National Defence Committee on April 16th, 2021

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm extremely disappointed. We are capable of doing two things at once, like walking and chewing gum. We could have heard from the witnesses today and agreed on Mr. Marques, who was already expected to appear before the committee before the motion was passed at the beginning of the week.

We are currently having a debate on the terms “invite” and “summon” the witness. I repeat that we know the truth: that Mr. Marques did not respond to our request. That is the truth. Since we know that the Minister has already blocked a witness from appearing, it's entirely legitimate for us to demand that the Liberals commit to not blocking Mr. Marques' appearance.

On behalf of Canadians who care about the issue of sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces, and for whom it is an important issue, I repeat, we must respect the date we have agreed on for tabling the report. Can we agree that the Liberals will not block Mr. Marques' appearance and that they will respect the timeline for tabling the report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you.

I want to assure you that no Liberal will block the testimony of any witness before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We are now voting on the amendment to change the word “summons” to the word “invite”.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Are we now on the main motion, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We are on the main motion as amended.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a few things to say, but could I ask you or the clerk to read out the motion as amended?

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Ms. Larouche, could you repeat your amendment? The clerk is not sure if he heard it correctly.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I simply propose adding “and that the date of the report be not changed” at the end of the motion.

[The Clerk]

The motion as amended is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on National Defence, concerning its study of addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance and Admiral Art McDonald, summon Elder Marques to testify as a witness; that the witness appear individually for no less than two hours; that the meeting be held in public and be televised; and that the witness testify within seven days of this motion passing and that the date of the report be not changed.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

May I continue, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I just wanted to confirm the motion before we went on with the debate.

I think in this situation we have someone who is co-operating, who is working with the committee, and whose reputation is going to be tarnished if the committee summons him. I'm so disappointed that there are members of the committee who will use this tool of summoning, which is designed for highly unusual, rare circumstances when someone is not co-operating, to impugn the character of an individual.

I don't care whether this individual is of the same political party or a different one; it is just highly inappropriate, number one. Number two, it breaks with precedent that's been set for this very reason, and it's a precedent that's been followed by members of all parties since this Parliament has existed. I think the fact that we're now breaking with that precedent is very dangerous and sets a very dangerous precedent. I'd urge members to consider that if we would use this tool in this way, the tool could be used at any time on others who are upstanding, who are working with the committee, and could be used to imply that they're not co-operating, that a summons is needed to impugn their character. That's the first thing.

The second thing I think I want to point to again is that members on this committee have said in this discussion, in this debate on this motion and on the amendment to this motion, that someone's preventing.... Mr. Bagnell has tried to ask about this and has not received an answer to his questions, and I think they're very good questions. Mr. Bagnell has asked why the member who brought this allegation suggested that Mr. Marques is not being allowed to testify or is being prevented from testifying, and we have not received a response. There's no evidence to suggest that this is the case. There's no evidence to suggest that Mr. Marques doesn't want to testify and there's no evidence to suggest that anyone's preventing him from testifying, yet we're going to go out there and use the equivalent of the committee's nuclear option and impugn the reputation of an upstanding individual who's co-operating with the committee. I urge members to consider the precedent that this sets. It's completely unnecessary.

We've all committed to a timeline—at least, thus far, we've committed to a timeline for this report to be issued. I think that's in the interest of everyone who wants to see this issue resolved. I think we should do that, but I also think we should treat people who have come to our committee, who are co-operating with our committee, who want to present what they have to say, with the due respect that they deserve, and I don't think that this motion does that.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I agree with everything Mr. Baker said, except that he took my questions.

I did want to say that I was very disappointed that.... I had important questions for Commander Patterson on reprisals and on the lack of reporting that was shown in recent reports. Before I could proceed on this, I was still waiting for answers to the questions that I asked. It was suggested someone's preventing the witness from appearing. Who is that? As well, it was suggested the witness would have more protection with a summons than if he just accepted the invitation, which he has not refused, so I need clarification on those items before we could go to this very strong process of a summons.

If committees don't use their powers judiciously, I would worry it could incite a movement to reduce committee powers, so I think we have to be very careful. We have very important abilities and powers and we should use them as required, but only as required.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

I want to echo what Mr. Baker and Mr. Bagnell just said, which really goes to the essence of the committee's power to summon. The committee holds the power. It is a very strong power. In fact, it is one of its strongest, if not the strongest power. We've heard in previous debate before this committee and multiple times from people the point that just because the committee possesses that power does not mean that it should exercise it. In fact, in some cases, in a number of respects, it retains the power by not exercising it.

On the evidence, that is the case here as well, because we have really no indication that Mr. Marques has indicated any kind of unwillingness to testify. It has been confined to multiple scheduling problems. It has been scheduling problems. If we were to go ahead and vote in favour of this motion and exercise the power to summon, it would set a precedent that is wide sweeping, not just with respect to this Parliament, but also potentially affecting previous governments, previous ministers and staff members of previous ministers who, in similar circumstances, may then also much more easily be subjected to a summons just to keep the precedent.

My view, as I've indicated multiple times, is that it's not a good view forward. The committee in the past—maybe the clerk can just refresh our memory on this subsequently—has not exercised its power, at least not through this committee, and just in very few cases elsewhere, if at all. That needs to be kept in mind.

Again, Madam Chair, I raised the option earlier with respect to the committee having other tools to find the availability of Mr. Marques and to update itself through the vice-chairs and members of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure as to what the latest correspondence is directly from Mr. Marques and to inquire if, within the parameters the committee set earlier today and keeping in mind the timing of the report, there would be an opportunity to bring him before the committee, even though today was not possible for him. There are options available. The committee's power to summons should be very, very judiciously exercised. In my view, this is not one of those cases.

Once again, Madam Chair, I emphatically would like to draw the committee's attention to the pending report and the importance of the points that we are hopefully going to make with respect to changing the culture in the Canadian Forces, giving serving female members of the Canadian Forces the power to come forward, but equally importantly, changing the culture within the Canadian Forces to one of inclusion and ultimately one in which there will be no further victims, not because they're disempowered to come forward but because the culture has changed. That really is the work, and the minister has indicated an openness. He has said that it's time for a total culture change. He has also said that “...the time for patience is now over.”

We are at the end of our procedure, in the sense that we're now looking for recommendations for the draft report, and that really is where the heavy lifting needs to take place. I look forward to hearing all my colleagues' recommendations and then spending time in committee business discussing the draft report and putting something forward to Canadians that's constructive and forward-looking and will contribute to changing the culture in the Canadian Forces in a very expeditious and substantive way.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I think almost everyone who has spoken so far has said how critical this procedure is, how serious this is, and how it needs to be respected, but I haven't heard from a lot of the members. I'd like to hear, as I said, the answers to my two questions that were put in this debate. Most members haven't weighed in on whether they agree on this strong process. We haven't even had a rejection yet.

I note that the Library of Parliament has suggested to us that there are over 30,000 people in the military who we're aware of who are affected by this, and we really have to get on to the strong recommendations related to culture, related to the chain of command and related to having no fear of reprisals for reporting.

I, for one, will be very disappointed if we don't move on quickly with those recommendations, get them done and make this change. Change is never easy, but I'm sure that all members of the committee agree that we have to change those items, and we should do it while it's possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Go ahead, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I wanted to talk a little about why I disagree with this motion. I feel it is important that we remind ourselves why we are here: we are here to solve a problem in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why, at the last meeting, as a committee, we decided together to stop meeting so that we could write a report and recommend appropriate measures to the government in order to solve this problem in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am very disappointed to see what is happening today. I am disappointed that, once again, a motion was brought to the committee at the last minute. It's really not respectful of the other committee members, and it's not efficient either. As we found out, we had to suspend the committee for about an hour so that members could evaluate and discuss the motion.

First, I am very disappointed that, several times during this study, that has been the approach advocated by some members of the committee. In my view, it is something that we should neither tolerate nor accept.

Second, with respect to the motion before us at this time, I would point to the fact that Mr. Marques has indicated several times that he is willing to testify. Mr. Marques has made contact with our clerk on several occasions. Therefore, there is no evidence or reason to believe that he is not ready, willing and able to testify.

Third, if passed by the committee, this motion will suggest that Mr. Marques is not willing to testify or work with the committee, which will have a very significant impact on his reputation, even though he is working with the clerk to be able to testify.

At our most recent meeting, we discussed the need to move on to writing the report. I think it's a shame that, despite that, Mr. Bezan is playing politics with this motion. I think it's a great shame that, in doing so, he is trying to damage the reputation of someone who is working with us.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell, please.

Sorry. That's Madam Vandenbeld, and then Mr. Bagnell and Madame Alleslev.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think it's because I'm in the room that you don't get the little hand-up signal.

I just want to compare today's committee meeting to yesterday's. Yesterday, we had three female generals and flag officers speaking for two hours before the status of women committee with real questions, with actual discussion and with recommendations, and the focus was on survivors. The focus was on the women in the Canadian Armed Forces, on veterans, and on how we move forward and make it better.

On this committee, we had the same witnesses. We had Rear-Admiral Rebecca Patterson, who is the CAF champion for women. She has an inordinate amount of experience and an inordinate number of recommendations that she could have shared with us. This is the second meeting at which, rather than focusing on how we improve things for the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than focusing on what we do to make an environment where survivors feel that they can come forward and feel that they are protected, everything for the last number of weeks in this committee has been pointing fingers and trying to say it's this person's fault or that person's fault. Frankly, we're still talking about the men. When we're still talking about whether Minister Sajjan was at fault, whether Gary Walburn was at fault or whether Erin O'Toole was at fault, we're still talking about the men.

I'm hearing from a lot of women I have been talking to. I'm not trying to speak for them and I'm not trying to suggest that they're a homogeneous group, because I know there are many different people with many different experiences who are very traumatized. However, I have had women describe this process as just motion after motion. You throw a motion on the table just as a committee meeting is about to start, and you know that you can't just do that. We have to talk to each other. We have to talk among ourselves to discuss whether it is a good motion and whether it is something that we want to support, and we have discussions with other parties about whether there are better ways. When you just throw out a motion like that when we have witnesses waiting.... It's not just in this meeting and it's not just in the meeting before.

