Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 61
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Ms. Telford. I can imagine, knowing you, how concerning this would have been for you. I know that your own feelings were not obviously top of mind, and that despite not knowing the nature of the allegation, you still would have had the individual who made it front and centre in your considerations. I know that those also would have been shared by your staff.
Not knowing who the person was or how you could directly reach out and help would have been quite difficult for you. Is that a fair comment?
Katie Telford
View Katie Telford Profile
Katie Telford
2021-05-07 14:41
Well, even more than that, Madam Chair, knowing nothing is.... I have been in situations when I have received anonymous complaints, as the previous government did. They received an anonymous complaint. They had a rumour. They had things they could follow up on and figure out how to wrap their minds around. In this case, we didn't have any information other than that all the appropriate steps were taken to try to follow up, to try to do our best to see if there was anything more we could do to support the person involved, to support whatever outcome they were looking for, depending on what the complaint was.
I think all of those steps were taken, but that was the best we could do with what we had, which was very, very little at the time.
Elder Marques
View Elder Marques Profile
Elder Marques
2021-04-23 13:11
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to begin by thanking you and the committee for the invitation to appear before you today. I'm happy to help support the committee's study into these issues, because they are of the utmost importance, not only to the Canadian Armed Forces but, frankly, to all Canadians.
My hope is that the committee will use this study in a non-partisan way to identify and recommend the changes needed to improve both the structure and the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. Canadians deserve to be confident that all of our institutions are well equipped to identify and root out all forms of harassment, and that includes ensuring that the survivors of harassment are supported and protected and that there are no systemic barriers to their ability to access justice.
I will try to be as helpful as I can be to the committee today, but I should note at the outset that I am almost exclusively relying on my independent recollection of events that occurred more than three years ago.
As the committee is aware, I am no longer a public office-holder. I left the Prime Minister's Office in December, 2019, and I left the government last year.
I am here today voluntarily. To be clear, I never refused to be here and have only been co-operative in my dealings with the clerk of the committee.
With that said, I'm pleased to share the recollection that I have of these events and to take your questions today.
Either late on March 1 or early on March 2, 2018, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister or her assistant asked me to get back to the chief of staff to the Minister of National Defence on an issue relating to the CDS. At that time, I was senior adviser to the Prime Minister, working in the Prime Minister's Office.
I spoke with the chief of staff to the Minister of National Defence that same day. She advised me that the ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, who was then Gary Walbourne, had initiated an unscheduled discussion alone with her minister. In that meeting, she told me, Mr. Walbourne had raised an allegation of personal misconduct against the CDS, and there were no other details provided.
The important, sensitive and unusual nature of this matter was immediately obvious to me, even in the absence of any details regarding the allegation. I immediately brought this issue directly to the Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet, who was then Michael Wernick. I advised the chief of staff to the Prime Minister that I was taking this step, and I then kept her apprised as matters developed.
I met with Mr. Wernick at least twice that morning. He advised me, I believe after having sought legal advice, that the matter would be dealt with by Janine Sherman, deputy secretary to the cabinet, who was responsible for senior personnel.
My discussions with Ms. Sherman were about the PCO's taking carriage of the matter, including providing assistance and advice to Mr. Walbourne and taking steps to move any investigation forward in an appropriate manner. I wanted to ensure that Mr. Walbourne received this advice in writing so as to limit any risk of a misunderstanding or a miscommunication, and I also wanted to ensure that he received that advice promptly.
At no point did I offer any opinions on the nature of what the appropriate procedural next steps were, as it was not my place to do so.
My understanding is that the Privy Council Office engaged quickly with the public service lawyers to determine the best way forward. They provided me with draft language that the Minister of National Defence or his team could use to send to Mr. Walbourne. That draft language suggested that Mr. Walbourne should speak directly with the Privy Council Office, noting that the matter concerned a Governor in Council appointment.
As of that point, the Privy Council Office had the matter in its hands, and my involvement effectively ended. While I was hopeful that this potentially serious issue could be investigated effectively, I did not have a further role in that process, nor do I believe it would have been appropriate for me to have one. At no time, for example, did I ever attempt to contact or speak with Mr. Walbourne.
Later on, though I cannot recall the date, I was made aware that the Privy Council Office had, in fact, spoken with Mr. Walbourne, but that he had indicated the Canadian Armed Forces member in question did not want her information shared. I understood at that time that Mr. Walbourne was going to continue to seek that consent so that the matter could be investigated, but it was not clear whether or not he would obtain it.
At no point did anyone advise me that the file was in some way closed.
