Evidence of meeting #25 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 recommendations.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Wassim Bouanani

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Okay.

Go ahead, Madam Gallant. You are addressing Madam Vandenbeld's amendment, right?

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Yes. On her amendment to change the word from "summon" to something else, the point also of a summons is to offer protection for the witness. Clearly, he is willing to appear but someone is preventing him from appearing, and we want Mr. Marques to be able to speak freely and with the full protection that being summoned would afford him.

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

All right.

Madam Alleslev is next, please.

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

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

I would like to further reiterate that we first, I think, put Mr. Marques on the list March 8, so we have been unable, if I understand from the clerk, to find an available date between March 8 and now, April 15. We do need to respect the timelines of the motion that we just voted on, so in order to ensure that we respect those timelines, we now need to summon Mr. Marques to ensure that he can get here in the next couple of days, or a week at the latest, so that it doesn't jeopardize the timeline of our report and we are able to get the critical information that he has.

It's wonderful that he is willing to attend. Now we need to find a way to have him attend shortly, and, as Ms. Gallant also said, we want to offer him protection, so a summons is now our only option to ensure that we hear from this critical witness within the timelines of this report.

Thank you.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

All right.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor.

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Whether it's an invitation or a summons, I would like to know one thing. The witness in question had been named in the motion even before we moved and passed the other motion earlier this week. So this was a witness the committee was already expecting. I would like to know if the Liberals can make sure that they do not block Mr. Marques from appearing. We're having a debate right now about whether to invite or summon the witness, but as far as I'm concerned, the important thing is that he appears before the committee. So I would like to know if the Liberals are prepared to commit to not blocking his appearance.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

All right.

Thank you very much, Ms. Larouche.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell, please.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

I'm sorry; did you call me?

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Yes.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

I would like to know from Ms. Gallant how summoning gives more protection. I didn't understand that comment and what evidence she had that someone was preventing him from appearing.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Mr. Spengemann is next, please.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Chair, there are a couple of things. I think we were getting onto the same page in thinking that the committee really should be focused on the report and the substance of the report, which includes the cases that we have examined with respect to the former chief of the defence staff, but also, equally, the way forward with respect to recommendations for cultural change.

It is really the report that is going to speak to the Canadian public, to the Canadian Forces and to the government, so I am really hopeful that colleagues will invest their energy in this report and come forward with recommendations that will help us move the yardsticks.

On the summons, I have made this point before and I am quite prepared to make it again if necessary: It is a precedent that is heavy. A summons really is a last-resort action, and to summon exempt political staff who really aren't accountable to anybody but the person who hires them—the minister or the former minister—would set a precedent that I don't think under these circumstances should be set. It isn't just ministers or ministerial staff from this government who could potentially then fall under that precedent, but previous governments as well. That practice, in my view, should be avoided, except under the most important and most pressing cases. I don't think we have one of those in front of us, so I would encourage colleagues to consider that and to really preserve this option and not quickly resort to it as a precedent.

It really signals, Madam Chair, an unwillingness on the part of the witness in question, or the potential witness, to appear. There is no evidence in front of us that this is the case. In fact, there have been exchanges of information between Mr. Marques and the clerk's office, none of which indicates an unwillingness to appear.

I really urge my colleagues to consider the proposed amendment to change the word “summon” to the word “invite”.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

Seeing as there are still more people who wish to talk, I believe that we should allow our witnesses from today to leave us.

I appreciate your being here. I wish that we could have heard your testimony. I know that you had a lot to offer us, but it looks like more people would like to debate, so we're not going to be able to take advantage of the expertise and experience that you offer us today.

We would like to say thank you very much for being with us. My sincerest apologies to you all. We thank you for putting yourselves out and taking the time out of your busy schedules to join us today. I just wish it had ended up being more productive. Thank you very much.

We are grateful for all your work.

Thank you very much. The clerk will allow our witnesses to leave. Take good care.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I have a point of order.

