was at that time, so I want to really defer to the evidence you've heard directly from those players, but I think there was follow-up, and that was my understanding of what that follow-up was about.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal