National Defence Committee on April 30th, 2021

[Katie Telford]

Yes, that's right.

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

In his testimony, Mr. Marques instead indicated that it was you or your assistant who would have contacted him to inform him of the situation. How can you explain the difference between your two testimonies?

[Katie Telford]

Thank you for the question.

Because I want to make sure I answer it and explain it well, I will do it in English.

It's pretty commonplace, as I said in answer to an earlier question, for a chief of staff to call in seeking advice. I don't recall whether the chief of staff and I spoke directly in the first instance or she spoke to my office and a voice mail was left and it was passed on in that manner to Mr. Marques. However, the first time I learned about the substance of what was going on was through Mr. Marques when he debriefed me on his conversation with the chief of staff to the Minister of Defence on March 2.

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

That's a bit vague. You say you think you heard rumours before, but that ultimately, the first time you really heard about it was from Mr. Marques.

I'm trying to understand. Mr. Marques says he took the initiative to go and talk to Michael Wernick, who then went to Janine Sherman. That might have some logic to it, because he could have said that he was mandated as an advisor, that he took extra steps. However, at the end of the day, the person who makes the decisions in the Prime Minister's Office is the chief of staff, so that is you.

How could Mr. Marques have made this decision without being ordered to do so by you?

[Katie Telford]

If you mean how he made the decision on whether to go to the deputy secretary to the cabinet, first of all, Mr. Marques was a very senior staffer and, as he testified, was keeping me updated and apprised of the next steps he was taking. After he informed me about what was going on, he spoke to the clerk, which the clerk has also testified to, and the clerk brought in the deputy secretary to the cabinet to get involved. This all happened within the course of hours, really. This was something we acted on immediately because we were taking it very seriously.

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

In your testimony, you also say that you were not aware of the sexual nature of the allegations. Yet we saw in the press that according to some of the emails that were leaked, the Privy Council Office knew that the allegations were sexual in nature. We also saw that the ombudsman reportedly tried again, and told the minister that the allegations were sexual in nature.

If the Privy Council Office and the ombudsman were aware and in communication with the Prime Minister's Office, how is it that the Prime Minister's Office did not know that the allegations were sexual in nature?

[Katie Telford]

I can speak to what I know, and I can also look at the testimony of the previous witnesses, as I have. I believe that the clerk, Ms. Sherman, Mr. Marques and Minister Sajjan have all spoken to the fact that they didn't know the nature of the complaint. As Elder Marques said, because we didn't know what it was about, there was a possibility that it could be a sexual allegation. That's why we were taking it so seriously at the beginning. It's also why I followed up when I had no further information after some follow-up, and why I went to the safety concern question. I got assurance that it wasn't a safety concern.

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

Thank you, but I find it a little hard to believe given that we see something else in the media. I would be surprised if the Privy Council Office didn't tell you that the allegations were sexual in nature, because that's what it says and that's what we see in the press. You'll forgive me for being skeptical.

When did you first talk to the Prime Minister about this issue? How did he react? My understanding is that you never spoke to him about the file in 2018.

Was he happy to know that you kept the information from him?

[Katie Telford]

There are a few things there, but I'd like to start with your skepticism, which I understand given recent news reports, as you said.

I think it has been hard for everyone involved to separate what information we have been given in the last number of months from the information we did not have in March 2018. That is where some of the confusion and reason for skepticism exists and where we've had to.... Everybody has had to look at exactly who knew what and when, and and I know this committee has been working hard at this. What I can assure you is that the Prime Minister, like me, learned for the first time what the complaint was and anything about the complaint when it was reported in the media in March 2021.

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

Did you discuss this issue with the Prime Minister after March 2021? How did he react when he knew that you had withheld the information from him, that you had kept the file from him?

[Katie Telford]

We have, of course, discussed the news stories that have come out in the last couple of months. We have been particularly focused on what they mean in terms of the action that needs to be taken to protect survivors. Thankfully, some of them—and I'm sure, unfortunately, there are many more—are coming out, speaking publicly and sharing their stories so that we will better know how to act so that we can support them. That is what we are staying focused on.

