Evidence of meeting #26 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 harassment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Elder Marques  As an Individual

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Carry on, Ms. Alleslev.

Noon

Conservative

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

Thank you very much.

I would remind the committee that this chair, as the commissioned officer and an elected member of Parliament, along with all members must put their country above their own personal gain or position.

That is not what has happened. What we have seen, Madam Chair, from the actions last Friday, is that a motion was brought to entertain another witness, and you ruled it out of order. In fact, there was no question that it was not out of order, because the motion simply said what we're going to study. The recommendations would be submitted by Friday and the report for this study would be done by a further date. It did not in any way say that no new witnesses could be brought forward, and this is not a new witness. This is someone we have been trying to get to committee since March 8.

We challenged your decision, and we were able to overrule your decision. Madam Chair. In return, you suspended the committee meeting for 80 minutes as a punishment for bringing this motion forward without giving 48 hours' notice, when in fact it is protocol and generally accepted that we bring motions, and absolutely nothing prevents us from bringing motions from the floor. Your rule, Madam Chair, as I understand it, is to facilitate the process fairly and honourably, not to punish members of Parliament on the committee.

You then failed to monitor the debate to ensure there was relevance around the topic we were discussing, as well as that points were not being made repeatedly over and over again.

If the motion on the table was to bring a specific witness, Elder Marques, forward, then the debate should be around that, not about whether or not we have enough recommendations so that we don't need to review this anymore. We don't know what testimony a witness is going to bring until we actually hear from that witness. It is unconscionable we would debate that, because we have so much other information, which may or may not be relevant to what this witness is going to say, that we don't need to hear anymore.

We are counting on you, Madam Chair, to ensure the will of the committee is maintained—not just the will of a few Liberal members but that the will of the committee is maintained. It was clear on Friday that the will of the committee was not to adjourn, and Madam Chair, you did not have the will of the committee to adjourn. It was clearly the will of the committee to get to a vote on this critical motion before adjourning.

This motion is not some frivolous procedural motion. This is a critically important motion. This committee is essentially the last line of defence in all of the things we're doing to get to the bottom of sexual misconduct, abuse of authority, harassment and discrimination in one of the most important institutions of our country, the Canadian Armed Forces.

We have heard of the repeated failures in the process. We still do not have answers as to not only how a chief of the defence staff could remain in his position for three years with unresolved allegations of sexual misconduct but why no security review was conducted. He also received his performance at-risk pay, a salary increase, and was allowed to become the longest serving chief of the defence staff ever.

This motion is to hear from an individual who was in the Prime Minister's Office. Ministerial accountability only comes if we know who knew what when. We can't just take the Minister of National Defence's word for it, and the Minister of National Defence clearly said he didn't. He told his chief of staff who, he believes, told Elder Marques.

Who Elder Marques told, we don't know, yet that's very important because we heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council that a plan was put forward to the Prime Minister to remove the CDS, change the CDS, before the last election.

However, for whatever reason, that didn't happen, and as I said, he received his performance at-risk pay and a salary increase and was extended as the longest-serving CDS ever. How? How could that have occurred while there were unresolved allegations of sexual misconduct against the highest officer in the land?

We have not done our job. We are the last line of defence until we know exactly what Elder Marques in the Prime Minister's Office knew, who he told and how this occurred.

Yes, it is our job to fix the processes, and we've heard lots of recommendations around processes, but this is not only about processes. This is about the individuals in critical positions and whether they followed those processes. When people fail to do what they've been entrusted to do, we need to understand how we can fix the system or how we can hold those people accountable so that it doesn't happen again. Therefore, for the government to say we don't need to hear more testimony is unconscionable.

Again, the committee decides, and the will of the committee is to hear from this critical witness. No change will occur if those who have the authority and responsibility do nothing or allow the process to be frustrated and critical information not provided.

