National Defence Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I support what Mr. Bezan said, and I'm ready for the question to be called.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

This is obviously something that matters very much to Canadians. We absolutely have to keep the focus on the fact that there are women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are watching what we're doing, and they need to feel comfortable that they can come forward. We want anybody who has faced anything like this to feel comfortable to come forward and have the right processes.

This committee has a significant role to play when it comes to finding what better processes may be there. I know we have another study coming up on the military justice system, which of course allows for us to make recommendations about how we do things better. It is absolutely clear that we have to do things better.

That said, what has been alleged in the media to be happening to Mr. Trotter is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot condone anybody, especially someone who's a potential witness to this committee, feeling that they are being intimidated in regard to being able to come to Parliament.

On what has been alleged in the House of Commons, I think all members of this committee want to give whatever assurances we can to Mr. Trotter to make sure he knows that he can testify before this committee freely, as can everybody else.

When we have the minister here, I think we will find that this will be a lot clearer. I know the minister is keen to come.

I note that there are a number of people here who are listed. I would like to add two names. We know that General Vance was appointed by the previous government. For most chiefs of the defence staff, from the time they are named publicly to the time the change of command happens is usually just one month. Therefore, I'd like to add—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, we're discussing this motion.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm amending the motion. I'm doing a preamble to an amendment to the motion.

I would like to amend the motion so that we also include some people who could shed light on what happened, in the sense that there were three months between the time General Vance was named and the time of the change of command. We've seen in the media some allegations that some things were known then. If we're going to be looking at how to fix things, we also need to look at where things went wrong.

I suggest that we also bring Ray Novak, who was chief of staff to then prime minister Stephen Harper; and Gerrit Nieuwoudt, who was chief of staff to then defence minister Jason Kenney.

I would like to make a point, though, about a word in this motion. I think we should change the word “summon” to the word “invite”. I can understand the reasoning behind summoning Mr. Trotter. If that's the case—the clerk could maybe clarify—and if that will give him more ability to speak freely, I would be open to summoning him.

I have checked with the Library of Parliament. In the history of this defence committee, there has been only one witness they could find who has ever been summoned, and that's Mr. Walbourne. In the history of Parliament, in the annotated Standing Orders, you can find only a handful of names of people who have been summoned to come to speak before Parliament.

I was in the ethics committee when one of these instances happened.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I believe you can only make one amendment at a time. Which one is the amendment, so that we know what we're amending?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll make one amendment.

I would like us to remove the word “summons” from the second part. We can keep the word “summons” for Mr. Trotter, but where it says, “The committee issue a summons to the following witnesses to testify”, I would say we would “invite”.

I know that Ms. Astravas was invited. I would say that we put an invitation in written form to Ms. Astravas and that we not include the former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, for health reasons. I think we would be able to get the answers we need from having the minister and inviting the other list you have here. I want to make sure we are very cautious about summoning.

As I said, in the history of Parliament, there have been a handful, and usually it's after the invitation was extended five or six times. In the ethics committee, when it was the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica issue, there was a local Cambridge Analytica company. We sent five letters, if I'm not mistaken, and they sent letters back with reasons. We debated those reasons in camera. We went back and issued new invitations. Then we sent a letter saying that if we invite you, we will then....

I think this is very important to get on the record, that the process for summoning someone is a very serious process in this Parliament.

I'll have another amendment after, about additional witnesses, but the first amendment I have is to delete the word “summons” and say “the committee invites the following to testify”, and that we drop “Michael Wernick” and keep just “Zita Astravas”.

In fact, that could even be in the lower part. I'm seeing that it says, “the committee invite the following witnesses”. I would take that whole part out and add “Zita Astravas” to the second part, so that ultimately what we're doing is inviting. We could say “invite in writing”. I think the next escalation, in this case, is to send a written invitation and ask for a response. It would not include Michael Wernick. If the committee wishes to keep the word “summons” for Mr. Trotter, I would then agree with that.

