National Defence Committee on April 12th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning and welcome, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Today's meeting is in hybrid format, pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on January 25, 2021. Committee members will be present in person or through Zoom. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

I remind everyone that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair, and when speaking—and I say this more as a reminder to myself than to others—everyone should speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members whether they are participating virtually or in person.

I now recognize Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses, but before we begin, I would like to put a motion.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

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

My reason for putting it at the beginning of the meeting is that something very serious has occurred.

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

I got no English translation when you were speaking French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay, thank you.

Carry on, Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The reason I'm putting this motion at the beginning of this meeting is that a very serious issue occurred on the weekend. I put this notice of motion, as is the common procedure, 48 hours before this meeting so that all members could review it and prepare for this meeting. On Sunday at noon, Global News reported that they had a copy of my motion, which was confidential, and reported the content of it.

The issue with this kind of leak is that it is not just about me and this motion. I believe this is about our honour as parliamentarians. The only people who had a copy of the motion are the members of this committee, which means there is a member of the committee who took a confidential motion and leaked it to the media. What that has done is not allow me as the member moving the motion to be able to provide a rationale for why I'm moving the motion, and it has also denied the members the ability to debate and discuss the motion.

I would ask at this moment that whoever on this committee did so, would own up to it and apologize to this committee as an honourable member, as a parliamentarian, with respect for this committee and this institution.

Having said that, I will move the motion, even though it has been leaked. It has been distributed in French and English. I will read it in English, but I know that the text has been distributed to all members in both languages. The motion reads:

That, concerning the study of addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance, members of the committee send their drafting instructions and recommendations for the report to the Clerk by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 16, 2021; that the committee complete its review of the draft report and adopt the report not later than Friday, May 28, 2021; and that the Chair table the report in the House of Commons no later than Thursday, June 10, 2021.

The reason I'm putting this motion forward is that, as we have heard from many survivors last week, including It's Just 700 that put out a statement on Twitter last Friday, the survivors, the people most impacted by military sexual trauma, have been asking that we stop pointing fingers and stop dragging the study on but make sure that their issues are heard.

We have heard in this committee very many recommendations, good recommendations, to deal with the systemic issues that led to where we are today. I consulted with the chair, the clerk and the analysts on Friday regarding timelines and realized that because of the time needed for drafting—and I'll allow the analysts and the clerk to weigh in on this if they wish—and for translation and editing and tabling a report, if we don't have the final witnesses this week, we will in all likelihood not be able to issue our recommendations before the summer recess. I would defer to the clerk if he wishes to talk about that timeline.

I believe it is very important for the witnesses who have come forward at this and other committees to ensure that these recommendations get reported to the House and are brought to the government. I believe that we owe it to the survivors to make sure that we are focused on them. They have made their voices very clear that what they're looking for is that we provide urgent recommendations so that we can take action immediately.

With regard to the study so far, I would like to point out to the committee that by my calculations, we have already spent 25 hours on the study. It could be more. I've counted 25 hours of witness testimony since February 19. Seven of those hours were with the Minister of National Defence. Within those 25 hours, we have also had 11 hours of additional extraordinary meetings that were called outside of the ordinary sitting time of this committee. We have had 21 witnesses, and as far as I can see, the only witnesses who are still remaining—there are three of them—are Mr. Jason Kenney; Mr. Gerrit Nieuwoudt, who was the chief of staff to Jason Kenney when he was the minister of defence; and Mr. Elder Marques.

Of all of the witnesses who have been put forward in motions, there are three left. I would also at this time ask the clerk to give us an update on those three.

I believe that it would be within our ability as a committee to invite them for Friday, in which case I think we will have exhausted the list and would be ready to ensure that we get the right recommendations to the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Clerk, can you answer Madam Vandenbeld's question, please?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Wassim Bouanani]

Madam Chair, both Mr. Marques and Mr. Nieuwoudt were not available to appear today before the committee. I have not suggested any other date.

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

On point of order, Madam Chair, I believe that we also had Zita on the list and I did not hear the parliamentary secretary read out her name.

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

Yes. I was going on the assumption that when the minister appeared, he appeared in the name of Madam Zita Astravas. I believe that the committee could very well mention in its report, if the committee does not agree with me, that the minister appeared on her behalf. The people I mentioned are the only three who have not been dealt with by the committee so far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too am disappointed that this was in the media. Regardless, the issue is that there are still a number of witnesses we have not heard from. We do have witnesses sitting at the table right now, so I move that we table this motion until the end of the meeting, for debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

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

I just moved a motion.

That's dilatory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

There's already a motion on the floor right now, Mr. Bezan, so stand by.

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

I'm moving a motion to table debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bezan, are you asking to adjourn the debate?

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

Yes. Let's adjourn debate until the end of the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay.

[The Clerk]

The question is on the motion to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Stand by. I think we're getting confused here.

Let me clarify. What we're asking for now is whether you want to adjourn the debate at this time.

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

On a point of order, we had started a vote, and why are we not continuing with it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood the qualifiers and conditions on this.

The vote right now is whether we, at the present time, adjourn the debate and then bring the debate on this motion forward up for a vote later in the meeting. That's my understanding and that's what I think needed to be clear.

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

On a point of order, just to be clear, I believe what Mr. Bezan said is that we would continue. We would table the motion until just before the end of the meeting and deal with it then, and not to go right to a vote.