National Defence Committee on April 19th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'm calling this meeting back into order.

We are now in public for meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence. We're studying addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including allegations against former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance.

Also, I'll let you know there is no webcast today. It is audio only.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is unfortunate we couldn't get a webcast, but at least we are public with this debate.

I will move my motion, as amended, back on the floor. It reads:

That the Standing Committee on National Defence, concerning its study on 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.

Madam Chair, I'll speak to that motion.

As we were unable to conclude our debate on Friday, I have to say that I was very disappointed by the antics that were used by the Liberal opposition members. I'm very disappointed, Madam Chair, that you abused your authority by adjourning a meeting without consent. The rules are very clear that you require consent to adjourn a meeting. We've had this discussion in the past. This is the second time that you have adjourned without consent. I would request, Madam Chair, that today you respect the wishes of the committee.

I have sat in your chair as a committee chair for this committee, as well as others. I believe that it is inherent upon committee chairs to, first and foremost, be there to respect the freedom of speech of all members of Parliament, including those who sit at the committee table. Chapter 3 in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, is very clear that we get to enjoy such special privileges as freedom of speech.

I would just say that when it comes down to suspensions—and I realize that you used suspensions very freely during our debate on Friday—they should only be done to return the committee back to order, not be used to help with the stifling of debate. I will buy into the fact that you will have to suspend for votes in the House, which is common practice. We'd be permissive of having suspensions for health concerns, but that should only extend to our interpreters and House of Commons support staff, if they so require.

We know that in the meeting we held on Friday, the House of Commons deputy clerk notified all of our respective whips' offices that they would require a one-hour suspension on Friday evening, but then would be able to return to work. I would request, Madam Chair, that when we are getting those directives from House of Commons clerks, especially from the deputy clerk, we would then be making sure we try to encourage debate, rather than shut down debate in our parliamentary processes.

I would also say that these lengthy filibusters undertaken by Liberal members on Friday were incredibly discouraging, especially for the women who serve in uniform. Over the weekend, I received numerous emails—I know that many of you did, as well, since I was copied on some of those emails—from current serving members who were equally disgusted by the spectacle that we witnessed by the Liberal members on Friday.

Madam Chair, I would encourage each and every member here to keep the women in uniform, as well as all those who serve—because we know that there are also men who have also been subjected to sexual misconduct—in the foremost parts of our minds during this debate. Instead of trying to block witnesses from appearing who could shed light on exactly what happened and who knew what and when, we should maybe think about those women and try to get the answers they so rightly deserve, so that we can get back to the report of this study.

We don't want to slow down how this report is put together. Any exclamations by other members that the opposition parties are trying to slow down the report.... It's not that at all. We have one witness on the table right now who we want to have before committee. The analysts have heard all the other testimony and debates that have taken place and can easily draft the report as we wait to hear from this one witness. His testimony could be easily added into the report going forward.

Even though we're seeing this plethora of recommendations coming from Liberal members, we know that when we get to the report it takes some time to go through it and get to a consensus. I'm hoping that at the end of this study we will have consensus, or are we witnessing here that the Liberals already wrote their dissenting report and have the recommendations ready to go?

Madam Chair, I just ask that you respect each and every one of us as members, and that we are not put into the time outs that we experienced on Friday when your decision was overruled. I ask that the parliamentary processes and procedures that are well respected and founded on history are enforced and not allowed to be abused and to deny our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents, speak as individual members of Parliament and stand up for freedom of speech.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

It looks like Mr. Baker is up next.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I wanted to speak to Mr. Bezan's motion.

I'm of the view that we don't—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madam Gallant, and do not point fingers at other members in the committee, please.

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

I'm so sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, you should talk to me.

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

I thought you couldn't see that I was trying to get your attention.

I did notice that Ms. Alleslev had her hand up and one would think with two clerks here that the speakers list could be properly held.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Gallant, please. The clerks follow the order. They don't prefer anyone. We were just making sure that it was correct. What I was seeing on my screen was different from what was on the overall screen, so we had to make sure that it was correct. I don't get the same picture as you do exactly, but if you check the participant list, if you go down the right-hand side, it shows exactly who put up their hand and when. Otherwise, if you're in committee, yes, I could miss you and I might not get exactly the right order, but that refers to the time stamp and whoever puts their hand up first goes to the top of the list.

In person, I guess that can happen, but when we're relying upon the technology, it's pretty good.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I wanted to speak to Mr. Bezan's motion.

I'm of the view that we don't need more testimony on this study because we've heard from many witnesses with recommendations that I think are very valuable to the study. Mr. Bezan made reference to that in his remarks, which preceded me. I think many of the witnesses referred to the Deschamps report. I think it's important that we take into account what witnesses have told us as part of this study, but I also think a lot of work that was done before this committee undertook this study should be taken into consideration.

I want to let members know and remind members of what is in that report. One of the things we heard about a lot during the committee testimony was the issue of culture. One of the sections of the Deschamps report was on that very topic.