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

So, the Prime Minister—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'm afraid we're already at six minutes and 20 seconds, so we'll have to cut it off there.

Mr. Garrison, go ahead.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Telford, for being with us today. I must admit that I'm a bit bemused by why my colleagues in the Liberal Party turned somersaults to prevent the invitation from being issued to you.

I'm still a little perplexed about something you told us, and let me start with the issue of safety, which you rightfully raised. We know that if women are going to be able to serve equally in the Canadian Armed Forces, there has to be a sense of safety.

You said that you didn't know the nature of the complaint and didn't have any details, yet you asked if it was a question of safety and were assured that it was not. How could you know that if you knew nothing about the nature of the complaint or its detail?

[Katie Telford]

It's a fair question. I can only tell you what I know. I asked that question because I was getting no information, because it seemed that nothing further could be done and because I was very concerned and was taking this very seriously. I was then given this assurance. That's all I can speak to.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I'm going to leave that there, although it is an interesting question how someone could assure you of that. I trust you'll follow up on that.

In a statement you made just a few minutes ago in answer to a question, you said you knew that the minister had been offered an envelope. There is a tendency to refer to the allegations of misconduct against General Vance as rumours, but these were not rumours. This was a complaint that was brought to the attention of the ombudsman, for which there was evidence of both the nature of the complaint and the details of that complaint. These were offered to the minister and he refused to look at them.

You indicated that you were aware of that. When were you aware of the fact that the Minister of National Defence refused to look at the evidence of the complaint that was offered by the ombudsman?

[Katie Telford]

I would like to remind you that the only reason you or any of us know what was in the envelope is the public reporting in March 2021. In March 2018, I was aware, I believe from the original brief that I received on this, that there was an envelope. I had absolutely no idea what was in it, nor did anybody else, and this was one of the reasons we were determined to take the appropriate steps to follow up.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

However, that information was clearly offered to the Minister of National Defence, so it seems peculiar that you didn't take the shortest route to finding out by asking him to have a look at the evidence he was being offered.

Just a minute ago, you also said that, at the time, you knew it was possible that the allegation was of sexual misconduct. Given that Madame Deschamps' report existed and said that sexual misconduct was basically rampant in the Canadian military, didn't this ring an alarm bell with you? I ask because this was a complaint against the person in charge of rooting out sexual misconduct in the military. It would seem to me that you would want to make sure that this was not what the complaint was about. Quite apart from the complainant, this is about the policies and procedures of the Canadian Armed Forces for dealing with sexual misconduct.

Did you not think it would be important to figure out at that time whether or not this was a sexual misconduct complaint?

[Katie Telford]

There are a couple of things there, and I want to try to deal with at least two of the things you've touched on.

Why not the shortest route, as you suggested it? I remind you that the minister came to seek advice after this unusual circumstance, through his office. The advice given by the independent Privy Council Office, which manages human resources across Governor in Council appointments, was to redirect the ombudsperson to the Privy Council Office. Unless you are suggesting we ignore that advice.... That is the advice we were given for next steps, by the appropriate people.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

We've had no testimony saying they told him he could not look at that evidence. They suggested another path, but no one has testified here saying they advised the minister he could not look at that evidence. We have not heard that in this committee.

[Katie Telford]

Certainly, the advice to me and to Mr. Marques—to Elder—at the time was that it should be the Privy Council Office, responsible for the management of Governor in Council appointments across government, looking into these things. I don't think you would want political staff, let alone politicians, looking into...doing their own investigations.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

No one is suggesting that the minister should have investigated; what we are saying, and I'm certainly saying it very clearly, is that he did need to find out whether there was a sexual misconduct complaint against the chief of the defence staff, who was in charge of rooting out sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. This is not just, and I don't want to demean any other complaints, a run-of-the-mill complaint about sexual misconduct; this is against the person who is in charge of rooting it out in the Canadian military, which is what makes this different from all the others.

[Katie Telford]

I would remind you that we didn't know the nature of the complaint at all at the time. That is why we were trying to take the appropriate steps to follow up. We were taking it very seriously, however, right from the get-go.

I would also remind you that this is one of the reasons I did ask that safety question and get assurance on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Can I just ask one more quick question?