Evidence of meeting #21 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 investigation.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
The Clerk
There was an invitation by email and a reminder. I don't have the exact timeline, but over 10 days.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Given that we have the parliamentary secretary for defence in this meeting, one would think that the message could be communicated to her somehow.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I was going to say that we have a significant time to try to get a response. There's already a meeting proposed for the end of this week, and then there's the weekend, so we have some time to hear a response. We could then proceed if we don't get any response.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I'll just go back to the clerk's response because it wasn't clear—at least, I didn't pick up on it, maybe with the audio.
Can he please confirm the exact number of times he emailed and phoned, and the dates and times that he did that, so that it's clear to us how spread out those attempts to contact were and who he called in trying to get hold of her? Is there a personal, listed number in the government directory? Was it through the office staff, etc.? We want to know who and how, please.
Thanks.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Just so you know, we did ask for people with knowledge.... We asked, “If you know how to get hold of this person, we ask for that information to be provided to the clerk.” The clerk used whatever information was provided to try to reach out. If the information that the opposition provided was not accurate, then maybe we have not found the correct avenue moving forward. We did ask everyone to submit information to the clerk, and that he would go ahead and look into whatever was provided, but there's no guarantee that what was provided was correct.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Madam Chair, I'm not asking whether or not it was correct. I'm asking for confirmation of what numbers, when, how many times and on what date. Obviously, the staffer we're trying to get hold of is a chief of staff to a minister in the government. This is not somebody who's hidden away, who's retired, who's gone somewhere across country and who we can't track down.
I mean, I'm sure that I'm more than capable of walking over to this person's office and passing this information on personally if we can't get hold of her, so I'm more than willing to volunteer to do that if the House of Commons staff needs assistance.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I just want to say that it's a significant step forward when it's to....
I would like to get information from the law clerk, actually, about what the precedent is. Is there a set of criteria that we use to determine what the seriousness is that would necessitate a summons? It's not something that I'm all that knowledgeable about. I would like to learn a little bit more. I think it's a very serious process that's available to us.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I would like to have the opportunity to meet in the steering committee. If the steering committee decides that this is the right way forward, then, fine.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
However, I would like to have the opportunity to talk about this in the steering committee so that we are all aware of the seriousness of issuing a summons. If we get that briefing and decide that we still want to do it, fine, then we do it. Before we take a really significant step forward—
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
—I think it's important that we discuss this and have all of the information we need in order to make that decision. Instead of this being something that's coming in at the last moment that has not been sent to the committee in advance, we have the time we need to actually consider this very serious motion. That's my two cents.
Go ahead, Madam Gallant.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
With all due respect, Madam Chair, it's not your role to decide whether or not we have to defer to the law clerk on whether or not a motion is in order. We should be focused on the matter at hand. We know that the witness we're asking for is in the office of the Minister of Public Safety. Perhaps we should have the RCMP see if they can find her.
This is more subterfuge, it would appear, and delays. For whatever reason, the government members do not want to have her before this committee. We feel that she can be helpful in explaining to us exactly what happened and how the process occurred so that we can correct it for the future.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
I didn't realize I'd ceded the floor.
Again, I'll go back to my original question. It was addressed to the clerk. It was just to ask him to provide the date, times and phone numbers that he contacted or that he tried to invite the witness with. If I could just have that.... If he doesn't have that information available immediately, could he ensure that it gets passed to the committee and put on the record, please?
I will now turn over the floor, but I'd like a response from the clerk, please.
2 p.m.
Liberal
2 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I want to follow up on a couple things that Madam Gallant said.
One was that Ms. Gallant made mention that it's not the chair's role to decide anything. For the record, I don't think that the chair was trying to decide anything. I think the chair is trying to contribute to a constructive solution to the questions that are being raised, and I think that it's completely within the chair's role to do so.
