National Defence committee  Thank you for that clarification. We do the follow-up because we take concerns being raised seriously. We always do. I think by virtue of the fact that we sought to speak to the ombudsman, to better understand whether there was information outside of confidential information th

National Defence committee  The ombudsman went to the minister, as I think has been described. I was asked by the Clerk of the Privy Council to follow up on that conversation. I did not have specific information. That is why I sought to meet with the ombudsman to follow up on that and to try to understan

National Defence committee  I would not make any pronouncement, I think, based on my conversations with the former ombudsman as to how well-founded the complaint may be. The point to be taken from my conversation with Mr. Walbourne on March 16 was that he did not provide information that would have enabled

National Defence committee  I would say that is not correct. My [Technical difficulty—Editor], which is with Mr. Walbourne, made it clear that I was not seeking confidential information. I was not trying to determine anyone's identity. It was to see if we could have information about the nature of the compl

National Defence committee  In response to that question I think the indications from the email exchanges and what I've said about our conclusion from that discussion were that there was no information provided that would have enabled further action to be taken.

National Defence committee  That is correct. There was no information provided that would have enabled us to take further action. I think the other element to be conscious of was the confidentiality of the information that the ombudsman held. He indicated certainly in the email exchanges that that was of pa

National Defence committee  As I have mentioned, my responsibilities were with respect to the Privy Council Office. I did return to the Clerk with the outcome of my conversation with Mr. Walbourne.

National Defence committee  Thank you, Madam Chair. As I have mentioned, the outcome of my conversation with the former ombudsman was that we did not have information on which to take further action. I cannot therefore make any comment about whether I did not have information about the nature of the compl

National Defence committee  You've seen the emails. The important thing to note is that in my exchange the former ombudsman was clear that the information he held was being held in confidence. He had presented options to the complainant, and he was waiting for their direction. Based on whatever they determi

National Defence committee  Those redactions are done on the basis of the statutory requirements in the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, so public servants' names are not redacted. For non-public servants, that does constitute personal information and that is the reason it is redacted. In the

National Defence committee  As a matter of course, Madam Chair, in my responsibilities, I would not make a decision alone in that respect. I did meet with Mr. Walbourne myself. After that discussion, I would have briefed up to the people who had been involved in the discussion to pursue and try to get more

National Defence committee  I have shared information to say it was within the Prime Minister's Office.

National Defence committee  I would be happy to provide some background in terms of the processes we use. First of all, I think the process is always dependent upon the nature of the complaint. Our role in the Privy Council Office is to provide advice to decision-makers throughout a complaint process that

National Defence committee  I'm not sure you have seen the emails between the people who were involved and me. They have been released through access to information, and that information has been redacted as personal information.

National Defence committee  Are you referring to the email exchange on March 2?