My understanding was that the PCO would leave the file open in case there was further information that would allow an investigation to proceed. Essentially, my involvement in this matter was limited to promptly bringing the issue to the PCO, sharing the entirety of the limited information I had, and asking PCO to take whatever steps it could to ensure that matters were investigated and that Mr. Walbourne was provided with advice.
It was apparent to me at that time—and absolutely remains so in hindsight—that an allegation of this sort about a Governor in Council appointee should not be investigated in some kind of ad hoc way by members of cabinet, including the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister, or by political staff members. The best way in those circumstances is to ask the non-partisan public service, with its institutional and legal resources, to identify the path forward and work with whoever possessed the information—in this case, Mr. Walbourne—to permit the allegation to be investigated. That is what took place here.
The Privy Council is uniquely placed in the machinery of government. The Clerk of the Privy Council is also head of the public service. PCO has expertise in all issues dealing with the appointment, tenure, and performance of Governor in Council appointees. The Privy Council also has immediate access to the best legal advice on matters of public administration and public policy, and in my experience of nearly five years in the Government of Canada, the leadership of the Privy Council Office works in ways that are responsible, professional and non-partisan.
I had every confidence that the Privy Council Office would take the steps that it could to have matters investigated, and if gaps needed to be filled, that it would propose new procedures to fill those gaps. In this specific case, at no point did anyone in the public service or among political staff ever suggest anything other than ensuring that the matters in issue were investigated appropriately, and I believe everyone acted in good faith trying to ensure that happened.
Indeed, my recollection is that despite a lack of detail surrounding the nature of the allegation, everyone appreciated the potential gravity of the issue. Once I informed the PCO of an allegation and I received their confirmation that they would be taking further steps, I had no further involvement in this matter. In my view, the proper entities were managing the issue and would follow appropriate procedures. That could include briefing staff and the PMO, or the Prime Minister himself, but at an appropriate time. I have no recollection of personally briefing the Prime Minister on these issues, nor was I ever made aware of any such briefing.
I would now be pleased to take questions that the committee may have for me.
View Bob Benzen Profile
CPC (AB)
There wasn't anything in there about what Mr. Walbourne was concerned about, which was the protection of this person. It was just, here are the channels to go through. He was really looking for that kind of protection. That wasn't in the language, though.
Elder Marques
View Elder Marques Profile
Elder Marques
2021-04-23 14:18
My understanding was that if Mr. Walbourne was speaking to Ms. Sherman, one of the primary issues they would be discussing was, indeed, how do we make sure this complainant gets the protection or the cover that she feels she needs to move forward? That's the point of connecting them. I don't think the email to Mr. Walbourne needs to say that. I think Mr. Walbourne, certainly, given his expertise and experience.... I would have thought that's what they are then talking about.
I don't want to speak for them. You've heard from those witnesses, so I want to be a little careful. The language we wanted was to be able to have Mr. Walbourne know what he is to do next, and what he is to do next is to speak to Ms. Sherman, because she is by far—I think this makes sense with my own experience—the person who is best equipped to understand what the institutions are that can play a role here and what to do.
Elder Marques
View Elder Marques Profile
Elder Marques
2021-04-23 14:43
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.
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, and that would be consistent with other testimony we've heard. In fact, everything you're saying before the committee today is consistent with the other testimony we have heard.
Would it be accurate, then, to say there wasn't enough actionable information at the time to pursue an investigation?
Elder Marques
View Elder Marques Profile
Elder Marques
2021-04-23 14:44
From our point of view in the Prime Minister's Office, the next step was not in our hands. I would defer ultimately to the view that was formed by those individuals in the Privy Council Office who were managing the file. My understanding is that no additional information was provided. Therefore, if you have a situation in which you understand there was a complaint but you have literally no other information—you don't have a complainant, you don't have witnesses and you don't have some other person to turn to for information, other than a person who is saying, for what may be good reasons, that they are not able to provide it—it's certainly not clear to me what the next step is supposed to be.
I don't want to speak, however, for the Privy Council. What was important from our point of view was ensuring that this was put in the right place and, frankly, that the assessments as to what next steps can happen and whether something exists now that can help in a situation like this or whether something needs to be stood up—all of those questions—were in the hands of the Privy Council.
Frankly, I had a lot of confidence that they were thinking about them the right way and taking them seriously. At no time did I feel there was a dropped ball or a lack of seriousness or a lack of commitment to dealing with what are very serious issues.
