National Defence Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I see that the clock is ticking. It seems that the members of the committee have a lot to say about the motion. I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern about what my colleagues, particularly those from the government side, have been saying about the possibility of shortening the study that is underway, which has just begun. This is a very important issue. We are talking about allegations involving the current chief of the defence staff and his predecessor.

It seems necessary to me to take these matters seriously, to study them in depth and to hear from all the witnesses who are relevant in this context. That is why I believe that the motion tabled today by my colleagues should be adopted. I understand the desire to have a meeting of the subcommittee, but I do not see how that would prevent us from adopting today's motion, which would allow us to do more planning in the weeks to come. It is important to get organized. It would only take a few seconds to pass the motion. Then we can move on. I am sure that other witnesses could even be proposed later on and their testimony could be just as interesting for the purposes of our study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

We'll go to Madam Gallant, and then Mr. Bagnell.

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

Madam Chair, I was concerned about what Mr. Robillard said, stating that we only had one more week left with our constituents. I had thought we had two weeks coming up.

Why would he say that we only had one week? Is the Prime Minister planning on calling an election?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right.

We'll move on to Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to echo what Mr. Baker said, and the witness.

This is a huge, terrible problem in the military. There are thousands of people that have been affected, not just the several that we've talked about so far.

Those people serving in the military right now would want us to get on with what Mr. Baker was saying and to deal with the structural problems, the independence of the process and the culture. This is no small task. We really have to address it and get on with it. I think everyone on the committee is committed to solving that problem, military-wide, so that men and women no longer fear serving in the Canadian military, which is a very proud career.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Baker, go ahead, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

There's no question that what we have been studying is important. You're not going to hear me say that it's not. What I think is important for me to qualify is that, what to me is even more important is that we spend a proportionate amount of time in this committee dealing with—and when I say “proportionate”, I don't mean equal; I mean proportionate—the problem that's before us.

Unfortunately, we know that there are hundreds, thousands.... We don't know exactly how many, but we know there are many victims. We've had witnesses come forward and talk to us about the problems of culture in the Canadian Armed Forces. I think that these are issues that are really complex and require the time to study them. There is a great urgency to do that because if we do that and do it effectively and quickly, then the sooner we can tackle it. The sooner we tackle it, the sooner we're reducing the number of people who are being victimized and, hopefully someday, eliminating it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think we've spent a significant amount of time investigating the events around General Vance. I'm not diminishing the importance of that. What I'm saying is that, to me, what is most important and should be ranked paramount are the people who've suffered and who are suffering right now. I think that we should apply proportionate time and energy to solving that problem, which is the one before us, both the government and the Canadian Armed Forces. That is critical.

When I think about the lives that are being.... I think it's important to remember, too, that members of the forces who have been victims are watching this. They're following this. I think about what they're thinking as they watch this. They're watching us, as elected officials, spend a lot of time on the circumstances that we've focused on—and again I'm not diminishing the importance of that—but I think what they would want, if they were here, would be for us to tackle the underlying issue that has made them victims and that has, in some cases, destroyed lives.

I would just suggest that we dedicate a proportionate amount of time to the problem that is before us and that is touching lives today. To me, that means moving to a phase where we're calling witnesses and focusing on finding the best solution so that we can actually shape the outcome.

It's not good enough for us, as politicians.... It's not appropriate for us to sit here on this committee and criticize whomever we want to criticize, saying “they didn't do this” and “they didn't do that”. Let's talk about what we are going to do. Let's start talking about solutions. Let's start understanding the problem. We've started a little bit. It's a complex problem. Perhaps there's more understanding that's needed. Then, let's tackle it. That, to me, is what we should be doing.

If I think about the people who've suffered and been victims, and if they're watching this at home, I'm confident that's where they would like us to apply our time. I'm urging us, as people who are focused on making the lives of other people better, to focus our energies there. That's why I suggest that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you.

Next we have Madam Alleslev, Monsieur Barsalou-Duval and then Mr. Spengemann.

Go ahead, Madam Alleslev.

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

Thank you very much.

We need to be conscious of the fact that there is a status of women study as well. I think that there are two very different objectives that parliamentarians need to achieve.

This national defence committee, in my opinion, needs to be looking at holding the government—and, therefore, the processes, what happened, and how—to account. We can't fix something if we don't fully appreciate all the places where it fell down or where the ball was dropped.

We absolutely need to continue to hear from the national security adviser, Zita Astravas, Elder Marques and others we uncover who should have been involved in the process and weren't, or who were and didn't behave in accordance with the roles and responsibilities that they were entrusted with in that process.

The status of women committee should be looking at what we need to change structurally and organizationally, and at how we measure that.