You, Madam Chair, from your actions on Friday, are complicit in preventing this committee from doing the will of the committee. Therefore, we implore you to use the powers vested in you, with loyalty to country, integrity and the courage to do what is right, not what is easy, to put the best interests of the country, the rule of law, our democracy and the sacred responsibility to our fellow men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces first, to honour them and fight for their desire to be treated fairly and serve free from harassment and discrimination.

We can only do that—our job as a committee, as the last line of defence—if we hear this critical testimony from Elder Marques and if you facilitate fairly, procedurally, openly and honestly the will of the committee and the best interests of the country first.

Thank you very much.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Hear, hear!

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you, Madam Alleslev.

Mr. Spengemann, go ahead please.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

Good morning, colleagues, or good afternoon. It's good to be back discussing this important issue.

I will say from the outset that this is a debatable motion and that members are free to express their agreement or disagreement with it. I would caution colleagues not to jump to any conclusions of what the will of the committee is or is not, prior to our having resolved this issue. I appreciate the comments that have been made by colleagues on that side.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

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

Then let's have a vote.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

I'm sorry. I think I have the floor, Ms. Alleslev. Thank you for your comments earlier.

My point is that members are free to express their disagreement not necessarily because of one particular aspect or angle that they've taken on the motion but certainly to illustrate in debate what the alternative would be or should be to the committee if it were to follow the motion that's been put on the floor. The motion is to bring a certain witness. The alternative to that might be a more fulsome discussion of the recommendations from other evidence that's already before the committee.

I think any of those arguments, Madam Chair, and I would implore you to take that view, would be as legitimate as the arguments that Ms. Alleslev has just put forward.

Colleagues, I would take you back to the opening comments from my colleague Mr. Bezan. He was very emphatic in his opening remarks that we should have freedom of speech and that we should encourage debate rather than shut down debate. This also applies to the discussion we're having today.

Madam Chair, I want to take the committee back, and other colleagues will want to make comments too, to the Deschamps report. It's one of the cornerstone reports that's out there. It's been around for a number of years now. The external review authority, as it's also known, is from 2015. The most dangerous thing that could happen with the report is that it goes into a physical or virtual drawer at its conclusion, that it is acknowledged at the time it was released but then not discussed, deliberated or applied again. I think that's why it's important that the committee make itself aware of or refresh itself on the recommendations and opinions enunciated in that report and, in fact, in a number of other reports in Canada and around the world.

I want to just take the opportunity, Madam Chair, early on in our discussion this afternoon to bring forward the 10 recommendations in the Deschamps report that really capture what the ERA most wanted to say to Canadians, and then invite colleagues on all sides to reflect on them and to see how we can incorporate them in our way forward.

This is the first recommendation of the Deschamps report:

Acknowledge that inappropriate sexual conduct is a serious problem that exists in the [Canadian Armed Forces] and undertake to address it.

For this committee, it would simply be a point of accepting, acknowledging and applying this first recommendation. There still is, in 2021, very much a serious problem in the Canadian Forces that we have seen, particularly in the instance involving the former chief of the defence staff.

Madam Chair, Madam Deschamps' second recommendation is as follows:

Establish a strategy to effect cultural change to eliminate the sexualized environment and to better integrate women, including by conducting a gender-based analysis of CAF policies.

Gender-based analyses and GBA+, as it's known across the civil service, are cornerstones of the Canadian commitment to gender equality. She is basically calling on this committee to turn its mind to how we implement this kind of approach as a structural change within the Canadian Forces that will allow us to change the culture.

I would like to draw members' attention again to the openness by our current Minister of National Defence to doing that work. He said that we need “complete and total cultural change” and that the “time for patience” is over. We have a door to walk through. We have an ability to apply this recommendation and to recommend the granularity of change that's required to take the Canadian Forces forward. I think members of this committee should and need to do this work in addition to the discussion we had on the appearance of witnesses.

Recommendation three is as follows:

Create an independent center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside of the CAF with the responsibility for receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, as well as prevention, coordination and monitoring of training, victim support, monitoring of accountability, and research, and to act as a central authority for the collection of data.