I'd like to read from that section, because it's important that we remind ourselves of what's already been studied and what's already been recommended. This, to me, underlines why we don't need to hear from more witnesses.

That section, which is section 4 of the report, says:

...this Report does not aim at capturing all aspects of the culture of the CAF, or its many subcultures, the ERA found that certain cultural behaviours and expectations are directly related to the prevalence of inappropriate sexual conduct in the organization. Any discussion, therefore, of the causes and consequences of sexual harassment and assault in the armed forces—including the effectiveness of current policies and practices—must begin with an examination of the underlying cultural norms that inform the ways in which CAF members interact with each other, and what they perceive to be acceptable conduct.

We heard that quite a bit from many of the witnesses who came forward to present to us and who spoke so often about culture. It continues:

According to Duty with Honour: Profession of Arms in Canada, first published by the CDS in 2003 and reviewed in 2009, “(t)he military ethos...is the foundation upon which the legitimacy, effectiveness and honour of the Canadian Forces depend.” Amongst other goals, military ethos is “is intended to establish the trust that must exist between the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian society; guide the development of military leaders who must exemplify the military ethos in their everyday actions; [and] enable professional self-regulation within the Canadian forces.” Military ethos is therefore essential to creating and maintaining a high degree of professionalism within the organization, and underpins the right of the CAF to self-regulate through an independent system of military justice. It is “the foundation upon which the legitimacy, effectiveness and honour of the Canadian Forces depend.”

The concept of military ethos is founded upon respect for the values protected by the Canadian Charter of Human Rights (the Charter), including the right to dignity and security of the person. More precisely, DAOD 7023-0 on “Defence Ethics” emphasizes that the Canadian public expects the highest standards from [Canadian Forces] members:

“The DND and the [Canadian Armed Forces] are integral parts of our democratic society and must reflect and practice the values of that society. Fundamental to the effectiveness of the DND and the [Canadian Forces] is the strength and vitality of its ethical culture. The Canadian public expects the highest level of adherence to ethical standards by DND employees and [Canadian Forces] members.”

Reflecting on what I've just read to you there, I think it's one of the things that we were discussing on Friday, certainly during the debate and in previous committee hearings during this study—the importance of the fact that the Canadian Forces reflect the values—and that's what I've just read to you from the Deschamps report.

It's also important, in my view, that the Canadian Forces reflect Canadian society, both in terms of values but also in terms of its makeup. One of the things that we heard a lot about, I think, is the importance of that and the importance of making sure that, in particular in the context of this study, women are welcomed into the forces and that they are treated with the respect they deserve.

We discussed a whole series.... Fellow members will recall a number of discussions we had and witnesses who spoke to how we can ensure that women are treated equally, because many of them, in most cases—perhaps not all, but most—are integrating into roles that have been traditionally reserved for men, so the Canadian Forces need to do a better job of adapting and making sure that women are properly integrated.

I think this highlights nicely some of the things that we've heard from some of the witnesses. I'll go on:

Leaders are taught that respect for the dignity of others takes precedence over other ethical principles:

There are a few items here:

“The Statement of Defence Ethics contains three ethical principles that are hierarchal in nature; that is, normally, the first one takes precedence over the second one, which takes precedence over the third:

Respect the dignity of all persons;

Serve Canada before self; and

Obey and support lawful authority.”

Further, [Canadian Armed Forces] members belong to the “Profession of Arms”. Professionalism and military ethos are interconnecting concepts:

“Understanding the nature of professionalism, its relation with the military ethos, and the vital institutional role of the [Canadian Forces] is crucial to combat effectiveness and to meeting Canadians' expectations that their military professionals will defend the nation with honour. This entails meeting the highest standards of professionalism and having a full understanding of the obligation inherent in military services.”

To meet the Canadian public's high expectations, [Canadian Forces] members:

“have a special responsibility to fulfill their functions competently and objectively for the benefit of society. [They] are governed by a code of ethics that establishes standards of conduct while defining and regulating their work. This code of ethics is enforced by the members themselves and contains values that are widely accepted as legitimate by society at large.”

The Canadian public has granted the [Canadian Armed Forces] the right to self-govern.

I think we heard about this issue of self-governance in a number of different contexts throughout this study, so I think this is an important point to highlight, as was made by some of the witnesses. It continues:

In some respects, this is related to the fact that Canadians hold members of the [Canadian Armed Forces] to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary Canadians. This is because of the unique role played by the [Canadian Armed Forces] in Canadian society and abroad. Thus, one of the reasons for establishing an independent military justice system, separate and apart from the justice system that regulates the conduct of ordinary Canadians, is to be able to uphold these higher standards. As Justice Lamer stated in R. v. Généreux:

“Breaches of miliary discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct.”