Ultimately, the victims—and I've heard from a number of them in the military, and from women in the military in general—want, yes, to know that these types of things will be prevented in the future. They also do need to know that all of those senior officers—and anyone who is involved in sexual misconduct—are held accountable for their behaviour, and that, whether they were complicit through their silence or their actions, there is a process by which they will be held accountable. I think that's part of the role and responsibility that we on this committee need to fulfill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I understand from the interventions of my colleagues, particularly those of the Liberal Party, is that their intention is not to debate the motion that has been tabled, but to close the study that has just been undertaken on the subject. This is a kind of headlong rush to avoid talking about this issue, which is very serious. It is of the utmost importance. We are talking about the chief of the defence staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, Madam Chair, so I am somewhat surprised by this attitude. I don't know what the government has to hide, but I think the events deserve a thorough review and we need to hear from the witnesses mentioned.

I understand the importance of addressing the issue of the culture in the Canadian military, particularly with respect to sexual assault. It is a very important topic. Yet I feel that my Liberal colleagues are trying to put that study at odds with the conduct of this one, when they are both intimately related. I am sure that any victim of sexual assault in the military would tell us that they want to know what happened that involved the chiefs of the defence staff. They would tell us to pursue this investigation, because the reality is that they are the bosses. To trust the institution, victims would also want to have an idea of what the top brass did.

Why would anyone want to hide what happened at the highest seat of power in the Canadian military? I find it disturbing, and I don't think it would contribute to a much-needed investigation into the culture in the Canadian military.

I would invite my Liberal colleagues to explain why they do not want us to pursue this study, but also why we should not vote.

Everyone has had a chance to speak, so I think it's time to take a vote, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Spengemann and then Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I just wanted to follow up on the previous comment and echo colleagues who have said that rather than anybody wanting to shut down the study, the idea is to focus our energies on those issues that matter most, those issues that have been long-standing and those issues that are echoed by witnesses and, most importantly, by female victims and their families and men who are allies on the issue of gender equality.

Madam Chair, just to refer you back briefly to a report that this very committee did in the last Parliament of June 2019, entitled “Improving Diversity and Inclusion in the Canadian Armed Forces”, it's a broader issue than the issues of sexual harassment and misconduct, but Mr. Bezan, Mr. Garrison, Ms. Gallant, Mr. Robillard and I were part of that committee. There were some great recommendations put forward with respect to leadership within the Canadian Forces on the issue of gender equality.

We should stay in that track and focus more specifically now on the issue of sexual misconduct and harassment and the systemic nature of it. It's not a question of shutting down the study. It's a question of directing it to what matters most.

My intervention, Madam Chair, really is aimed at supporting the comments of my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld to strategically use the subcommittee to identify those witnesses who will put us onto that track and take us forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I have Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

On what was said by my colleague opposite, we know how important this study is. We know that the study that's starting in the Status of Women committee is vitally important. We already have witnesses who we proposed many weeks ago, such as the current Canadian Armed Forces champion for women and others, who have tremendous recommendations to bring, and who, I'm sad to say, were rejected by all the opposition parties at the status of women committee when I brought them forward last week.

We have those names already. We have a number of witnesses who have already been proposed and that the chair has invited. I think it is very reasonable that we would continue this study and make sure that we come up with the right recommendations for the minister, who has said very clearly that all options are on the table. He wants to hear from parliamentary committees on this.

Having said that, I really don't think that we want to be here all day. I have said before—and I will continue to say—that the practice of surprising people with names one by one and voting on one person at a time at meetings is not the best procedure in this committee. Having said that, I think we are probably prepared to vote on this one right away, because I note that it is one o'clock and, members, this committee meeting was supposed to end at one o'clock.

I know that there was a notice of motion. If we want to vote on that quickly, I just have one small note, which is that in those motions, if Mr. Bezan could clarify the timeline in the current one.... Because given that we have two constituency weeks coming, if you say “14 days”, it requires a meeting during that constituency break time. If we could make sure that both of those motions say “21 days” instead of “14 days”, so that it can be at the next meeting of the committee that's currently scheduled, then I think we're prepared to vote on both of those right away.

Just, please, as a practice.... I had names that came out of today that I would love to put forward as well, but I think we need to give each other the courtesy of having time to consult one another and to talk to each other about names and which ones are priorities, and how long we want to continue the study. I think these are all legitimate questions.

Madam Chair, if there's nobody else on the speaking list, I think we could proceed to a vote on this motion, presuming that it didn't have a timeline of 14 days. I just want to clarify that.

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

Just for clarification, Madam Chair, there is no timeline at all because I've left that up to the discretion of the chair and the steering committee.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

There isn't a time limit on either of those motions.

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

There's no time limit on the one we're voting on. On the notice of motion we brought forward there is, and we can deal with that when that's on the floor. Let's not cross our wires yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay. This is the motion that was just brought forward from Mr. Bezan to call Monsieur Daniel Jean.

Is anyone voting against that motion?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Chair, I had my hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Chair, I would like to propose an amendment to Mr. Bezan's motion that we limit the meeting with this witness to one hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Would anybody like to weigh in on that?