National Defence Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I want to pick up where Mr. Bagnell left off.

He's right. We have a meeting on Friday. We can discuss this at the Friday meeting, the meeting after that or the meeting after that. We have a number of meetings scheduled. I think we have lots of time. This is not to consider this, but at this point, I think it's too early and it's unfair. We should all pause and think about what precedent we're setting and what this does if we just start summoning when we don't hear from witnesses at committee. I think it's dangerous to our work, to the partisanship on committees and to getting things done in general.

Mr. Ruff said something that I think is interesting. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he kind of offered to help the clerk track down a person we're trying to reach out to. That's the spirit of what we should be focused on in my view. How do we reach Ms. Astravas, make sure she's being contacted at the appropriate place and make sure something isn't happening that's causing her not to respond? I don't know. I think approaching it that way is more constructive and useful. It allows us to make sure we exhaust the invitation option. We haven't exhausted that. Ms. Astravas hasn't refused to appear. We don't know what's happening or why she hasn't responded.

I think we just need to give that invitation time to play out. A summons is incredibly harsh and unnecessary under these circumstances. We—committees in this Parliament and past Parliaments—have not used the summons like this. We all know that. I think it's unfair to the individual and to future committees for which the precedent will have been set that if someone doesn't respond within a relatively brief period of time, we start summoning people. That has incredibly damaging effects—reputational and otherwise—that are unnecessary.

Let's just take stock of the impact this is going to have if we keep doing this to people. If somebody refuses to come, it's fair game to have that discussion. If someone has not refused to come, I don't think that's fair to the person.

I'm sure there's still hope to reach Ms. Astravas. Mr. Ruff proposed some solutions. I'm not sure if those are the right ones or not. I'm not going to pretend to know. The point is that we try to do what we can to reach her and hear back from her. That's the issue at play here. Nobody said she shouldn't testify or doesn't want to. The members of this committee, certainly on the government side, have been supportive of having her present to testify.

Let's not go the route of the summons. I think that's extreme at this juncture and has damaging effects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Madam Gallant.

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

Madam Chair, the clerk has tried to reach Ms. Astravas multiple times over the course of six weeks. There's been no response whatsoever. We've asked for her.

The committee is well versed. Given the other committees that have had to put forth summons, the public is now well versed in what is required in a summons. I don't think we need to take up a meeting or any side time for a briefing from the clerk on the seriousness of a summons.

Given all the interference we've had from different members, it's pretty well time to call the question on the motion that's before the floor and get a result on the vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Spengemann, go ahead, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Again, I apologize for having missed probably a 30-minute segment of the committee's discussion, for having to sub out. I think when I came back there was just the tail end of an exchange involving my colleague Mr. Ruff and the clerk's desk.

I would like to echo the comments of my colleague Mr. Baker. I think a summons is heavy-handed. It's the strongest tool at our disposal with respect to making somebody appear. Also, in the exercise of it, the committee is signalling that it has a perception that there is unwillingness on the part of that particular witness to appear. That willingness, so far, has not been expressed. If anything, there's no evidence with respect to Ms. Astravas's unwillingness to appear.

In the meantime, I think it's important that the committee continue to direct its energies in parallel to that effort of solving this question in a constructive way. I don't believe the summons, at this stage, would be appropriate. I'd like to hear from the clerk on this in terms of past practice and history.

I think it is important that the committee keep its eye and its mind tuned to the utility of other witnesses who could come here in the interim and continue to inform the committee on their views with respect to the question of culture. To my mind we've heard testimony on it, but I don't think we have any sense yet of how to resolve this. We really need some recommendations and some advice. The minister has indicated that he's open to all options.

We need to hear what this committee, in 2021, should recommend to the Government of Canada with respect to changing the culture in the armed forces. There are negative elements to the culture that we've heard descriptions of. There are also positive elements with respect to the commitment to excellence, to service and to the obligation to look out for one's teammate, one's fellow serving member of the Canadian Forces.

These discussions, to my mind, have not led to our having a level of detail or to [Technical difficulty—Editor] the ability to make recommendations to the government. I think that even if we answer the procedural questions, of the kind that are in front of the committee now with respect to the misconduct allegations, if we fail on the big questions, we'll have done a disservice to Canadians and to serving members and their families.

I would urge the committee to continue to not drop the ball on these parallel discussions. Again, I would not be supportive.

Madam Chair, through you, maybe we can hear briefly from the clerk on past practice. Given what I've heard now, though, I'm not supportive of the exercise of a summons under these circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

We can ask the law clerk to talk to us about the kinds of criteria normally used for a summons, the precedence of summons and how often they're used. I believe that office can provide us a briefing on those topics, and maybe that would not be a bad idea in these circumstances.

We have Mr. Baker, I think, and then Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thought Mr. Bagnell had his hand up first, but I'm happy to go if he'll relinquish his spot in the speaking order.

Mr. Spengemann really, I think, raised an important point, which is helping us to understand what the implications of a summons are. He spoke to some of those implications, which I think we can all understand. Mr. Spengemann very clearly indicated that this is signalling publicly that we believe the witness is unwilling to appear. We have no evidence to support that belief. To do that, I think, would be damaging and unfair.

Let's think longer term here, beyond this particular committee, this particular hearing or even this particular study [Technical difficulty—Editor]. We've invited her. That signals that we want to hear from her. Let's think longer term about, if we begin summoning people left and right, what that's going to do.

