National Defence Committee on April 12th, 2021

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

If I may respond, if I understand you correctly, Ms. Vandenbeld, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence, you are going back and forth with the chair of this committee, which is supposed to be implementing oversight and looking into the Minister of Defence being part of the chain of command and looking at whether or not things were done accordingly. It seems like a bit of a conflict there when the very department we're supposed to be having oversight over is being directed by the chair on how to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Madam Gallant.

Go ahead, Madam Vandenbeld.

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

I'd like to respond to that. I put a notice of motion and I received correspondence back from the clerk that, having discussed it with the analysts, he recommended changes to my motion. I had a more ambitious timeline actually. I had suggested having it earlier. He came back with recommendations to me to change the motion because that timeline was unrealistic.

I then agreed with the clerk's recommendation and put a second motion, which was then distributed to the members and leaked to the media.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

The clerk would like to add comments.

Go ahead, please.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that the information that was provided was based on the time that needs to be allocated to each of the steps that precede the adoption of a report in committee and the tabling of the report in the House before the House adjournment in June. It takes into account time for submission of instructions and recommendations from members, drafting, proofing, translation, formatting for version one and the subsequent revised version, and finally for any complementary or dissenting reports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay. I'm afraid other people are....

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay.

Go ahead, Madam Alleslev.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is highly disconcerting.

First of all, I think we need to put it on the record that there are still nine and a half weeks left before the summer recess. We have in the past, on other committees and on this committee, been able to have drafting instructions, write a report, complete it, submit it and table it in the House in significantly less time than that. My concern is that this is offering an unjustified pressure of timeline when one doesn't actually exist.

Second of all, the fact that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence has brought this forward is also somewhat disconcerting. She is a representative of the executive branch. The responsibility of the House of Commons standing committee is to, in part, hold the executive branch accountable. In something as serious as this, we need to have not only in reality no interference from the executive branch, but we need even more so to have no possible perception of interference by the executive branch.

We are talking about the trust and confidence of Canadian Forces personnel and of Canadians in the whole structure of the National Defence Act and in our elected representative who is responsible for the Department of National Defence and the military—the Minister of Defence.

Once that trust and confidence have been lost, and with any possible perception that the executive branch is interfering in our ability to get to the bottom of it, then the very institutions of a military and our democratic structure are strongly at risk. I wanted to make sure that I put that forward.

Third, I have no one who has asked to conclude this study. In fact, I have been overwhelmed by the number of emails, phone calls and texts to my office and to me personally that are providing additional information, support and feedback on just how critical this study is and just how overdue it is. [Technical difficulty—Editor] incident that has simply arisen recently. It is not a one-off. It is, unfortunately—the more we do the study—a systematic pattern of behaviour at the very highest levels, possibly even including the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of National Defence.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] people do not feel that we have got to the bottom of this and have done our legislative responsibility as elected representatives of Canadians to figure out exactly how this went wrong and what needs to be done to re-establish the trust and confidence in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We still have no answer on why a CDS with outstanding unresolved allegations of sexual misconduct was allowed to continue in his position for an additional three years. The fact that there was any possibility that those allegations were true and that no one—not at the highest level—determined the need to investigate or get to the bottom of it and ensure that they weren't true is highly disconcerting. Also, we still have no accountability from the minister or anyone else that it was in fact their responsibility to ensure that a chief of the defence staff or any senior military personnel were allowed to continue with unresolved allegations of any kind, not the least of which is abuse of power or sexual misconduct.

Last, but just as important, how are we going to ensure that the process continues after our study is complete and that those people who are complicit, either through their silence or through their actions, are held accountable?

I ask that because this is not only about fixing processes and procedures. It's not only about holding accountable those who should have done something. It's also about ensuring that those who may have done things that were not honourable and beyond reproach are held accountable in the future.

