National Defence Committee on April 16th, 2021

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Chair, I'll start by saying that I respect all members of this committee and I believe they're all doing their job in the way that they see is best to do it. I do not appreciate comments from the parliamentary secretary that accuse people of playing petty politics or having some other agendas. They're not helpful when she talks about us working together.

What is the issue before us? I think my Liberal colleagues missed the point. We had the minister here. We've had tons of other witnesses here. What we know at this point is that the minister came to us and said it wasn't his job and he wasn't responsible, and he referred it to others. Therefore, the committee has to speak to those others to find out what actually happened.

We spoke to the Privy Council Office and we would very much like to hear from someone in the Prime Minister's Office. When the parliamentary secretary says that no one has blocked witnesses, she knows that's patently false. The government House leader said they would not allow political staff from the Prime Minister's Office or from the minister's office to appear before this committee, so when she asked for evidence, it's right there on the record from her government House leader.

Do I want to get to recommendations about how to solve the problem of sexual misconduct in the Canadian military? Absolutely, I do. That is the most important thing, but what I've said all along in this inquiry is that if there's no confidence that sexual misconduct is understood at the highest levels and taken seriously, there will be no confidence in any of the reforms that come forward, so we must answer these questions and we must assign responsibility.

In the testimony we heard from Mr. Wernick, he was very clear. In the Westminster system, there is always a minister responsible. If there was no investigation into serious charges of sexual misconduct against the sitting chief of the defence staff, who is the minister responsible for that failure?

If the sitting chief of the defence staff was allowed to remain in office for three years while he was under a cloud of accusations of sexual misconduct—and in hindsight, we know there are multiple allegations—who is responsible for his staying on and becoming the longest-serving chief of the defence staff? Who is responsible for giving him a positive performance evaluation that resulted in a pay raise?

We do have issues here that we still haven't grappled with in this committee, and we need to hear from Elder Marques in order to do so. When members say we don't need to summon him, I would point out that if someone has been on our witness list for six weeks and we've had nine meetings of the committee, by my count, no matter how much someone says they're co-operating, I have just a bit of doubt about that, although I don't wish to cast aspersions. The way we solve that is by issuing a summons so that he will appear during a time period that fits the one set by the majority of the members of this committee, no matter how much others of us might have believed we should finish the inquiry first.

Thus I look forward to hearing from Elder Marques. I look forward to his letting me know whether this failure on the part of the government is the responsibility of the minister, or is it the responsibility and failure of the Prime Minister? Those are the issues we're getting at here, and that's how we restore confidence in those who serve in the Canadian Forces. We have to know who allowed this to happen and why they allowed it to happen—why they allowed this cloud to remain for three years over someone who was supposed to be in charge of rooting out sexual misconduct in the Canadian military.

I'm not playing petty politics here. Once again, I will have to say to the parliamentary secretary directly that I resent those kinds of allegations. What I'm doing here is trying to make sure that we can make progress on rooting sexual misconduct out of the Canadian military once and for all. It will be a long road and it will be a hard road, but that's my goal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right.

Mr. Baker is next, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

We've heard from a number of members since I last had the chance to have the floor. I'll start with what Ms. Alleslev just said a few moments ago.

One of the things I'm a little bit frustrated by in this debate is that a number of the members [Technical difficulty—Editor] the motivations of some of the members in supporting this motion and in understanding the motion better itself, and how they feel about some of the trade-offs of this motion. He hasn't received a response, and others have asked as well. Ms. Alleslev complained during her intervention about the fact that the members of the government on this committee have a lot to say, but she didn't actually take the time to address any of the things we have said. I think it would be constructive if we could hear some of the answers to the questions we've been asking and to the objections that have been raised.

I don't agree with Mr. Garrison, but I will say that Mr. Garrison, in part of his intervention prior to mine, tried to do that. I respect that and I appreciate Mr. Garrison's efforts to do it.