I agree with Mr. Spengemann. It would be great to hear from the law clerk on that issue so that we could fully understand what we're voting on here, because we're sort of in unprecedented territory just using a summons when we have no evidence to suggest that someone doesn't want to appear.

I want to second that suggestion and urge us to really consider that before voting on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have listened carefully to the debate so far. I have held back from speaking to fully understand all the ins and outs of a summons to appear before the committee, as it is a procedure with which I am less familiar. I do not have 30 or 40 years of committee experience. However, to the best of my knowledge, this procedure can still be implemented by a committee, if necessary.

I have a little difficulty understanding the logic and the arguments that a witness could not be summoned to testify because the witness did not refuse to come to the committee. I find this surprising, because, following this logic, as long as someone does not respond, we do not have the right to summon them to testify. In the end, if you don't want to testify, all you have to do is not answer. Since we did not refuse, we cannot be summoned to testify. The logic is a bit hard to follow.

I would even add that it's not like we were looking for someone like Ms. Astravas, who disappeared into the mist and we are unable to find. If this is indeed the case, there is a problem, because as far as I know, she is still a government official. If the government is unable to find its officials to testify, there are serious questions to be asked.

For that reason, I would invite everyone to finish this round of questions and proceed to the vote. Everyone may not have had a chance to speak, but I think there are several people who have spoken a few times and have already had a chance to make their point. I wouldn't want them to exhaust themselves repeating the same arguments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

One of the very important points of discussion of this committee has been the question of accountability, and adjunct to that question, the idea of investigative independence. We've heard from witnesses of all stripes, including the witness today who testified that it's not appropriate for a minister or a political entity to be involved in driving, leading or being part of an investigation.

The witness who is under discussion now, potential witness Ms. Astravas, would be part of that political apparatus. As far as I understand, I think the committee has come to a landing on the question with respect to accountability. Investigative processes need to be independent. We have some very clear testimony that was given earlier today in an exchange with my colleague Mr. Baker that makes that point very precisely.

Just to contextualize the interests on the part of members of the committee to hear from this particular witness, it would be in that question of accountability and political independence from an investigation. That is one aspect of the committee's work. It's an important aspect that shouldn't be slighted, as colleagues have pointed out, but it forms a part of a much bigger whole, and the bigger whole has been left unanswered almost in its entirety since 2015, even though initiatives have been undertaken.

We have a minister at the moment who came to this committee twice with tremendous openness to look at all options, and I think the committee now has a mandate to find those options. Going forward, what do we need to do to break down the barriers, to restore the confidence of women, men and Canadians of non-binary gender identity and expression serving in the Canadian Forces today, and equally importantly, who seek to serve in the Canadian Forces tomorrow and in years to come?

When the Canadian public looks at this committee, I think it will have a high level of expectation of achieving a substantive outcome beyond quibbling over what witness should appear under what procedural tack. Again, my view is strongly that maybe there's even an opportunity, Madam Chair, through you, to hear from our clerk. I don't know if it has to go through the law clerk, but maybe there is some experience that would be useful in terms of the frequency of summons being applied in the last Parliament before this committee.

Some of my colleagues today were members of that committee. I do not recall the committee exercising its power to summons. There may have been discussion on that exercise, but if there was, they would have been left with the conclusion that this is really a last resort measure, and again, it has implications with respect to the perceptions that it generates. If there's unwillingness to appear on behalf of a witness who has important, salient information to offer, then it may be a tool that is applied, but as a last resort.

Madam Chair, through you, is there any information, any helpful counsel from the clerk currently in the room today with respect to the exercise of summons, the discretionary powers and how they should be applied by the committee that we could gather? If not, you mentioned the law clerk. That's fine. I think that would be a more comprehensive and probably more legal briefing, but just in terms of precedence and use in the past across committees, it's my sense that this mechanism is used extremely rarely and may, in many committees, have never been used.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

The clerk says that the law clerk is the one who can best answer those kinds of questions, but it would probably be worthwhile.

We have Mr. Baker and then Mr. Ruff, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I would like to comment on what Mr. Barsalou-Duval said. In his speech, he said that we only summon a witness when it is necessary. That is exactly what he said, and I do not think that it is necessary in this case. I think it is only necessary when a person refuses to testify or when there is reason to believe that he or she will not appear before the committee. I don't know exactly how much time has passed in this case. I think it has been about 10 days since we invited Ms. Astravas. The chair can correct me if I am wrong. In my opinion, the fact that 10 days have passed does not justify summoning someone.

In the last year, since the last election, many witnesses have taken much longer than 10 days to respond to an invitation, not only to this committee, but to other committees as well. We're not going to start summoning everybody. That's why I don't think it's necessary, at this point.

On the other hand, we have time. It does not hurt our study to wait a little while for the answer. Summoning a witness after only 10 days could set a serious precedent, and such a practice could damage people's reputation.

Again, I am of the opinion that this is not necessary yet. We should only use this tool when it is absolutely necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move to adjourn the meeting.

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

I think we have a motion on the floor. She needs unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting.

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

No, a motion to adjourn takes precedence over that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

That's right.

The question on the floor is this: Shall the meeting be adjourned?

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

No, the question on the floor is the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

The motion to adjourn takes precedence.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

That concludes the meeting. The meeting is adjourned.