Again, we've heard testimony from witnesses. We have the SMRC, the sexual misconduct response centre, that's been stood up as an organization. Our work as a group of parliamentarians across party lines is now to take these recommendations, apply them to the context of 2021 and take the minister up on his invitation to do whatever it takes to change the culture in the Canadian Forces.

Madam Justice Deschamps' fourth recommendation is as follows:

Allow members to report incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault to the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, or simply to request support services without the obligation to trigger a formal complaint process.

Sensitivity to the will of the victims and survivors has been front and centre in our deliberations. Again, here is a recommendation that goes into exactly that line of argument.

The report recommends, in recommendation five, the following:

With the participation of the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment:

There are a number of sub-bullets.

Develop a simple, broad definition of sexual harassment that effectively captures all dimensions of the member's relationship with the CAF.

Develop a definition of adverse personal relationship that specifically addresses relationships between members of different rank—

We've heard a lot about the differential in authority and its importance.

—and creates a presumption of an adverse personal relationship where the individuals involved are of different rank, unless the relationship is properly disclosed.

It's extremely relevant, extremely poignant and worthy of the committee's consideration as it's formulating its draft report. It continues:

Define sexual assault in the policy as intentional, non-consensual touching of a sexual nature.

This is a very clear recommendation on the definition that this committee may decide to adopt, moderate or alter as it sees fit. It again continues:

Give guidance on the requirement for consent, including by addressing the impact on genuine consent of a number of factors, including intoxication, differences in rank, and [very importantly] the chain of command.

Recommendation six of the report reads as follows:

With the participation of the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, develop a unified policy approach to address inappropriate sexual conduct and include as many aspects as possible of inappropriate sexual conduct in a single policy using plain language.

The latter is going through accessibility of the policy to members of the Canadian Forces of all experience levels and all ranks.

Recommendation seven is to:

Simplify the harassment process by:

Directing formal complaints to COs acting as adjudicators in a grievance.

Reducing emphasis on ADR.

Recommendation eight reads:

Allow victims of sexual assault to request, with the support of the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, transfer of the complaint to civilian authorities; provide information explaining the reasons when transfer is not effected.

The provision of reasons is one of the greatest accountability tools. When a certain decision is made that may be questioned or even receive objection, the reasons keep us within the administration of justice, because it'll be clear, through the reasons, why and how that decision has been taken, just like any judge would do in her or his deliberations.

I'll finish up in a second. Recommendation nine reads:

Assign responsibility for providing, coordinating and monitoring victim support to the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, including the responsibility for advocating on behalf of victims in the complaint and investigation processes.

Lastly, recommendation 10 reads:

Assign to the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, in coordination with other CAF subject matter experts, responsibility for the development of the training curriculum, and the primary responsibility for monitoring training on matters related to inappropriate sexual misconduct.

These are the 10 recommendations that underpin the Deschamps report, or the ERA, the external review authority. Again, colleagues are going to have comments and elaborations at their discretion on parts of that report as elaborated by Madam Justice Deschamps.

I just wanted to put to the committee, again, that heavy lifting has been done here in Canada, elsewhere in the world, and I'm going to, in future interventions, maybe have a chance to draw the committee's attention to some of those.

That work takes us in part to where we need to go, certainly with respect to the granularity of recommendations, the kinds of institutional changes that are being recommended by institutions like NATO, DCAF—the centre for the democratic control of armed forces—and other institutions that have already put significant amounts of energy into these kinds of questions.

The committee's attention needs to be drawn to them fairly expeditiously because we are in the process now of developing a report. This is, all again, with respect to the original motion and my assessment of what the committee could and should do as an alternative to going fishing for additional witnesses.

There really are other things that may fall by the wayside, if we indulge too far the arguments that are being made by colleagues on the Conservative side.

Thank you so much.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

We have Monsieur Barsalou-Duval, please.

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have carefully listened to my colleagues' remarks. To be perfectly transparent, I must admit that I was less interested by those that went on and on and brought nothing new. A lot of comments, in my opinion, were made more with the purpose of taking up the committee's time than with the purpose of fuelling debate and reaching a decision.