I think this is very relevant to our study. I think this is something that we heard from some of the witnesses. I think it's something interesting that we need to reflect on: the role of this and how to make sure that victims get justice. As is indicated here in the Deschamps report, there's a separate independent military justice system. I know that's something that Mr. Bezan is particularly interested in, and that we're to do a study on. I believe it's next, if I'm not mistaken. This ties in nicely with the work we've been doing here, I hope, but this part of the report speaks to some of the reasons why it exists. I think it's important to underline that:

The National Defence Act includes the [Canadian Armed Forces'] Code of Service Discipline...and is the legal foundation upon which the military justice system is based. In addition, policies on administrative and remedial measures give to CAF leaders specific tools to intervene to ensure compliance with those higher standards. Again, as leaders are instructed:

“effective self-regulation—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

—is necessary to sustain the trust and confidence of both the Government and the society served by an armed force.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madam Gallant.

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

Madam Chair, I called for the point of order because Mr. Baker is rehashing what we have already heard in this committee previously. I would respectfully request that we call the question or go to Ms. Alleslev perhaps.

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

Madam Chair, I would ask if she could find in the blues where there is repetition, because I don't believe that he was repeating himself at all. If you could point out where it is in the blues, that would be very helpful.

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

It's about relevance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

It is relevant actually. I'm taking notes. Some of these things I haven't heard for years, and they're really important principles.

Carry on, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I would highlight that what I started with was explaining—and I've tried to underline that—that not only is this relevant to the study but we've heard some of these things from witnesses. I'm trying to articulate the fact that I don't believe we need to hear from more witnesses because of what we've heard already, and what we've heard already from witnesses ties into a lot of past work, of which the Deschamps report represents an important component. In case there are further notes about why I'm speaking to this, this is why.

I'm just going to go back a bit because I want to make sure nothing was missed here. As I was saying, as I was reading:

The National Defence Act includes the [Canadian Armed Forces] Code of Service Discipline...and is the legal foundation upon which the military justice system is based. In addition, policies on administrative and remedial measures give to CAF leaders...tools to intervene to ensure compliance with those higher standards. Again, as leaders are instructed:

“effective self-regulation is necessary to—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for acknowledging my point of order. We are now debating a motion, not going through the proposed report. What we're hearing is a discussion on the report once it's before us, but what we want to debate is the relevance of having.... Actually, we would like to go right to the motion and vote on whether or not we're going to have the witness appear as we requested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I thank you, Madam Gallant, but there are five other people who have their hands up to speak.

If you would wrap it up, Mr. Baker, we'll hand it off to someone else.

Thank you.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay. Maybe what I can do, Chair, is just finish this point that I was trying to make and highlight this important point. I was actually getting very close to the end, so I'm just going to read the last few sentences here.

As a consequence, significant responsibility is given to CAF leaders to both ensure that members are treated with dignity, and to maintain a standard of professional conduct that respects the dignity of all persons. Only by carrying out this self-regulation effectively will the CAF be able to maintain the trust and confidence of the broader Canadian public.

I think this point is one that ties in with what we've heard from many of our witnesses, which is how carrying out, in this case, the self-regulation the Deschamps report was referring to is important not only to making sure that we regulate those behaviours and that misconduct is appropriately dealt with but also to maintaining the confidence of the Canadian public and, I would argue, also the confidence of CAF members. We heard a lot about that from our witnesses.

Unfortunately, however, it was apparent throughout the consultations that, with respect to inappropriate sexual conduct, the culture of the CAF on the ground does not, in many ways, measure up to the professional standards established by the policies and described in Duty with Honour. Rather, the ERA found that there is a significant disjunction between the aspiration of the CAF to embody a professional military ethos which embraces the principle of respect for the dignity of all persons, and the reality experienced by many CAF members day-to-day.

I think that's a really important point to underline, and I'll wrap my point up here, Chair.

As I just stated, there's a difference between that aspiration to live up to a higher standard and the reality that many CAF members experience, and I think that gap needs to be closed. I think we heard that from a number of members.

I wanted to highlight these topics, Chair, because, again, as I said, these are things that we've heard from the witnesses in some part throughout this study and I think this is the kind of thing that highlights why further witnesses aren't necessary. With that, I will pass it on to the next colleague.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Ms. Alleslev, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is highly disconcerting. As elected officials, I don't need to remind everyone on this committee that our loyalty is to country first, to Canada first. Before party, before individuals, we are here to act in the best interest of the country.

You, Madam Chair, like me, swore an oath. We swore to serve and defend the country, and the values for which it stands. The military defends those values, but we must also embody them.

I would like to remind you, Madam Chair, of the words on our commissioning scroll that place the trust and confidence in us, in our loyalty, our courage and integrity. You, Madam Chair, never unswore that oath.

Canadians are counting on you. Men and women in uniform are counting on you to lead by example, and put your service to this country, this committee and this Parliament before yourself.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, as honourable members, we do not attack the integrity of other honourable members. Ms. Alleslev is getting very close to that in her remarks, and I would ask her to please treat all members with respect, dignity and integrity.