Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.
Evidence of meeting #79 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was space.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #79 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was space.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I too have a motion. I presented notice a while ago. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten to it.
It's ultimately in response to a number of the stories that we've heard coming forward from people within the military or the department about the abuse they have suffered, whether that's military sexual trauma or other forms of abuse, and then facing harsh repercussions in their careers.
Survivors have been forced to ATIP themselves in order to get the necessary documents for legal claims, and they've come to quite a lot of non-responses or very long wait times on those inquiries, so I think it's important, when we're talking about that public trust and that transparency that's required for a lot of what's going on, that we study the following:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study into transparency of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, that includes but is not limited to: The Access to Information and Privacy System; the independence of the office of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman; the declassification system for historic documents; whistleblower protections; the independence of the Grievance process; and information management systems.
That the committee invite the Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Defence Staff, the Corporate Secretary at the Department of National Defence, the Minister of National Defence, the Information Commissioner, the National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman, the chairperson of the Military Grievance and External Review Committee, veterans and veteran advocates.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.
I'm generally very comfortable with the motion. In the spirit of collaboration, I was wondering, as we amended a few other motions—unless I misunderstood—if my colleague would be comfortable saying “a minimum of three meetings” instead of “hold a minimum of four meetings”. That's a proposed first amendment, Mr. Chair.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There's an amendment on the floor. Is there any debate on the amendment?
Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I would prefer four. There are lots of officials. However, specifically with some of the folks coming forward—veterans, veterans advocates and those who have been through this—I don't want giant panels. I would like space to be given. I don't want them to feel like it's just a lineup, and I would like the capacity and the time to hear them in the way they need to be heard.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
—the copy that I was handed doesn't actually have the number of—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Just for the record, was that the only difference from what Ms. Mathyssen read?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Right. I was speaking to her amendment asking for three. I suggested four.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
At this point, that is not a friendly amendment, shall we say?
The only other question I had was this: What part of this is within Veterans Affairs and what part of this is in the Department of Defence?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
It's not Veterans Affairs, but it is those who have gone through the system who are now out and who have now dealt with their cases. Therefore, they are considered veterans.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'll just say this. Even though it would involve veterans, it would be veterans who are ATIPing their own files from the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces. The Information Commissioner has been quite critical of DND for being extremely slow in getting information out through ATIP requests for the public at large. That includes the media and parliamentarians, as well as veterans and others.
My only question here is this: Where in the motion are we adding in a minimum of three meetings? Where is the functionality here within the motion?