I wanted to have the opportunity to speak to the motion on the floor today. I feel that what we are debating at the moment is still very important.

More than a week ago, the governing party asked for our cooperation. They told us that it is important to produce a report so that there can be some follow-up to the committee's work. Basically, they wanted the victims to recognize that everything would not end up on the shelf and there would be some follow-up. They also wanted the government to have some options for action; they wanted us to tell it what it should do and which direction it should take.

We were very sympathetic to that idea. We felt that it was important for the committee to prepare a report. That is why we voted for the motion at that time. We wanted the committee to produce a report.

However, the intention behind it was never to prevent witnesses from appearing before the committee, particularly important witnesses like Elder Marques. I should also emphasize that, when we passed that motion so that the committee could prepare a report, it was still possible for Mr. Marques to appear on Friday.

Unfortunately, as we saw, he did not appear and I feel that the motion by my Conservative colleague Mr. Bezan became even more important at that time, meaning last Friday.

I am very pleased that our wishes were considered by accepting the amendment to not delay work on the report as we waited for Mr. Marques to appear. We are still hoping that he will, because we feel that it is required.

That gives us the best of both worlds, I feel. We have an appearance by a very important, long awaited witness who certainly has important things to tell us. If he did not, I have a hard time figuring out why the governing party would be so opposed to his appearance.

Actually, I was a little surprised that there would be so much opposition to Mr. Marques appearing before this committee, because the government tells us that it wants to get to the bottom of the matter, that it wants to solve the problem, and it wants to work for the victims. We would be inclined to believe them, but it is surprising when we see that they have tried to prevent key witnesses from appearing before the committee. We end up wondering whether, instead of protecting the victims, it may actually be looking to protect itself.

I hope that is not the case because, first, it would be irresponsible on the part of the government and second, it would be dishonourable. The government has the responsibility to see that justice is done and that its work is done transparently. It must also be accountable to the electorate. It must not put obstacles in the way of the committee's work.

The government itself says that committees are independent of the government. I assume that, putting their partisan interests aside, the Liberal representatives who are part of the government have all the independence they need to complete the committee's work. I hope that they too want us to have all the information, so that we are not always wasting time, but are able to get to the bottom of things.

Instead of wasting precious time, as we are doing at the moment, because of the systematic obstruction by the governing party, the committee could already have heard from Mr. Marques. We could perhaps have already started work on other matters that are important for the public.

I am convinced that not all members of the committee like the manoeuvres that are underway at the moment. So I invite everyone to take a deep breath and ask themselves what the best thing to do would be at this time. I don't feel that it would be bad to agree to an appearance by a witness. On the contrary, I feel that, if the government has nothing to hide, it would let us hear from him.

Let's hear from the witness; the topic will be settled and everyone will be reassured. We will then be able to hear Mr. Marques' version of the facts.

Personally, the more I see the Liberals persisting with all kinds of ways to prevent Mr. Marques from testifying, the more convinced I am that the witness should be here at the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Bagnell, please.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the last intervention.

I want to remind the committee though that politicians in committees do not do investigations. That has to be independent. The appropriate investigations are going on, they will run their course and the information will be public.

To add to what Mr. Spengemann said in relation to Ms. Alleslev's comment about limiting people's input, as Mr. Bezan said, people should be allowed to speak. This motion extends the debate for reasons I'm not sure of.

Any comments that members have about things that would be more useful in extending a debate or why it doesn't need to be extended or other input.... If we're going to extend it like we are today, there's some valuable information getting on the record. If one member agrees and says that, there's nothing to stop another member from saying that and repeating it.

There was an email and the person refused to allow an investigation. As Mr. Wernick said, there was nowhere to go. People know that in this particular instance. I'm not sure what more information there would be on that. There is a lot of information from the thousands of members in the military who have, as I explained in a previous meeting, been affected by this, plus the serious and sometimes terrible information we have from serving members, victims.

As Mr. Bezan said, we should respect them. I would suggest we respect them and get on with it. If Mr. Bezan would withdraw his motion instead of prolonging this, we could move forward on this.