Madam Chair, I'll have another amendment after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to speak generally about Mr. Bezan's motion today, before I address the amendment. I don't think it's lost on anyone that this is International Women's Day, and that what we're talking about here is fundamentally the issue of whether women can serve equally in the Canadian Armed Forces. They can do so only if they're assured not only that sexual misconduct is not tolerated in principle, but also that effective action is taken when there are allegations of sexual misconduct.

The events that have recently transpired with two chiefs of defence staff in a row regarding sexual misconduct raise the question of whether the senior leadership in the military, and indeed the defence minister, understand what it means to have effective policies against sexual misconduct, and whether those leaders really understand the problem.

Secondly, it's very clear that effective action was not taken once allegations had been made. To me, the essential task of this committee is to establish the facts of those two things. It's not to intervene in any of the specific allegations or investigations. We've all been quite clear on that.

Having said that in general, I want us to keep our focus there. We have a job to do that requires that we hear from the minister again. I'm glad we have unanimous agreement to do so. I support the motion from Mr. Bezan to include these witnesses.

I'm also inclined to support the amendment from Ms. Vandenbeld, which essentially takes out Mr. Wernick for health reasons and makes a written invitation to Ms. Astravas. I think those are good and effective changes to this motion. Therefore, I will support the amendment, and then hope to eventually support the main motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I agree with Mr. Bezan and the last speaker, that the emphasis needs to be on protecting women in the military so they can feel safe. As I mentioned in the last meeting, we need to work on the systems and the problems. We had a number of academics mention the problems, and procedures were mentioned already today, which was good. People can proceed with various investigative sources and avenues, but when a call comes in to Defence, the exact direction where and how it should go is one thing.

The major thing the academics said was it's the changing of the culture, and I want to make sure we stay on that focus. I'm worried that we're.... There are a lot of witnesses. I won't mention them now. I may ask to amend some later, but I think there are a number of witnesses who could offer a lot more on how we answer the suggestions the academics made on how we could protect women better. A lot of it's related to culture, to appointing more women to senior positions in the military. I think that needs to be our focus: how we can fix these systems and make them independent enough that all members of the forces, but particularly women, feel protected.

I think there would be a better witness list or additions to the witness list that would maintain the focus on that. Some of these witnesses are related to a specific case or cases, and I don't have a problem with that, but I think it's far too narrow and we should be incorporating witnesses who can deal with the structural problems, the avenue and procedures, as well as the various legal investigative methods and routes that are available and any improvements that need to be made to them. Obviously it's not working. The culture still hasn't changed, so we need to come up with an avenue to change that. That's going to be my focus during the meetings. I want to make sure we stay on that track to protect the women in the military by working on these systems, the culture and the procedures.

I'll leave it at that for now, but hopefully people will propose some of these other witnesses. If not, I can in a later intervention.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bagnell.

We have four people with their hands raised, in this order: Madam Alleslev, Madam Gallant, Mr. Bezan, and Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

We'll move over to you, Madam Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is a very serious situation. If we're going to discuss a serious situation, a summons is a serious response to a serious situation. Perhaps we need to look at sending an invitation, followed by a summons if the invitation is refused. The culture in the Canadian Forces has been the subject of a number of initiatives over the last 30 years, all which have systematically failed. The processes are in place. There are processes that say that this type of behaviour is unacceptable, and that there are consequences for the unacceptable behaviour.

What has happened is that people in very senior key positions have failed to follow those processes. We as the defence committee are responsible for understanding how that failure has occurred and whether there are additional checks and balances in terms of processes that need to be put in place to ensure that senior people cannot fail to provide a harassment-free workplace and cannot again fail the members of the Canadian Forces.

My understanding, Madam Chair, is that Mr. Wernick is not the one with a health problem. Perhaps we could have more information on that, because we can't find any record publicly that there is a health issue with Mr. Wernick that would in any way preclude him from appearing. We need to understand if in fact there is a serious enough health issue, because as the former Clerk of the Privy Council, he is an absolutely key person this committee needs to hear from to understand how the processes were not followed and how this failure was allowed to occur.

