Evidence of meeting #14 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'll move a subamendment to the amendment. It is that we split this into two separate votes, one on the three meetings and deleting Ms. Vandenbeld's second part, which is to vote on the witness list that is in there.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I think we have to vote on the amendment as it has come forward. I mean, if you want to put together a separate suggestion, an amendment after—
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
A second amendment after the fact...? Okay. Let's see what happens.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
On a point of order, Chair, subamendments are allowed. They are perfectly legal and have been used before.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
They have, up to a point.
It's getting a bit complicated here now, and I want everyone to be perfectly clear about what they're voting on.
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Wassim Bouanani
Subamendments are permitted. This subamendment is out of order.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you.
Not hearing anything further, I think it's time to vote on this subamendment. Does anybody need a refresher? I see a couple of quizzical looks.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Madam Chair, would you be able to read the amendment to the motion?
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The text of the amendment is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on National Defence begin an immediate study into the allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of retired General Jonathan Vance during and before his tenure as Chief of Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, that three meetings be held in public for no fewer than two hours each, that the meetings take place before February 26th, 2021, that the following witnesses be called to testify individually before the Committee: Hon. Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, and any other witnesses the Committee deems necessary, that these meetings be televised, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Are we all good?
I am going to hand it over to the clerk now to do a recorded division on that amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
On the main motion, I do want to speak at this point. I think it's very clear that the issue we have before us today really is whether Canadian women can serve equally in the Canadian Armed Forces. This is a crucial matter for those who are serving and for those who may wish to serve. It's also crucial to the future of the Canadian Forces in that it's no longer in dispute. We know that a more diverse military is a more resilient and a more capable military. This is a question we have to answer, both for individuals who might be subject to sexual misconduct—and let's be honest that almost all the time they are women—and, second, to the future of the Canadian military.
The question of whether adequate efforts have been made to stem sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military is an important question, but one that we already know the answer to. Progress has stalled, with what can only be said, at its most charitable, to be very low levels of progress, so much so that last October the Canadian Forces had to issue a new plan for dealing with sexual misconduct in the military.
I want to read a quote that accompanied the release of that plan. It said, “To achieve our goal, we must cultivate a command climate across the institution where sexual misconduct is never minimized, ignored or excused.” That, to me, is the question in front of the committee today, making sure that we never ignore, minimize or excuse that sexual misconduct. The problem is those words from that release came from the chief of the defence staff, who now stands accused of, on multiple occasions, the very sexual conduct we're trying to combat.
I do support this motion, not in the sense that the committee should conduct an investigation into the conduct of retired General Vance—clearly, that's already being undertaken in an appropriate forum—but in the sense that we do have two responsibilities here as a committee.
One of those we've taken on many times and we will take on again, including in our upcoming study on military justice. That's to make sure the policy and programs are in place that will ensure that sexual harassment and sexual assault are taken seriously and are dealt with justly, and that services and support are provided to victims in an appropriate matter.
The second responsibility is the one I think this motion deals with, and I think it's urgent that we do undertake this study. That is, that as the former chief of the defence staff said, we can never minimize, ignore or excuse sexual misconduct. We need to hear from the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister about how they dealt with the accusations against General Vance. On the face of it, I don't think anyone would conclude that the actions met the high standard we need to meet for the Canadian Forces.
There's a second piece of this, which I think we also need to look at. We need to know whether we have had, in fact, failure by two successive governments to deal with the question of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the military. For that reason, I gave notice of motion today to call former minister of defence and former member of Parliament Jason Kenney, who was the minister of defence who first appointed General Vance to the position of chief of the defence staff. We now know, from many media reports, that there were allegations of sexual misconduct at the time of his appointment or immediately thereafter. I believe—and that's why I have given notice of that motion—that in addition to the current Minister of Defence, it is essential that we hear from the former minister of defence who made the appointment.
If we're going to give confidence to the Canadian military that all are considered equally, and in particular to women that they can serve in the Canadian military, we have to assure that this was taken seriously at the highest levels when these accusations were made. As I said, on the face of it I'm not sure that's true. That's why I support this motion to conduct these hearings. That's why, at this point, I am going to move the motion that I circulated, and that is that Jason Kenney be called as an additional witness.
Madam Chair, you could treat that either as an amendment to the motion before us or as a separate motion; it makes no difference to me. I believe we are in a different situation when it comes to these hearings than we are in our normal hearings, for which we ask each party to put forward witnesses. There are some witnesses here whose roles in this have been essential, and they must appear before the committee.
It's not a matter of trading between parties. It's a matter of making sure we have the appropriate people to give the appropriate testimony so that we can really establish confidence that allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment will always be taken with the utmost seriousness at the very highest levels in government.
Thank you.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.
I acknowledge that you're moving your motion, but we have to put it aside to first deal now with the current motion, the amended motion.
Madam Vandenbeld, did you have something to say?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Then we'll do a recorded division on the main motion that has been amended.
Does anyone want that read out again? Yes?
Please go ahead.
3:15 p.m.
The Clerk
The main motion reads:
That the Standing Committee on National Defence begin an immediate study into the allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of retired General Jonathan Vance during and before his tenure as Chief of Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, that three meetings be held in public for no fewer than two hours each, that the meetings take place before February 26th, 2021, that the following witnesses be called to testify individually before the Committee: Hon. Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, and any other witnesses the Committee deems necessary, that these meetings be televised, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Yes, I do.
I move that the committee invite former MP and former minister of defence Jason Kenney to appear and give evidence before this study in his role as the minister who first appointed General Vance to the position of chief of the defence staff, and in light of the fact that we now know that accusations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment had already been made at the time of his appointment or thereabouts.
Thank you.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to reiterate what we said before in terms of procedure and how we are going about selecting witnesses.
Madam Chair, I know that you have been very good in the past. When priority witnesses have been sent in by any member of the committee, you have made sure those witnesses are invited. With regard to the witness that Mr. Garrison just asked for, for instance, presumably, if that is his priority witness, that individual would be invited.
I do caution us a little bit about starting to put names forward one by one. Having said that, I do note that Mr. Garrison did give notice ahead of the meeting about this particular witness. I would hope that if the premier or any individual has information relevant to this, they would co-operate with the relevant authorities, the CFNIS and others who are investigating. I think there would be no harm if the committee were to extend an invitation to Premier Kenney.
Even though I will be voting for this, I want to put it on record that I believe it's bad practice for the committee to discuss individual witnesses. Maybe not in this case, but you can imagine in other cases that having one's name discussed back and forth in a public forum could be very troubling for individual witnesses. I just want to put it on record that it not become a precedent.
The fact that Mr. Garrison did submit this ahead of time at least gives the members a chance to look at it, so I will be voting for it.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Well, I guess there's no politics in that. This is okay for Premier Kenney but not all right for others.
With that in mind, if we're going to be carrying forward on this motion, then I'd like to amend it by adding, after “thereafter”, the following: “and also call the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, Christyne Tremblay, Deputy Minister of National Defence, Jody Thomas, Zita Astravas, and Michael Wernick”.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
According to our glorious clerks—they know this inside and out—they have to say that the decision has already been taken on that first one.