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.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
My understanding is that it's a dilatory motion and, therefore, it's in order.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Okay, Mr. Baker.
Can you go ahead and repeat what you brought to the floor earlier?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Given that we are well over our planned schedule, I move that the committee do now adjourn.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
It's a question on a point of order about whether or not adjourning a committee meeting in the middle of a debate is in order. Should the motion be to adjourn debate?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
According to the clerk, it is in order.
We will take a recorded division.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Go ahead, Madam Gallant.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We just heard from the chief of staff for the former prime minister for two hours. We had fulsome questioning the entire two hours. There were not politics being played. The opposition is not simply throwing out names or “playing politics”.
I thought we all committed to getting to the bottom of this very serious issue. Just throwing it off to another committee that is not that for which the defence committee is intended, and to follow through on our previous studies, is just a distraction. We owe it to the women, as we've talked about, as well as men, to get to the bottom of this. By just passing it off to another committee that has a different take on things and is not necessarily going down the military avenue....
Madam Deschamps did her best and made the recommendations. They were not implemented.
As we heard today, the national investigative service did not, for whatever reason, do its part. Whether they had nothing to go on or whether or not there was evidence that was not accessible to them is not known.
We have a number of avenues that we still have yet to investigate, and it is not to play politics. It is to set right, once and for all, what is terribly wrong and is missing in this military. Also, if we ever hope to get to your Prime Minister's 25% of women in the military, we have to address this very serious problem now.
March 22nd, 2021 / 1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I want to pick up on where Madam Gallant left off. That's the crux of this. Madam Gallant spoke about the need to address this problem now. The debate we're having here really centres around what the problem is that we're trying to solve.
I think the problem that is impeding increasing numbers of women, minorities and other equity-seeking groups in the armed forces is the issue of.... There's an issue of culture, which we've heard about, and issues of sexual harassment and of assault. Those issues are not the ones we are tackling with this type of motion. This motion doesn't help us address those issues. This motion is not designed to address those issues. This motion is designed to further study what happened when.... I won't put words in Mr. Bezan's mouth, but it's meant to study things that won't help us to address the underlying problem that is preventing us from attracting the best and brightest of all backgrounds to the Canadian Armed Forces, and retaining the best and brightest of all backgrounds.
We've recently seen someone, a very high-profile person, a woman, leave the armed forces, citing some of these very things, and we're not, as a committee.... We're the defence committee. We talk about how big of a problem it is, and then we're not passing motions that would allow us to actually address those problems.
That is the underlying concern I have around the direction. The types of witnesses we're calling aren't helping us to solve the problems that the survivors, the minorities and the women have asked us to solve. I've heard from women who are survivors, and they are begging us to tackle the issue of the culture of toxic masculinity. They're asking us to address sexual assault and sexual violence in the armed forces much more. By continuing to pursue motions like this, we're not doing that. That is the underlying reality.
In regard to the change to the motion that Mr. Bezan has proposed, which is to say “summon” versus “invite”, I have concerns with that. This committee, and committees in the House of Commons, operate on the basis of invitation. I don't think that is necessary.
We invite people to come. We make sure that we follow up with them. It takes time. I don't know the background on the communication, I really don't, but generally speaking, sometimes we are responded to quickly as a committee, and sometimes we're not responded to quickly. Just because we don't get a response quickly, we don't go out there and summon every time. That's not the way committees work. They haven't worked that way in the past, and I think this is an unprecedented step that sets dangerous and unhelpful precedents for future studies, including this one.
On the substance of adding the word “summon” or altering the motion to the word “summon”, I have a concern.
I also want to speak to something that Mrs. Vandenbeld spoke to earlier, which is the way in which we work together. My background, prior to this, was as a member of provincial parliament in Ontario. Perhaps the culture there is different. I don't know. However, I was not accustomed at that level or at the federal level, until very recently in this committee, to just springing motions on each other left and right. I think that if we want to make thoughtful decisions about how we vote, we need time to consider what is being proposed and the implications of what is being proposed, and to discuss it with each other and to hear each other out, and to do it in a thoughtful way. I think the approach of surprising folks with motion after motion after motion is not helpful for us to come to the best list of witnesses to study what we want to study.
I know we're disagreeing on what we should study. Some of us are saying, let's focus on addressing the underlying problems, let's focus on understanding what is causing this culture of toxic masculinity and let's figure out how to solve it. Some of us are arguing, no, let's talk about other things. That's a separate issue.
Again, I urge us to focus on the victims and their needs, and on how we solve the underlying problems that have made them victims. That said, I also think that, in working together, springing motions on each other is not helpful, and I think that the summons is unnecessary. I see no evidence to believe that it is necessary.