I'd just point out that witnesses sat there for over an hour and 20 minutes while we suspended, Madam Chair, so we could have had this debate wrapped up a long time ago.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

And you could have brought your motion forward a long time ago, too, Mr. Bezan, right?

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

We did six weeks ago, and nothing happened on it. That's why we have to summon.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Yes, fine.

It looks like it's Mr. Bagnell and then Mr. Baker.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

I just want to say, as I have from the beginning, as has Mr. Baker, that we know the problems. We should be getting on with them, whether they're the chain of command, independence, fear of reporting or the culture. I really think we should get on with that.

I'm still waiting to hear from Ms. Gallant. She suggested that a summons provides more protection, so if she could explain that to me.... I just don't understand. The committee protection is here for any witness, whether they're invited or summoned.

The second point is that she suggested someone was preventing the witness from coming, so perhaps she could provide the evidence of that too. I can't really go forward to a vote until I hear the rationale for those two items.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Do you wish to respond, Madam Gallant?

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Not at this moment.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you.

We have Mr. Baker and then Mr. Spengemann.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Thanks very much, Chair.

I need to say that I was really disappointed to hear Mr. Bezan say what he just said in his last point of order. If we're serious about working together productively, then I think we bring these motions forward so that every member has a chance to review them and consider them and discuss them. I think Mr. Bezan has been around here long enough to know this. When you continually introduce a motion at the last minute, you're going to have to understand that doing so is going to cause delays. That's the first thing.

The second thing is this. I was earlier making a comment that Mr. Bezan, on a point of order, objected to, so I'll try to make it now. It is about the comment made by a member during the debate on the previous amendment that we must summon Mr. Marques.

I don't believe there is evidence to support that we need to summon Mr. Marques. Mr. Marques, according to what the clerk has told us, has been responsive and appears willing to testify, to come to committee. It has been the case for decades that we don't summon witnesses because we feel like it; we summon witnesses because there is an absolute need to summon them when they refuse to come to present and respond to questions at committee. I don't believe a case has been made that we need to summon Mr. Marques.

In the prior vote, on Madame Larouche's subamendment, we agreed to a timeline for the study. If we have agreed to a timeline for the study, I don't understand the need to summon, based on the argument that Mr. Marques has been responsive and that we have an agreed timeline for completing the report.

Those are the couple of points I wanted to make.

The other point I want to make is that in the heat of politics and the heat of the moment, people sometimes lose track of how important it is that we treat people, whether they have different political views or not, with a certain amount of dignity. I think that summoning someone who has been responsive and willing to testify does unnecessary harm to that person's reputation. I think the summons should be used very judiciously. In this particular case I don't think it would be used judiciously. I think this would be harmful. That's why I support Ms. Vandenbeld's suggestion that we amend “summon” to say “invite”. I hope my colleagues from all sides will agree with that.

Thanks very much, Chair.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you.

Mr. Spengemann is next.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I want to come back in to echo the comments of my colleague Mr. Baker.

The parameters are that we have protected the timeline for the report; we've just passed a motion saying that the report itself, or its timing, shall not be affected by what we're discussing now. We also have no indication that Mr. Marques is unwilling to appear. We have extensively debated and are prepared to continue to debate—and I don't know how effective it would be—the sense or the logic of using a summons, under these circumstances.

I wonder whether there is a potential alternative solution that Mr. Bezan might be willing to consider. We have a subcommittee on agenda and procedure that could meet to probe the actual availability of Mr. Marques in his exchanges with the office of the clerk. If there is an indication that Mr. Marques is able to appear under the timelines that we have just defined with respect to the report, then that may be one other way to get at this, rather than endlessly debating it.

I think the point on the summons is important and needs to be debated and made, and we're prepared to do it, but there is potentially another option to more efficiently look at this issue. The overriding interest in the committee is to finish the report and develop conclusions and recommendations that are apropos and will move the issue forward.

Again, there is another option at your disposal, Madam Chair, along with the will of the committee, if it chooses to use that mechanism.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

The floor is yours, Ms. Larouche.