View Bob Benzen Profile
CPC (AB)
It's interesting that you say that, because what ultimately happened here was that this stayed a secret. This secret stayed a secret. It never got investigated, because the person coming forward needed to understand that when they brought it forward there would have to be some kind of protection. Because of the chain of command and everything that goes on and all the reprisals and all the stuff that happens in this toxic environment, it wasn't safe to bring this information forward. The information was there. There was some kind of evidence. It was in the pocket of Mr. Walbourne. You never saw that. I understand that and I respect that.
There was a sense that we were going to have to find a way to bring this secret out, and that's what you were put in the position to do. You, as the minister, had to figure out how to get this secret out while preserving and protecting that person and that integrity, and also making sure that our whole armed forces and the integrity of that were protected.
What did you do to endeavour to make that happen?
View Harjit S. Sajjan Profile
Lib. (BC)
That's a great question and that's exactly what I've been trying to answer here. Rather than having a minister, a politician, try to manage something like this, we made sure in this case that the Privy Council Office, the people in charge of Governor in Council appointments, were given it so they could look at exactly what the process would be to manage it and also to work with the ombudsman to try to figure out how to give confidence to the person and to work with them. I believe, based on the testimony that has been given, that has already been explained.
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
Do you think the outcome would have been any different, given that in her testimony Ms. Sherman said that she asked Mr. Walbourne to give de-identified information, information about the nature of the allegations, even if it was not the name of the individual, and Mr. Walbourne, according to Ms. Sherman's testimony, was unwilling or unable to give that information? Would we still have been, then, at exactly the same impasse?
Michael Wernick
View Michael Wernick Profile
Michael Wernick
2021-04-06 16:03
It's impossible to know what the details of that alternative timeline would be.
I don't want to sound critical of Mr. Walbourne. I think he was acting in good faith according to his understanding of how the system should work, but so was Ms. Sherman.
Janine Sherman
View Janine Sherman Profile
Janine Sherman
2021-03-26 13:22
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear again before you today, following my appearance February 19 alongside the deputy clerk of the Privy Council.
I have been the deputy secretary to the cabinet for senior personnel and public service renewal since May 2016. Prior to that, I was assistant secretary to the cabinet for senior personnel, a position I had held since October 2014. As deputy secretary to the cabinet, my responsibilities include advising the Prime Minister and cabinet on Governor in Council or GIC appointments.
The Privy Council Office supports the government in circumstances where issues arise with GIC appointees. In doing so, we provide independent, non-partisan advice and support to the government. When there is evidence of inappropriate conduct on the part of a GIC appointee, we provide our best advice to the government on how to address the issue.
In my previous appearance before the committee, I felt it was important to protect the confidentiality of my discussions with the former ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, and the integrity of the ombudsman's office and its processes. Since that time, the committee has heard a number of witnesses, and further information has been presented.
With certain details having been shared by the former ombudsman, I can confirm that in early March 2018, the Clerk of the Privy Council asked that I follow up on an issue that the ombudsman had raised with the minister regarding potential allegations of misconduct against the chief of the defence staff. I was asked to follow up immediately, which I did.
A follow-up exchange of emails between me and the former ombudsman took place March 5 and 6. In that exchange, I explained that I was seeking to better understand the nature of the complaint, in order to provide advice to the minister in the context of his role in supporting the Prime Minister and the Governor in Council on appointments.
I met with Mr. Walbourne on March 16. In my email exchanges and in my meeting with Mr. Walbourne, I did not receive information upon which to take further action.
On the specific issue the committee is studying, given that the Canadian Forces national investigation service has opened an investigation, I am limited in the responses that I can provide, to respect the integrity of the investigative process. Protecting the confidentiality and integrity of any investigative process is critical for ensuring that individuals feel safe to come forward and that we respect their privacy.
I know we all agree that any instance of harassment is unacceptable. Every situation is unique, but the right to a safe workspace, where individuals are treated with respect, dignity and fairness, applies to everyone working within a federal workplace. As a senior member of the federal public service, this is a fundamental focus for me in carrying out my responsibilities.
Once again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability and within the limitations that I have noted. I can also provide information of a general nature regarding PCO's role in the management of GIC appointees, should the committee wish.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
My understanding is actually that you tried to find out the identity of the victim, while Mr. Walbourne wanted to protect that information.
Isn't it rather because Mr. Walbourne would not reveal the identity of the victim to you that you decided not to pursue the allegations?
Janine Sherman
View Janine Sherman Profile
Janine Sherman
2021-03-26 13:51
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 complaint.
Results: 1 - 15 of 61 | Page: 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data