We have a series of scheduled meetings already. We have a series of witnesses coming. We've agreed to that. Let's move forward with that.
I think that should be our immediate next step.
Thanks.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to reiterate what I said before. I think that instead of just dealing with a few people, somehow we have to deal with over a thousand people who have been involved through the surveys that have been done on this terrible situation. I'm not sure how we get on track to that. Maybe Ms. Vandenbeld needs to add witnesses related to improving the system, related to changing the culture that the experts have said is the major part of the problem.
As Mr. Baker said, I think the people watching want us to get on with dealing with the structural changes, the procedural changes and the culture changes so that both for men and for women the culture of masculinity doesn't prevail to the extent that people are uncomfortable serving there or uncomfortable in reporting, and so that action will be taken on their reports.
Thank you.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to bring something up as somebody who—as obviously most of the committee is aware—has served 25 years and likely is one of the more recent members of Parliament to have served and knows a number of the players, including Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor personally, who has resigned from the military in disgust and disappointment. I speak with a level of confidence to say that the rank and file do want to understand how a situation occurred that allowed the chief of the defence staff to have allegations brought forward and not have those allegations properly investigated.
This is something that the minister, in committee on the 12th of March, the last time I participated, admitted. He was responsible for the failure of those allegations to come forward. I think it's completely appropriate to get these witnesses here as soon as possible in order to testify, because we need to get to the root of what allowed this situation to occur. Then we can tackle, very appropriately, the structural changes that are required in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you.
It was brought up by the clerk that Ms. Astravas has not denied the invitation. Normally, we use a summons when people refuse to appear. As far as I know, it has not been a refusal. I think it's also.... Summoning someone sets a very high precedent, really, and I'm not sure.... Is this something that we can talk about in the steering committee meeting? We can decide if there are certain criteria—I don't know—by which people decide to make it a summons instead of an invitation.
The clerk wanted to make sure. He's still, as I said, in conversation with somebody else. It sometimes takes a little longer than people would like to admit, but if there has not been a refusal, do we actually want to go ahead and do a summons? It's something that we can definitely talk about. I think it would be totally appropriate to discuss this matter in the steering committee and actually come up with a consolidated way forward. How are we actually going to deal with issues of this nature and the issue of things like summonses?
I would like to have a steering committee very much in the near future.... This is also one of those things that we could discuss at that time, plus what the ongoing scope and focus of this study will be. Those are just a couple of points for your consideration.
We'll go to Mr. Baker and then to Madam Gallant.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I was going to speak to that very issue and ask whether Ms. Astravas had declined. To me, it's at that point that committees decide whether they want to summon or not. It's not when we have a delay in a response, for whatever reason.
I think that's a dangerous precedent to set. I think we need to give the time for those.... Whatever the outreach is, the scheduling, we don't know what's happening, what Ms. Astravas is dealing with. We don't know about the communication issue and why she hasn't responded. We don't know. A summons is a very harsh tool. It's not justified when someone hasn't refused to testify and just hasn't responded.
I think that's the precedent that's been set. It's a precedent that's been set by MPs of all parties going back decades. We should realize that precedent was set, that MPs of all parties, whether it was majority governments or minority governments, have operated that way for a reason. I think one of the reasons is that, for the most part—not always perhaps, but for the most part—we get the best content and insight from our witnesses when we invite them rather than when we summon them. That's one of the reasons.
The other reason is that I don't think it's necessary. It's not required in this case. It's not necessary to ask Ms. Astravas to.... It's understandable that we want to invite her. We've extended the invitation. I think we should give a reasonable period of time for that invitation to be heard and responded to. We don't know what's causing that delay in response. There's a lot going on right now, including a pandemic. I'd ask us to respect that and not set a new precedent that we will regret.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
The government members seem to be doing everything they can to delay, deflect and stop Ms. Astravas from appearing before the committee. We may be in the last weeks of this Parliament, which would mean it could be another nine months to a year before we get back on track with following through with this investigation and getting results for the women in the armed forces.
I'm wondering if the clerk would be able to share with us the outline of the number of times he tried or heard back from Ms. Astravas. Has there been a going back and forth with Zita, or have you just sent the invitation out and not heard back? Could you detail that for the committee, please?
1:50 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Wassim Bouanani
Madam Chair, I attempted on a few occasions to speak on the phone with Ms. Astravas. I was not able to connect directly with her, so I left a voice mail or I left a message. I also sent one email and one reminder.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Three times.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Over a span of time, or one right after the other in the same day?
1:55 p.m.
The Clerk
It was not on the same day.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
No official letter has gone out or any invitation by mail or by...?