One of the things Mr. Garrison talked about was the need to hear from Elder Marques to answer questions, and Mr. Garrison listed some of the questions he is seeking answers to through this study and through the testimony of the various witnesses. From my perspective, we have obtained the answers to those questions.

I think Mr. Garrison is correct that we've had nine meetings—this may be the tenth one now—and we've had, by my count at least, as of the last meeting, 30 witnesses. This includes the Minister of National Defence three times; Mr. Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council; the acting chief of the defence staff; a number of leaders in the Canadian Armed Forces; people who are experts on the issue of sexual harassment; and a number of others. I think we've had the opportunity to try to answer, and I think we've gotten the answers to the questions that Mr. Garrison just listed. We've heard from the minister. We've heard from the former ombudsman about the meeting that took place between the two of them. We've heard from the minister on three different occasions, and he responded to questions about what actions he—

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

Madam Chair, he is going over statements the Liberals have already made. He's repeating—

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Excuse me; I have not made these points before and I'm entitled to make my point.

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

—and repeating just for the sake of using up time.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Excuse me; Chair, I have not made these points before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

He has the right to make his own statements, Madam Gallant.

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

And repeat.

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

And provide new information. He must provide new information.

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

Madam Chair, on that point of order....

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

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

Madam Chair, I think if you canvass members of the committee, you will see that repetition is being made all over the place, including by Ms. Alleslev, who just in her previous intervention referred to the cover-up and the allegations behind that, which are unsubstantiated. She's repetitive, and I would just ask for your discretion to allow members to make their points.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

Carry on, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much.

I need to say for the record I have not made these points before, so I resent the allegation that I'm repeating myself.

I'm going to go back just to make sure my thought wasn't lost in all this.

We've heard from the minister three times, and a number of others. I believe that during the minister's testimony, for example, we heard about the steps that were taken by the minister and why he took them. Just to remind members, he explained how he was trying to make sure the process is one that's unbiased and handled professionally. [Technical difficulty—Editor] I would say that we've heard in response to what Mr. Garrison just said about some of the questions he wanted answered and why he is arguing for the summoning of Elder Marques. I'm making the point that I believe we've obtained the answers to those questions because we've heard from all of those folks I just listed, in some cases multiple times. That's the first point.

I think when we think about Mr. Elder Marques, we're talking about somebody who, as I think has been made clear by others, has been working well with the committee. I would just ask the members to think about, and maybe answer the question if they would, why they feel that summoning Mr. Marques is necessary when he has been working with the clerk and is apparently willing to testify.

Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann, please.

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much, and I'll be brief on this intervention.

I want to follow up on the intervention made by my friend and colleague Mr. Garrison, with whom I've served on this committee in the previous Parliament and again in this Parliament. He's somebody I respect and hold a great degree of appreciation for. He said that he has one goal, which is to root out sexual misconduct in the armed forces, and I think every member of this committee, in their own interpretation, is working towards that goal.

What I want to explore is the idea that the summons power—and I've made the point previously—is a heavy power, if not the committee's heaviest power, and has been infrequently, very judiciously and very rarely exercised, and never by this committee. It should be a power of last resort. There have been statements made by members in terms of the interaction that happened with Mr. Marques, the clerk's office and the chair's office, and something to the effect that Mr. Marques has been invited a number of times over the course of six weeks.

I'm not sure, Madam Chair, if the subcommittee on agenda and procedure has gotten together, looked at this and potentially made a joint statement to Mr. Marques as an invitation, if you will, explicitly from the vice-chairs and you to amplify the interest of the committee in hearing from him. If that step has not been taken, then I would submit to you, Madam Chair, that the summons power at this point is not a measure of last resort and that the committee still has other options with respect to the interaction with Mr. Marques.

Perhaps I could ask through you if the clerk would bring us up to date again on what the last interaction was and whether such an effort has been made by the subcommittee, by the vice-chairs of this committee, to really signal the interest of the committee and the priority that he would have as somebody who, in the words of Ms. Alleslev, would be very important to hear from. Even though the minister has already testified himself for six hours on this issue, it is not yet at a stage where the summons power could even conceivably be looked at as a measure of last resort.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Clerk]

To answer your question, Mr. Spengemann, the words used by Mr. Marques are, “Thank you very much for your note. Unfortunately, I'm not available to attend.”

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

Okay, and if I may respond briefly, Madam Chair, that option I think is very much on the table. I don't know how often the subcommittee has met, but it includes the vice-chairs and it includes you. Not to in any way diminish the previous invitation that was sent through you by the clerk, perhaps there is a way to signal a higher sense of attention and importance by that subcommittee's coming together and corresponding with Mr. Marques in reply.

This discussion was fruitful and illuminating, but we come to the conclusion this afternoon that we are not yet at a stage where we would consider the exercise of a summons power as a measure of last resort.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

As per my last request, I appreciate that Mr. Garrison and Ms. Alleslev made some comments, but I don't think they commented on my question, which was about breaking the precedent when someone has not refused and going to a summons, which is a very serious invocation of one of our powers. I never thought of what Mr. Spengemann said about having the subcommittee hash this out, but I certainly would be supportive of that. You can always achieve more in a small group. I think it's easier, and that might work.

There was a suggestion by one of the committee members that the witness would provide some important new information. I'm not sure we should be prejudging what a witness will provide. If we knew what they were providing, we wouldn't have to call them, so I can't agree with that.

I appreciate Mr. Garrison's intent. Particularly, he emphasized what I said. He said it would be a long and hard road, so we agree. I think that's why we have to start right away working on the recommendations. I think a witness in FEWO said that it had been asking for these for years. We know what they are, and they want us to get on with it.

I'm not sure why there would be lack of confidence in the leadership. Do you know this leadership has put in more changes to try to work on this in recent years than ever before? There was particularly the change of the administrative DAOD 5019-5, which was updated and superseded by DAOD 9005-1. You can see with what the Library of Parliament sent that it has some very important suggested changes.

When there was a rumour, it was given within, I think, 24 hours to the PCO. That's not ignoring a possibility. It actually went to investigation, and as all the witnesses that I remember said, there wasn't more that could have been done with the information they had to investigate.

I think we have far extended the number of meetings and witnesses and time from the first motion on this, so I'll just keep up my quest to get, as Mr. Garrison said, onto a hard road and get to some very important recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

We will go to Mr. Spengemann, and then Mr. Baker.

Sorry, it's Madam Vandenbeld. You're right; please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

When I'm not in the order, you tend to overlook me. Do you know what I'll do? Instead of waving at you, I'll wave at the clerk and make sure that you know that I might be on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

That might work.

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

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think one of the key things here is the fact that we have been saying that we have recommendations that we need to get to the clerk so the analysts can draft them and then have these recommendations translated and tabled in the House on time so that we can have a very good report that we can put to the government as soon as possible.

I find it really interesting that there has been talk from the other side that “It's okay; we'll put in the recommendations this afternoon, so that's not a problem”, but then we're going to hear more witnesses. What then is the purpose of hearing from more witnesses if it is not to have recommendations? To me, it seems that it's just political. It isn't about trying to get recommendations to the government.

Speaking of the recommendations, this committee has heard a lot of very good recommendations. I think this goes to the heart of the motion that we're debating today, which is that rather than continuing and hearing more and more witnesses.... As I'd remind the members, it has been constantly this way. This isn't just one person who has not come; this is every time. We were supposed to have two or three meetings on this, and then all of a sudden there's a motion that says we need these four witnesses within 14 days, and they have to come for two hours each. They only have two people at a time, which means you have to, of course, have emergency meetings. You have to have only two, then you have another one, so it's an hour per witness. Every time we get to the end of that, all of a sudden more motions come forward for more witnesses.

It isn't that we've just suddenly at this point tried to somehow cut it off, and this is why I'm glad that the motion that passed actually says that we won't continue, because we do have good recommendations. Frankly, I'd like to talk about some of the recommendations that have been discussed by the witnesses on this particular study.