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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Elder Marques  As an Individual

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Okay. So you really do not know why.

When you left the government, were you on good terms with your former colleagues?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

Listen, yes, I was very fortunate, and this is not always the case in politics, to have a longer run than I think I expected when I came in. When I joined the government, this was not, for me, meant to be a career change. I meant to come in and play a role, and I ended up playing three different roles at different times, each of which was really an honour to be able to—

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

So you were on good terms when you left your position. I am actually asking the question to find out whether you were on bad terms, or whether members of the government had anything to fear from your appearance today. I see that that is not the case.

Did any of your former colleagues or your former superiors discuss your appearance at the committee today before this meeting?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

I have not discussed my testimony with anyone in the government, anyone who was involved or anyone otherwise in the government. I've tried to recreate as best I can for you the events based on my own recollection and a very limited couple of documents that were disclosed to the committee that helped me make sure that my recollection was accurate. That's the basis of my testimony today, and I'm here to share that with you and happy to have you explore that in whatever way you'd like.

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Thank you.

You gave the information to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the most senior person in the government, because, as you said, it was very serious. However, you did not share it with the Prime Minister, whose advisor you were and with whom you were working. Is that correct?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

The reason for going to the Clerk of the Privy Council is that the Clerk of the Privy Council is responsible for the apparatus that now needs to do its best with the resources that it has to respond. At this stage, there is not anything that the Prime Minister is supposed to do in relation to this information, and I would suggest in fact it would have been problematic had the Prime Minister or other members of cabinet or other political staff tried to insert themselves at that point.

At that point, PCO is fully engaged. They have advisers who are engaged. No one was not appreciating the seriousness of the issue. I think any involvement at that stage could risk being counterproductive, even if it's in good faith and just trying to ensure things are moving along.

My reason for going to the clerk is that the clerk now had responsibility and he had work to do to make sure that everything that can be done in, frankly, quite unusual circumstances is done and that we hopefully get to a point where there is a proper investigation where we can find out what occurred. That then may lead to the involvement of others who may need to make decisions as a result of that.

We're not anywhere near that. We're not even at the beginning of the process. We're at a preliminary stage.

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

I am trying to understand the process, because you said earlier that, when you left, it was your impression that the case was still open, although it had been closed.

Did you have any responsibility in following up on the matter, or, once it was transferred to the deputy secretary to the cabinet, Janine Sherman, did you no longer have a role?

I am wondering how you were not aware that the case had been closed, and, if you had been aware, could you have done anything in that regard?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

My understanding at all times was that the file was not closed. I appreciated, as I indicated in my opening statement, that there was a question of whether the complainant was going to consent to her participation or the sharing of her information in the following steps. I understood that was the question. That is something that can change over time, and I think in such cases it's probably not unusual that it may change at different times.

My sense of that was not that it meant the file was closed. It meant that there is an opportunity if any further information becomes available to make sure that the next steps are taken appropriately, and I certainly had an expectation, or at least a hope, that information—direct information from the complainant—would help make sure that this went into whatever the right process is to then assess it. I never had any reason to believe that was not what was occurring. I don't believe Mr. Wernick said the file was closed. I think the file was kept open but with that difficulty, which I think is also a real difficulty.

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

We will move on to Mr. Garrison, please.

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I too want to thank the witness for being with us today. I know we're asking him about events of three years ago, and I do have a couple of specific questions, but I want to start by going back to the general situation that the committee finds itself in and that I think the government finds itself in. To state the obvious again, we're trying to make sure women can serve equally in the Canadian Forces, and that requires the confidence that those at the top both understand sexual misconduct and will act on allegations of sexual misconduct.

What we had in the case of General Vance was a chief of the defence staff who we now know had been investigated at the time of his employment by both the U.S. military and the Canadian military on accusations of sexual misconduct. We also know that General Vance's sexual misconduct indiscretions were thought to be widely known among the senior leadership. We've had testimony at the status of women committee saying that, and I've personally been told that a great many times. The third thing we have was an accusation of sexual misconduct brought against that serving chief of the defence staff.

It's a bit disconcerting that no one seems responsible for the government finding itself in that situation. How could this be true? It gives credence to the arguments that have been made—again, by many former members—that somehow the senior leadership was subject to different standards and not held as accountable as the ordinary members of the Canadian Forces would be.

In our system, there's always a minister responsible, so, Mr. Marques, who is the minister responsible for the failure to investigate and the failure to follow up on the accusations against General Vance?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

There's a lot to unpack in what you said, so let me try to do my best.

First of all, let me say I am not here to say that I am in any way an expert in these issues, and I don't want anything I say to be taken to be claiming that I am qualified to opine on what the next steps should be in terms of how we fix these problems.