There is still a significant amount of serious inquiry that we, as elected representatives, must look into and that's why we cannot, must not stop now. We owe it to the citizens and the members of the Canadian Forces. I was a woman in the military and I did not feel that I was able to serve equally in some circumstances, and that was over 30 years ago. This is our time to do something about it. We can't afford not to. This study is a critical piece in moving forward the country and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thank you.

[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, Madam Chair.

I heard the comments from my colleagues in the Conservative Party and the NDP, and I have to say that I agree with them for the most part, especially when they say that they feel frustrated that they don't know the substance of the case and that they don't really know what the [technical difficulties] were in terms of the responsibilities for the decisions that were made, or rather decisions that weren't made, regarding the status of the witnesses who were called by the committee and that the government refuses to allow to appear. All these things are very worrisome, but we must also think about the victims. The committee must be able to report on the situation so that the government and decision-makers take these victims into account so that they know that they've ultimately been heard.

We all know that the government is dreaming of calling an election. If we don't manage to complete the report by the end of June, there most likely won't ever be one. I think it would be a shame to lose such an opportunity to report on the committee's work, both for victims and for those who are disappointed by the government's actions in terms of its sort of willingness to prevent witnesses from appearing before the committee.

Steps have also been taken by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics regarding an outstanding order of reference. I think that will continue.

So I intend to support the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bezan, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is disappointing that the Liberals are bringing forward this motion as part of an ongoing cover-up of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces by the highest ranking officers, particularly by the two chiefs of the defence staff. It's more about protecting themselves as Liberals than protecting the brave women who serve us in uniform.

I've been on this committee now for 10 years and a parliamentarian for much longer, and I've never seen a report take this long to draft, with over a two-month time frame that has been proposed. I've seen us do reports quickly and easily in a matter of days, and I've also seen very substantive reports get done in less than a month, so I think that if we want to buckle down we can get that report done. I do want to have a report.

Let's keep in mind that the status of women committee is also doing its own study into sexual misconduct, so we can continue to drive forward on looking at who knew what and when and why they did or did not take any action and allow the other committee, the status of women committee, to do the more substantive work on how we support the victims and how we can change things like the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. I think that is where we need to make sure that we don't cross wires but try to collaborate as much as possible, including looking at testimony that's been provided to the status of women committee and how we may want to utilize that in our own report here.

It's interesting to note that when we look at the witnesses who have appeared, virtually all of the witnesses invited by the Liberal members of the committee have already showed up, yet when we look at whom we've asked for on our side of the table, we still haven't had Zita Astravas, despite moving a number of motions at this committee, as well as in the House of Commons, asking her to appear. Instead, the last time, we got Minister Sajjan. Then there's Elder Marques, who was a senior adviser to Prime Minister Trudeau. We've asked him to appear and he still hasn't showed up. This is why I think the Liberals are trying to shut down this study. They don't want him to appear, because he is a person who can connect the dots about who knew what within Minister Sajjan's office and who knew what within the Prime Minister's Office.

Of course, Michael Wernick, being the former clerk of the Privy Council, wasn't party to the conversations that he said took place on the second floor of the Prime Minister's Office. This is something that we need to keep in mind and to hear from these witnesses if we want to get down to the bottom of why this ball was dropped, especially in relation to General Vance. What was known three years ago and why wasn't it acted upon? Why wasn't he removed, at the very least, as the senior commander of Operation Honour? It undermined all the work that took place trying to stomp out sexual misconduct, and as we found out, it didn't at all address sexual misconduct by the very highest commanders within the Canadian Armed Forces, who are now facing multiple allegations. There are multiple leaders within the Canadian Armed Forces who are implicated. We need to hear from both present and past political staffers within the upper Liberal echelon to come forward to talk about what happened.