We need to understand whether there is a health issue with Mr. Wernick, because we believe that if there is not, he needs to appear as a witness. Second, the summons should occur if the invitation to these people we need to hear from to do our job is refused.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Gallant, go ahead, please.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Chair, I was surprised at the comments of Ms. Vandenbeld that she was quite confident that we could get the answers to our questions from the other witnesses. How would she know what they know? Is she contributing to this whole cover-up? With respect to Mr. Wernick, is she confusing Mr. Shugart with Mr. Wernick?

Again, we're unfamiliar with any situation with respect to health regarding Mr. Wernick, and he was most helpful during the SNC-Lavalin issue as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too want to be sure whether or not Mr. Wernick is feeling unwell and whether that's a legitimate excuse for him not to appear, and also to make sure we're not confusing him with the current Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Ian Shugart, who we know is facing some major health challenges. Of course we wish him well in his recovery and hope he gets well soon.

I don't have a problem with adding a couple of names. I don't think they will be able to shed a lot of light, but they arose from the parliamentary secretary at the time, when we appointed General Vance as CDS.

It would be good to compare the screening processes for General Vance and Admiral McDonald. Where are the flaws, and how do we improve this so that we can get down to appointing commanders of the Canadian Armed Forces who will ultimately be able to inspire their troops when it comes to issues like operation audit. We can talk about that appointment process. I think it's good on all fronts that we do that, because it is important.

Madam Chair, weren't both Mr. Wernick and Ms. Astravas called to committee via a written invitation, or did you pick up the phone and call them? That's the other option. If there was an actual email or letter that came under your signature or from the clerk on your behalf, there has already been a written invitation, and they declined it. That's why it's important to have a summons. Time is of the essence. The women who serve to protect all of us deserve our protection, and we need to get the appropriate witnesses in front of this committee as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you have the floor.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree on the addition of the two witnesses that Ms. Vandenbeld suggested to the committee.

In my opinion, Ms. Alleslev is showing common sense in suggesting that we issue a written invitation first. If the invitation is declined, we will issue a summons to appear to these people. If that will solve the problem for everyone and build consensus in the committee, so much the better.

Now we should clarify the situation with Mr. Wernick. Is he ill or not? I don’t know how we can confirm if he is able to come in and testify because right now it is unclear. If he is able to, he absolutely must come, because he is a very important witness and the committee wants to hear what he has to say.

For obvious reasons, as Mr. Bezan explained, we need to issue a summons to appear in Mr. Trotter’s case. We would not want his superiors to prevent him from coming to testify. So he needs to be completely free to do so, and a summons to appear seems to me to be the right way to give him that freedom.

As for Ms. Astravas and Mr. Wernick, I am of the opinion that we should first send them an invitation in writing. If they refuse it, then we will summon them to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I don't see any further hands raised to comment. We've had a bit of a discussion over that, so I'll ask Ms. Vandenbeld to go ahead and repeat her amendment, to make sure it is clear.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Chair, I did have a question for you, as to how the invitation was issued to both Mr. Wernick and Ms. Astravas in the past. Was it by email? Was it a letter sent to them, or was it a phone call?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

With Mr. Wernick, we tried to get a message to him. Since he's a private citizen now, it was difficult to find a contact. We didn't actually get a formal response.

When it came to Ms. Astravas, we had a hard time finding.... With the information that was given to us, we couldn't find her. We eventually found her, but only less than 24 hours before the meeting, so it was too late. That's why it didn't end up being a complete invitation more than 24 hours in advance. I can understand why that might have been difficult for someone to agree to, with less than 24 hours' notice.

You can invite them again. We have found ways now that we didn't have available to us before.

Go ahead, Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I believe that Zita Astravas is in the government directory, and Mr. Wernick is at MNP. That's the information I've been given.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much. We didn't have that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'm sure if you talked to the Minister of Public Safety you'd find Ms. Astravas.