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.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I understand, but the members' frustration—
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Again, without going down the rabbit hole of proceduralism, which I think there's a tendency to do in this case, there are two questions. There's one about individual misconduct of a very senior military leader, and there's the second of trying to root out sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Marques, do you remember if the Prime Minister was ever briefed on the lack of progress that Operation Honour was making on the question of sexual misconduct in the military in the time that you were in the Prime Minister's Office?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I was not part of any briefing of that sort, but that doesn't mean anything. That would not ordinarily be a briefing that I would be a part of, so I can't say.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
That would be the same thing on the question of whether the chief of staff briefed the Prime Minister on the accusations and evidence with regard to General Vance. You wouldn't necessarily have known about such a briefing or taken part in that briefing.
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Not necessarily. Certainly, in a situation where I didn't possess any different or better information, I can't say. I'm just trying to tell you what I know and be as candid as possible about that, to the extent it's helpful to you. I don't want to make—
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I appreciate that. I'm not implying anything. I'm just trying to make sure we're clear, because we ended up in a situation where General Vance stayed on longer than most chiefs of staff. As the person in charge of Operation Honour, which is to root out sexual misconduct, when he had multiple accusations of sexual misconduct against him, it seems to me no wonder there's this question of confidence at the senior levels and in the ability to confront the policy problem—not the individual complaint, but the policy problem—of rooting out sexual misconduct in the military.
Would the Minister of Defence have presented a report to cabinet on this question at all in this period? Would you have any way of knowing that?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't know the answer to that question and I don't want to speculate as to how that would have been briefed in the course of the mandate.
I think the commitment to those principles and to that reform is real. I'm just not in a position where I can tell you what that looked like operationally in terms of who was briefed when and how progress was being assessed over time. I don't want to just speculate, because I don't know.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Marques, as was mentioned earlier, Michael Wernick was at committee on April 6 and talked about there being conversations between the PMO and him around March 16 or 17 to report that there was such an impasse. You testified that you thought that the file was left open.
My question is who dropped the ball here? Was it the PCO for not getting to the bottom of this? Was it the PMO for not following up, or was it Mr. Sajjan himself for not actually meeting face to face with Gary Walbourne, who was the ombudsman at the time, to get the details of the allegations?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I want to focus a little on my evidence because I want to be careful in comparing and contrasting. At all times, I understood the file to be open. I thought Mr. Wernick's evidence to this committee was actually that, as well—that the file remained open in the hopes that either consent would be forthcoming and there would be information from the complainant, or that other information could come forward that might permit some type of review or investigation, even in the absence of information from the complainant.
That was my understanding.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Marques, what was the standard process for reporting sexual misconduct in the PMO, for PMO staff or—General Vance is always referred to as a GIC appointee—for Governor in Council appointees? Was there a standard operating procedure that you had to live by within the Prime Minister's Office and the PCO?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I would expect that.... I was not involved in any other cases.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
As a staffer yourself, you must have known that there was some sort of code of conduct as it relates to sexual misconduct and reporting, and how those are investigated. Would that code you had in the Prime Minister's Office not also apply to someone like General Vance, as a GIC appointee?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
In a situation in which the person in question is a Governor in Council appointee, I have no doubt that the right place for that to go is the Privy Council Office and, almost certainly, senior personnel at the Privy Council Office.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Do you think that would be the same process that you would have at the PMO? Would you be able to do a comparison?
I'm just saying that because I think within the Prime Minister's Office, about that same time, just before these allegations came to light with General Vance, there were reports about Claude-Éric Gagné. I wonder how you dealt with that, and wouldn't there be extra concern within the Prime Minister's Office on making sure we stamp out sexual misconduct within the public service and among GIC appointees?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm here to talk about the issue that's in front of the committee, which relates to a Governor in Council appointee, so I'm going to limit my comments to that. I think that's appropriate.
There is no doubt that where you have a Governor in Council appointee, it certainly doesn't live on the political staff side to say, “Let's go round up an investigation and look into this.” What you would want is people who are serious and responsible, taking any information they have and making sure it's put in the right place. The right place here is the Privy Council, because if it's not the right place, they'll know where to go. That's essentially how our system works. That's why that was done here. It was done within hours, literally, and I would hope that would be done in all such cases.
I didn't deal with any other cases that—
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I appreciate that.
If you look back at the testimony of Mr. Wernick, he actually said he regrets that he never got to the bottom of this three years ago, knowing how things have impacted the Canadian Armed Forces, especially women in uniform today. He said he wished Minister Sajjan had actually taken the evidence. He was very contrite in his statement.
Would you share that feeling, that Minister Sajjan should have taken that evidence and that you guys should have got to the bottom of this three years ago when you had the chance?
You were one of the key players in this, along with Mr. Wernick, along with Zita Astravas, along with Katie Telford and along with Minister Sajjan.
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I share the frustration of survivors and of the public with the scope of the problem in the Canadian Armed Forces, which it seems we learn more about every day. What I reflect in thinking about that is that it is very important that this committee take its responsibility seriously to now present in the best way possible, in a way that is informed by experts, by survivors and by international experience, and provide us with at least some guideposts for the way forward.
There is a consensus here that is not a partisan issue about how we have to tackle these issues better, both institutionally and culturally. That is not going to be easy. That's some heavy lifting, and I think the committee is uniquely placed to offer some of that.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair; and thank you, Mr. Marques, for accepting our invitation to be here today.
I want to start with a couple of things that were said here today, and get some clarification.
Ms. Gallant offhandedly mentioned for you to provide the names of those in the PMO who were probably involved in the investigation. Are you personally aware of anyone who would have known about this, other than the ones you have told us about today?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
No. I tried to be clear in my answers on that point. I'm not in opposition to providing you with names. I'm here now. You can ask me. I don't have any other names. If there are other people involved, they are not people I'm aware of.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that.
I also heard Mr. Garrison suggest today that Mr. Walbourne may have provided anonymized information to Ms. Sherman. I don't believe Ms. Sherman said that in her testimony.
Is it your understanding from your conversations with Ms. Sherman that Mr. Walbourne provided anything at all, even in terms of the nature of the allegation?
2:55 p.m.
As an Individual
My understanding was that there was a hope that some information—even if incomplete, even if anonymized, even if purely contextual—would be provided that would then maybe be enough to enable some further step to be taken. To the best of my knowledge, that information was not provided, and I don't believe anonymized information was provided.
Again, I wasn't involved in that directly, so I would certainly defer to other evidence that the committee may have heard on that point, but my understanding was that the information was never provided.