The other thing that we haven't been able to drill down on is the minister continuing claim that he couldn't do anything because that would have been considered political interference. We've heard from military justice experts like retired Colonel Michel Drapeau and retired justice Létourneau, who have said publicly that it's not political interference to ask for an investigation or to accept evidence and then pass it on to the appropriate people. We also saw in the news last week that the current commander of the Canadian Forces national investigation service said that it's not political interference to ask CFNIS to do an investigation. It would only be political interference if the minister tried to direct the particulars about the investigation as to tampering with evidence, or telling them that they can't talk to so and so, or that this or that is the outcome he wanted. If it's to look into allegations, that is not considered political interference. A case in point is the Prime Minister and his office directing the investigations into Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Those investigations were definitely done at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and yet that's not considered political interference.

It comes back to the trust within the Canadian Armed Forces. The trust in Minister Sajjan and in Prime Minister Trudeau has been completely eroded because of these allegations, and it is our responsibility to investigate this as far as we can and start rebuilding that trust. The way we can rebuild that trust is if we can clearly document at every step of the way how that trust broke down, going right back to evidence being presented to Minister Sajjan on March 1, 2018.

Madam Chair, we need to do a lot more work here, and I still have full confidence that at the end of the day, we can call in probably another four to six witnesses, especially if we have witnesses who provide us with more information that require us to ask [Technical difficulty--Editor] to appear before committee as we continue to connect the dots and still get to a final report before the House recesses.

I know that in nine and a half weeks we can find the time, including during a break week and during other meeting times within the parliamentary calendar, to get this work done, because this is the most important work we are undertaking in this session. We haven't seen anything rattle the Canadian Armed Forces to this degree since the Somalia inquiry. It's been a generation since then. We need to look at how we can take all that we have learned here and move forward with proper recommendations that the government can act on.

The other thing we always have to keep in mind, and we know that based upon the [Technical difficulty--Editor]. In reality, we may not make it to the end of June anyway because Parliament could be prorogued and an election could be under way, so I put that out there as well, that it will be very difficult to get to a final report with a spring election.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Madam Gallant.

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

Madam Chair, Ms. Alleslev eloquently and very completely described what I was going to say. It is the work of this committee to continue, not to simply cast off to an inquiry, which will get lost and slammed down like the Somalia affair, just when we're getting to the nub of the problem. Therefore, I would like this motion to either be withdrawn or set aside until we have the opportunity to hear from all the witnesses who are germane to this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Benzen.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

This is my first year on the committee, but it seems from what I've heard that this is one of the most important studies that's happened in a very long time. If that is indeed the case, it is very important that we continue to get all of the information possible to get so that when we do our report, it will be complete. Ending it early makes no sense if it's such an important study.

Clearly, we don't have all the information at this point. There is a lot of time left. We've heard a lot of other issues mentioned about it maybe not even mattering because an election will be called, but our duty is not to worry about when an election is going to be called. Our duty is to get the information and do a thorough report.

We know there are more witnesses to be called. It is premature at this point to not have them come in. We need to have them appear. We can all work more time on this project. The analysts can work longer hours if this is important. I know nobody wants to hear that, but the fact of the matter is this is a job we are doing for our Canadian Armed Forces, for Canada.

We can't just say that we only have so much time left and that we're just going to work our normal hours, and that's it. This is important. Let's do the right thing. Let's work as much as we have to on this. Clearly, more questions have to be asked, and something that is really frustrating to me is that we have wasted a lot of time in these discussions.

This morning we Conservatives have been talking, but we've had three or four meetings where the Liberals have done what they are doing today, where we have wasted, two, three or four hours when we could have had witnesses coming in and been asking them the questions instead of debating among ourselves.

I don't think this committee should be partisan in the way it is right now. We should be non-partisan. We should be looking for the truth. Canadian want to hear the truth. I don't think we're doing that by trying to stop things from happening and delaying people from coming in. Certainly what we saw with the ministers speaking for their staff, there seemed to be another diversion there.

I think we need to keep going. We should set this motion aside. We should put in another couple of weeks on this for sure, and then once we feel we have all of the information, that's when we should stop and start writing the report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I really want to respond to a couple of issues that have been raised by my opposition colleagues, because I think they're important to [Technical difficulty—Editor].