Madam Chair, I commend you for suspending the meeting so that we would know that if we're going to play those games and just throw a motion, we're not going to just sit here and try to talk things out and waste time but are actually going to try to be productive on this committee.

I am very disappointed in regard to this study. I was very pleased about this study when we started. I know I had conversations with some of you, from all parties, about how this was an opportunity for us. Yes, it was a terrible thing that led to this issue being front of mind for the public and being in the media as something that has a tremendous amount of attention. We know the things that have happened and the people who have come forward so incredibly bravely. We know that this is difficult, but the fact is that we do have people coming forward. We do have processes right now whereby we have open military police investigations, NIS investigations. We have people being listened to. We have discussions happening at every level to find a way to move forward, to find a way to do better.

This committee has heard from the minister on this study for more than six hours. The minister appeared three times just for this study. We have heard from the former clerk of the Privy Council. We have heard from the deputy minister. We have heard—

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order on relevance.

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

The relevance is the fact that we're going to be summoning someone, and I was just about to get to my point, which is that we have heard from all the people at the top who know. We've heard from everyone at the top, including the acting chief of the defence staff. We know what happened. We had a situation of somebody not wanting to come forward and there was not enough evidence to move forward. We've heard that. Every single witness has repeated that, yet what the opposition is doing with this particular motion.... It won't end with this, even though.... Thank you very much to our colleague who tried to say we have to maintain the timelines to make sure a real report comes forward.

What we have here is just digging further and further down to see if we can keep on calling people. You've heard from a minister, and then you start going down the line to try to hear from different staff to see if maybe you can, frankly, keep the story alive or try to find something in testimony that might not be exactly the same so you can say, “Aha. There's a cover-up.”

You know what? There is no cover-up here. We don't need to hear from more people who then name names, as I heard a member opposite say. We had a witness here, and she actually said to name names. Well, this is not McCarthy. This is not that kind of thing. We don't want to have people come before this committee and then say to them that they spoke to these 10 people, so these 10 people are going to be called, and then we call them and ask for more names. This is not what this committee is supposed to be doing.

We have our next study on military justice. Frankly, this study is incredibly timely and important. We need to hear from experts to see how we make a military justice system that provides the kind of environment that allows for justice for the people who are impacted by military sexual misconduct and also makes sure that there's accountability. This committee could be focused on that.

I just compare again to yesterday, when we had the same rear admiral. This committee could be looking at what comes next and what we do to fix it. Frankly, I think that Mr. Wernick was right when he said that everyone acted in good faith, but at the end of the day, the system wasn't set up for this. Let's fix the system. Let's make sure it's set up for this.

As for the innuendo that has happened here today, with opposition members openly suggesting that there are government members trying to prevent a witness from coming, there is zero factual basis. It is pure innuendo, and there's been a lot of innuendo in this committee. A lot of accusations have been made that have absolutely no foundation in fact. I really think, Madam Chair, that as honourable members—as people who have been elected to represent Canadians in this House of Commons—we can't just throw out accusations like that, accusations that have absolutely no basis.

We need to be focusing on what we do for the women of the Canadian Armed Forces, for veterans and for the people who are thinking about maybe signing up. Young women are thinking that maybe they want to serve their country in the military. We have to make sure that our focus is on those young women and those diverse young people, including young LGBTQ people and others who feel that there is a Canadian Armed Forces that makes them welcome and included, that creates an environment where the behaviour that we have heard described in the testimony from some of the women who have courageously come forward never happen again. First we need to find out how we make an environment where we can actually make it safe for women to come forward, and then we have to work on making sure we prevent those kinds of behaviour..

I don't think the way to do that, Madam Chair, is to continuously call witnesses when we've already heard what happened. The minister came and spoke on behalf of his staff member because, frankly, I think it is a very bad practice to be bringing political staff to this committee. They are not decision-makers. Political staff are not the ones who make a decision and are accountable for it. The minister makes the decisions and the minister was here for almost six hours.

They keep asking, “What do you have to hide?” The fact is that if there was anything to hide, in 30 witnesses and 29 hours of testimony, there would have been some indication of that. We haven't seen it. All we have seen in all of the testimony is the same thing that every single witness has said and has reinforced. At the point we're at now, we're hearing the same thing over and over again, which is that you had a terrible situation, and somebody had said—or maybe didn't, but had some evidence—that there was some impropriety.

The person who was impacted did not give permission for that to go forward. You had people who wanted to investigate that and were ready to do so, but at the end of the day, we have to make sure we are respecting the women. We have to give an environment in which women can come forward safely, but at the end of the day.... We could have witnesses for the next 10 years, and I don't think we'd have any information that is newer than what we already have. What we would be losing is the opportunity to really hear from people who can tell us how we can fix this. To have heard today from Rear-Admiral Patterson, to have heard from witnesses on military justice on our next study....

We could really make a difference in this committee. Frankly, there has not just been innuendo against members; there has been a leak of a motion that I put forward last week. When I, at two o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, get calls from Global News and others saying, “Your motion has been leaked. Can you comment?”—