The second concern is that Mr. Bezan was prejudging the recommendations. This is very concerning to me because we haven't even discussed those yet from what I have heard. The things that Liberals are bringing up, we'll continue to get on the record.

As Xavier said, important input from members and victims is related to the changing culture, the independence of the processes and the repercussions. People are terrified of reporting because of the repercussions on their careers.

I'm not sure which of those things Mr. Bezan is calling into question in terms of recommendations when we haven't even discussed those. Anything that I've heard the Liberals put forward is related to what the victims and the experts have said needs to be done, so why would we be questioning those recommendations?

I have more to add to the debate. I could repeat someone else just so I could agree with them and read in excess of what they have said. What I am going to add now has not been said by anyone. It's something I've wanted to get in at previous meetings but I didn't have a chance yet.

It's related to the change in administrative directives, which is very important information and is much more than what the motion suggests. It's the change in directive to the DAOD 9005-1, which replaced the DAOD 5019-5.

I read these about a month ago because I was interested in what changes had been made. I read these directives dealing with the situation. It appears on the surface to be very comprehensive with very good changes. The question that the committee should be looking at, which would be a much more valuable witness than the motion before us, is why these things aren't changing.

The new 9005—for the record it's DAOD 9005-1, which I'll refer to as 9005—has a fundamentally different approach in how it frames sexual misconduct in addressing allegations of sexual misconduct in a preventive and reactionary methodology compared to 5019.

DAOD 9005's language and approach is very intentional, clearly designed to give direction and not be left up to the reader's discretion. I thought this was an excellent change, but the victims have explained that this isn't working. The DAOD expands to include specific definitions, frameworks and perspectives, which include supporting the respondent, not simply dealing with the incident.

The case can be made for this interpretation based on numerous items in the 30-page document. I won't read them all, but I'll read some of the sections that support this claim and then make the case for our witness—instead of the one proposed, which are dealing with something we've already dealt with—on why this 9005 isn't being effective.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Excuse me just for a minute, Mr. Bagnell.

Go ahead, Madam Gallant.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To stall this witness, the government is now using excuses that counter their original arguments that said we don't need any more witnesses. This member is saying we need more. The member is being repetitive.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

That's not a point of order, Madam Chair.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you, Madam Gallant.

Madam Gallant, these need to be points of order. I interrupted the member and he was in the middle of his speech, so we'll go back to Mr. Bagnell, please.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you.

If Ms. Gallant wants to add to the stalling by continuously bringing points of order, this is a motion about a witness. As I said at the beginning, there could be more effective ones if the committee insists on stalling this further.

The framework of 9005 on sexual misconduct is elaborated and identified using specific languages and definitions—

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Who is that? Put your hand up, please. That way we'll see you.

Go ahead, Ms. Alleslev.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

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

The honourable member, my colleague Mr. Bagnell, has just admitted that this is stalling. This is not furthering the debate. Mr. Bagnell has just said he is stalling the motion.

Madam Chair, this is not in good faith. This is not adding to the conversation. This is in fact in his words—and I would assume that his colleagues also agree—“stalling” and, therefore, in bad faith and jeopardizing the process, progress and will of this committee.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you, Madam Alleslev.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Chair, on that point of order, I don't believe the rules stipulate that the word “stalling” is in any way connected to the term “bad faith” so the point of order really is not a valid point of order.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Thank you.

We'll go back to Mr. Bagnell please.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

I have something, too, on that point of order. I have two points. The member for Yukon said that I was contributing to the stalling, and that could not be further from the truth. I'm trying to get to the question to be asked.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

That was very close to.... I don't want anybody.... I thought Mr. Bagnell was accusing someone else of stalling, so I don't want anybody to be accused of stalling. That's just not on.

We will go back to Mr. Bagnell, please.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Chair, I'm not accusing him. I have a point of order. I'm not accusing him of stalling. I am calling him out on the fact that he is stalling and there is no rule that says that stalling is not actually in bad faith.