First of all, I think it's really important to note what some of the opposition members have indicated, namely, that they're not hearing members of the forces or survivors of sexual harassment and assault say they want a report to be written and finalized as soon as possible. [Technical difficulty—Editor] provide support for that, and I would turn the member's attention to the group called It's Just 700. I'll read from their Twitter bio, which says it's “Run by a group of volunteers dedicated to help current and past service members of the Canadian military who survived a work related sexual trauma find support.” They have a website and you can look up more information if you are interested.

I'll just read a couple of comments they made recently, on April 9, on their Twitter feed: “After yesterday’s testimony at the HofC standing committee on the Status of Women the survivor community eagerly awaits the release of the final report and official recommendations.” I want to keep reading: “It'sJust700 does not endorse ANY political party. The needs of affected servicemen and servicewomen don't change with who is or isn't in power.”

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

Madam Chair, on point of order, his video is very choppy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Can you please start again, Mr. Baker. You did get interrupted there.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay. Can you hear me now, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I wanted to address some of the comments that were made by my opposition colleagues, which I think were incorrect and unfair.

There are a couple of items I want to address. First is the comment made by some opposition colleagues that [Technical difficulty—Editor] hearing from members of the armed forces and victims of sexual harassment and assault. They are eagerly awaiting the release of our committee's report. They'd like us to complete that report urgently.

I want to point the members' attention to a group called It's Just 700. There's a website where there's more information available, but I quote here from the bio of their Twitter feed. It's “Run by a group of volunteers dedicated...past service members of the Canadian military who survived a work related sexual trauma find support.” I have personally had the opportunity to hear from some of the members of this organization as well.

I want to quote from a couple of their recent comments. They're from Twitter, so they're available publicly. They state, “ItsJust700 does not endorse ANY political party. The needs of affected servicemen and servicewomen don’t change with who is or isn’t in power. Lately, it feels like our community is being exploited by media and politicians for trauma porn click-bait and political leverage.”

I want to point you to [Technical difficulty—Editor] “for those consultations to BECOME meaningful, informative and useful. We want them to BE used. We've been talking for 5-6 years. It's time for action now.”

They also comment that “Delaying the release of the Status of Women report, including the recommendations that can be implemented immediately, will not serve survivors' best interests. We need help yesterday.”

Another comment is that “Culture change in the CAF will need to include systemic changes to the selection, training, health care, performance review, family support services, and realigning the CAFs core values with the progressive values held by Canadians in order to recover from this crisis.”

There are other comments along these lines, but the point I'm simply trying to make is to underline that there are many survivors—many victims—out there who are asking us to move forward. I know someone's going to say that they were referring to the status of women committee and this is the defence committee. I hear that, but they eagerly await the release of reports that will allow us to address this problem. I think it's fair to understand that they're eager for us, as a committee, to make recommendations that allow government to take action and to end the politics, which they've also criticized.

I would also add on that point that I have heard from members of that group personally that they are eager to have us deliver a report as soon as possible.

As far as the other point I wanted to make, there were a couple of members who, in my view, impugned the credibility of the clerk in suggesting the timelines the clerk offered are not correct and not consistent with past practice. One of the members [Technical difficulty—Editor] not have been in contact with the clerk. My understanding is that it's common practice for members of the committee, if need be, to consult with the clerk.

Ms. Vandenbeld is a parliamentary secretary. She's also a member of Parliament who was elected. She has the opportunity to consult with the clerk, just like I do and any other member of this committee does. That's what she did. In crafting the motion, her goal was to achieve the objective of completing this report before the end of this spring session. That's my impression anyway. She needed to consult with the clerk to figure out what timelines we would have to meet as a committee to meet that timeline. I think it's very reasonable and there's nothing inappropriate about that consultation.

There were also comments that impugned the credibility of the clerk. I think that's unfair. The clerk has been asked for input on timelines, which is completely reasonable. It's very common. Members of all parties do this on a regular basis. I just wanted to defend the good name of the clerk in this context because I thought some of the comments were unfair.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan, please.