I can say as an observer, in the way that Canadians are observers, that it is very obvious that very serious reforms, not just institutional or structural but cultural, need to take place. That's not going to be easy. That's going to take time. I think you are hearing the evidence you need to shape those recommendations, and you're hearing it from survivors. You're hearing it from experts. I think, for those reasons, the work of the committee is very important.

In terms of responsibility, taking it back to this case, I certainly was not aware of any other information that was relevant. I've shared what I was told. I was told there was a complaint. I was not told what that complaint was. I was not aware of any previous complaints. I did not at any other time learn about that and would not in the normal course of my work, frankly. That's not surprising. This is not a sort of a file that I was dealing with in the sense of dealing with issues around military leadership. However, I think those issues are real. I think the responsibility of someone who has the information, the responsibility of somebody who has learned something, is to make sure that information, to the extent they're able to share it, goes to the right place.

In this case, I think that's what we were certainly trying to do, and again, I don't want to speak for the minister or his staff, but my understanding is that, possessing limited information, the instinct there, and I think the right judgment, was to say, “Let's make sure we put this in a process.” How do you do that in the best way? How do you make sure you're doing it in the best possible way? Well, you probably want to rely on the Privy Council Office. They're better placed than anyone else, and they're not going to have some specific agenda or angle. They are there to try to solve the problem.

These are really serious problems. That's why I hope—and I'm confident, frankly—that the members get that just from listening to what we all in the public realm are listening to about the situation. That's why this study is so important. I hope you use that opportunity. There are experts and there are people who have lived experience who can hopefully help to suggest a better way forward so that these things don't happen again and so that, when they happen, there is a process that everyone feels confident in and feels able to participate in without worrying about reprisal, embarrassment or anything else.

Those are complicated issues, but they are issues that everyone is grappling with and has to grapple with. I think the committee has an opportunity here to really help shape that for the Canadian context. I hope you seize that opportunity.

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

There is still the confidence question. If you're going to make reforms, how will there be confidence in the reforms if the same people who were in charge when this was not followed up and not investigated are in charge of implementing the reforms?

Let me turn to one specific thing that I would like to ask you before I run out of time in this round. When you were told about the allegations, were you made aware that the minister had refused to look at evidence that was offered by the ombudsman? You didn't know the details, and I accept that, but were you told that the minister had been offered that evidence and refused to look at it?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

That's a good question. I didn't address that specifically in my opening statement.

I don't know what exactly I understood about the exchange, but I certainly understood that Mr. Walbourne had additional information and that the minister effectively said in some way or another—I don't want to put words in his mouth—that that information needed to go somewhere else. What I saw our role as doing in the Prime Minister's Office was now supporting that answer, so being able to say, “Okay, here is what you can tell Mr. Walbourne to make sure that the loop is closed and to make sure that this isn't left hanging.”

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

All right. Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Madam Alleslev, please.

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My first question would be, can you give us an approximate number of times that you spoke with Ms. Telford on this issue and over how long?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

I really don't want to give you a number that may be wildly inaccurate. We were engaging regularly on the issue during the time that I was involved in it.

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Fair enough, but was it around five times, 10 times? You said it's serious, it's urgent, so five, 10, 20...?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

I would have given her an update as things proceeded. That's really all I can say. I don't think the number of the interactions ultimately makes a difference. We understood the situation. We understood the importance of getting the Privy Council fully engaged in trying to figure out what the right next step was. That was our focus.

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

As a point of fairness, it was on a number of occasions.

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

Yes. Yes, it's plural.

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

All right. Thank you very much.

Was it your understanding that Zita spoke with Katie about this issue?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

This is why I was deliberately clear that I wasn't entirely sure who told me to call the minister's chief of staff. I don't know. It is possible that there was a conversation between the chief of staff and Ms. Telford, and then Ms. Telford said to me, please call Zita. It's possible that didn't happen and that I was asked to call her because she was trying to reach someone in the Prime Minister's Office to deal with this.

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Perfect. I think that's why we would need to hear from Zita herself.

When you spoke with Mr. Wernick, did he indicate that Zita had already spoken to him about this?

2:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Elder Marques

I believe that when I walked into the clerk's office that day, this was the first time he was hearing about this issue. I don't know whether that means no one in PCO at that time had heard anything. That would be, probably, my presumption, but I don't actually have a specific reason for knowing, other than I think this was news to him at that time. He very quickly, I think, tried to get some other advice. I don't know what consultations he did. By mid-morning that day we had already spoken at least twice. We were obviously both engaged on it and were trying to make sure that things were moving.

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Perfect, so who holds PCO accountable to do a good job, to do the job that needs to be done to govern, and look after Governor in Council appointments and all the things that PCO is responsible for? You gave a very good outline of what PCO's responsible for. Who holds PCO accountable for doing that job?