The other point that Madam Gallant made that I have concerns about is that she said the government members don't want Ms. Astravas to appear. That's not at all true. It's very clear that we've voted already on a motion to invite Ms. Astravas to appear. It's the will of the committee that she appear. That includes the members of the Liberal caucus who are on this committee. That's not what's up for debate here at all.
What's up for debate here is whether a summons is required. I think that the summons is unnecessary for a few reasons. One is that this study, as we've just voted and agreed on, has time left in it. We still have time to discuss what we need to do as a committee to make sure that we hear from all the people we want to hear from. We're looking at another two weeks at least, if I'm not mistaken. I could be corrected—it could be longer—but it's at least two weeks for this study. If that's the case, then we have further meetings where this particular issue can be debated and discussed, but I think we should exhaust the option of inviting Ms. Astravas before we summon her. I think there are a lot of good reasons for that. There are the precedents that we've talked about. There's making sure that we get the best possible testimony and insight.
I think there are a lot of reasons why someone may not have responded. It's not for us to speculate what those are, but I think it is for us to follow precedent. As the clerk has pointed out, usually you don't summon someone unless they have refused to appear, and that's not the case in this case. I just think we should give time to hear back from Ms. Astravas for that reason.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, thanks very much. I had to sub out for a bit. I'm just getting my bearings here in the discussion, but I think there are a couple of points that are important.
I think the most important is, of course, the question before us, which is how we change the culture in the Canadian Forces with respect to sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. Pretty much every witness who's been in front of us has said that, and members across party lines on the committee have echoed that. That's where the committee's energies should go.
With respect to witness selection, just about an hour ago, I think a very important point was made, which was that we have the mechanism of a subcommittee to talk about witnesses and to reach agreements, which would keep the committee's time focused on what matters most.
With respect to the exercise of a summons, I understand there's very strong precedent to not issue a summons if somebody has not specifically declined an invitation. As my colleague just mentioned, Ms. Astravas is willing to come, or has indicated willingness. The committee has indicated willingness to hear her. There has been no rejection on her part. For that reason, I think that channel needs to be open and worked through.
Again, in the last few sessions, the committee's attention has been in large part on the allegations against the former chief of the defence staff, the investigation. There are important questions that flow from that, which the committee has heard and needs to hear for accountability reasons, but the bigger question is no longer an elephant in the room. A very open question, certainly since the ERA in 2015, has been the culture in the Canadian Forces, and that it's not only very disparately affecting women who are serving today but equally discouraging women and men from considering the Canadian Forces as a career choice. That really, I think, in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, has been the attention of the committee and needs to remain so.
Let's use our strategic tools. Let's be thoughtful about this. Let's get the right people into the room. Let's move the yardstick. I think there's a lot of goodwill across party lines to do that. The most recent witness we had in front of us earlier today was also quite emphatic with respect to the structural and cultural changes that need to happen. It was good to hear, from a former chief of staff to a former prime minister, words that really echo, almost to the word, the commitment of the current Minister of National Defence.
I'll put it back to you, Madam Chair. I think we should move forward in an efficient and expeditious manner and solve the questions before us.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to speak to the precedent—considering that we have time; it's not like we don't have time to hear back—of making that draconian step that's very seldom used. It's there if we need it.
All the committee has said that we want Ms. Astravas and she hasn't said she wouldn't appear. We're not even having a meeting until Friday. There's lots of time to hear back from her and for people to get in touch with her to make sure she has the appropriate message and can get back to the committee without having to set a bad procedural precedent, which may end up being studied and used to change those powers, if they're used frivolously by throwing it in the overtime of a meeting before we even need it.
The point I've made at all the meetings is that we should really.... The people who are watching in the military want to be safe and comfortable. Over a thousand people have mentioned that the system is a problem and they have had terrible situations. We need to deal with the processes, the culture and the ability for someone to report and feel comfortable. These are major structural issues. We're really not focusing on those as much as we should, from my view.
This committee could really have a major effect on the military if we deal with the large problem at hand and come up with recommendations to deal with that.
Thank you.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal