National Defence Committee on April 30th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon and welcome, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Today's meeting is in hybrid format, pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on January 25, 2021. Committee members will be present in person or through Zoom. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting today to consider a request received by the clerk and submitted by four members of the committee to discuss their request for additional witnesses for the study of addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance.

Members have all received the letter. I will now open the floor for debate. Who would like to speak first to Standing Order 106(4)?

I recognize you, Mr. Bezan. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank you for calling the emergency meeting under Standing Order 106(4).

I'll move the following motion so that we can kick off debate, and then I'll speak to that motion, Madam Chair.

The motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bezan, do you have a copy of that motion?

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

We are going to circulate it right now. I believe my staff is sending it to the clerk, and he can circulate it around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay.

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

I believe we've been through this a number of times already, Madam Chair. I'm sure the format is quite familiar to all members of the committee.

The motion reads as follows: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), 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 the allegations against chief of defence staff Art McDonald, invite Katie Telford, chief of staff to the Prime Minister, to testify for no less than two hours; that the meeting be held in public and be televised; and that the witness be called to testify within seven days of this motion passing.

That is being sent to the clerk right now. I believe that if the clerk checks his inbox, it will be there.

Madam Chair, the purpose of that motion is to follow up on testimony we heard last week, after having Elder Marques at committee. He made it very clear that he was instructed by Katie Telford to get in contact with the PCO and with the chief of staff to the Minister of National Defence.

If we look at this chronologically, we know that on March 1, 2018, we had the former ombudsman for the Canadian Armed Forces, Gary Walbourne, try to give evidence to the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, that there was a complaint of sexual misconduct against Jonathan Vance when he was the chief of the defence staff. We know that Mr. Sajjan pushed away that evidence, but he did pass on the exchange and that discussion with the ombudsman to his chief of staff, Zita Astravas.

Based upon the testimony of Elder Marques, Zita Astravas, whom we have asked to appear at this committee in the past but has yet to do so, then went to Katie Telford, chief of staff to the Prime Minister, to inform her that this complaint of sexual misconduct had come forward. That information was then shared with Elder Marques on March 2. That information was then passed down to the Clerk of the Privy Council. Meetings and conversations, as Elder Marques talked about during his testimony last week, included multiple conversations with both the chief of staff to the minister, Zita Astravas, and multiple conversations with Katie Telford, chief of staff to the Prime Minister.

It is very much germane to our study to find out what Katie Telford was told. How much did she direct this investigation and ultimately a cover-up? We know that the investigation never took place, that once they made the decision at the Privy Council Office that the information was being withheld, by the middle of March all of this was swept under the rug. Former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick said that he lost the line of sight on this issue concerning sexual misconduct by General Vance.

Madam Chair, we need to find out if Katie Telford briefed the Prime Minister. We need to find out how much of the information and emails that went back and forth among Janine Sherman and Zita Astravas and Michael Wernick, as well as Elder Marques, was handed in to her office, and directly to her as chief of staff; whether or not she ever briefed the Prime Minister; and whether or not she shared that information with others within the Prime Minister's Office and the PCO.

We know that there were briefing notes prepared by both Mr. Wernick and Janine Sherman of conversations they had. In all these emails and briefings, they always talked about sexual misconduct, quite contrary to the Prime Minister's saying that he didn't know it was a #MeToo allegation until afterward. We need to make sure that we get down to the bottom of this information.

The only way we can do that, Madam Chair—and I believe my colleagues will agree—is that we have to have Katie Telford appear at this committee for two hours. This isn't something new. We're not setting any precedent here, because we know that Katie Telford appeared to discuss the WE scandal previously in this Parliament.

She has said on the record that she takes responsibility for all staff in the Prime Minister's Office. She needs to appear before us, explain what information Zita Astravas gave her on on March 1 and March 2, what she did with that information, and if she did not inform Prime Minister Trudeau, why she didn't tell him that something this egregious had occurred and was not followed up on.

She needs to tell us why this information was withheld from the Prime Minister. Was it because of circumstances that were happening at that time, including the Prime Minister's own issue at that time? There were others issues happening within the Prime Minister's Office. We know that on March 8, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was charged by the RCMP over an investigation directed by the Prime Minister's Office itself. There are a lot of things that were at play there. We need to get down to the bottom of how this had an impact and ultimately how they left General Vance in charge of the Canadian Armed Forces and in charge of Operation Honour and undermined stomping out sexual misconduct within the armed forces for the past three years.

We could have dealt with this back in 2018. This committee has been dealing with this issue for three months now. It is time. As we have said in the past, we want to make sure we respect the timelines that are available. We want to make sure....

Actually, I see that this is not in the motion. I would like to add at the bottom of this that we respect the timelines that were agreed to on the April 6 meeting, I think, as requested by the Bloc Québécois. That way, we can ensure that we get this study wrapped up and the drafting of the report for our analysts can continue moving forward. Our committee can consider that draft report at the end of May and we can get it tabled back in the House by early June.

Madam Chair, I ask that all our colleagues around this table, regardless of political affiliation, will do the right thing in discovering the truth of what happened with the allegations back on March 1, 2018. I ask that we all strive to protect the men and women in uniform, especially those who have been subjected to sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure that we are bringing about the change that will make sure that women and men can work together knowing that they are respected, that they are equals and that they are safe in that work environment. Serving in the Canadian Armed Forces is dangerous enough as it is in the tasks that we expect them to undertake; the last thing that they should ever have to be fighting is sexual misconduct within the forces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

We'll go on to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak to what Mr. Bezan just said. He spoke about doing the right thing by the members of the armed forces. I'd like to speak to that a little bit.

Every day, Canadian Armed Forces members across the globe risk their lives to support us and our allies, partners and friends to uphold values that we hold dear as Canadians: peace, freedom and respect for the dignity of all people.

Our government is aware that it has not lived up to its responsibility to protect members from misconduct. Over the past months, we have heard from Canadian Armed Forces members affected by sexual trauma and sexual misconduct. We have heard from them at this very committee. They have shared their heart-wrenching accounts, and we have carefully listened to them. Now they believe in us to take action as a committee.

Canadian Armed Forces members make enormous sacrifices to protect Canadians, and regardless of rank or gender, have an undeniable right to serve in safety. When allegations of misconduct are brought forward, proper processes have to be followed.

As the minister has always stated, he has always followed those processes when allegations were brought to his attention. This is something he will continue to do. In fact, when it comes to the General Vance allegations, the minister followed the same steps that the previous government took when they heard of such allegations in 2015.

Then we learned of troubling news a couple days ago. We learned from reporting by Global News that Prime Minister Harper appointed General Vance in July of 2015 even though he was still under active investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. Just days after the former government appointed him, the investigation was suddenly dropped. According to an ATIP response, the commanding officer said he was under "pressure". This is extremely concerning.

Investigations conducted by the CFNIS need to be free from any sort of political influence or pressure. This raises substantial questions as to who was behind the pressure, if the Conservative government pushed the investigation to be ended on the very day Vance was appointed, and if the investigation was done appropriately.

The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr. O'Toole, says he passed along sexual misconduct allegations about General Vance in July 2015, claiming those were looked into. I ask my fellow members how that is possible, if General Vance was appointed at that time and the investigation was suddenly dropped? Additionally, the order in council for the appointment was signed months earlier, on April 25, 2015. These are things that are well worth the time of this committee and that Mr. O'Toole himself should come clean on. I wonder if this is something my colleagues would like to address.

Regardless of the opposition's petty political games and actions, the government has shown that we are dedicated to creating lasting culture change across the defence team. In fact, throughout this process, including the work that we have been doing at this committee, the Department of National Defence has continuously heard from organizations and individuals that we must do more to support people when they've been harmed. The minister was clear that we are truly sorry to every person in the Department of National Defence who has been affected by sexual harassment and violence and felt that they weren't supported.

We also, through the testimonies that we have heard, know that the current reporting systems do not meet the survivors' needs, and too often they do not feel able to report misconduct out of a fear of reprisal or retribution. This has been mentioned time and time again by both experts and by survivors. Our government recognizes that we must transform the culture of the defence team to one of dignity and respect and that we need to put in place an external reporting system outside of the chain of command to begin rebuilding confidence. These changes have to be comprehensive. Most importantly, they have to be lasting. The changes must also address the systemic challenges at the root of the problem, which are abuses of power, discrimination, biases and harmful stereotypes.

That's why yesterday the Minister of National Defence announced that Madame Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice, has agreed to lead an independent external comprehensive review of our institutional policies and culture. Over the coming months, the minister expects Ms. Arbour to provide concrete recommendations on how the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence can set up an independent external reporting system for defence team members that meets the needs of those who have been impacted by sexual misconduct.

As mentioned during yesterday's announcement, this system needs to be focused on those who have been impacted by misconduct, be responsive to their needs and be outside the chain of command and the Department of National Defence. Unlike the opposition, which is busy playing political games, we are taking robust action, something survivors not only asked us to do but expect us to do.

Madam Arbour and her team will provide significant direction on how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces must evolve to support affected people and how we can ensure that every incident is handled appropriately. This is something that has been called for, for a while now, and we're making it happen.

Part of this work also includes looking at the current structures of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and the sexual misconduct response centre to see how they can be strengthened so that they can provide greater confidence to those who need support.

Madam Arbour will also examine a performance evaluation and a promotion system in the Canadian Armed Forces, with a focus on how leaders are selected and trained. As the minister stated yesterday, this review will also look at the military justice system's policies, procedures and practices to see how we can make the system more responsive to the needs of those who have experienced misconduct, while holding perpetrators accountable. As Madam Arbour works, she'll be able to provide interim recommendations that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to acting upon.

Meanwhile, the department will continue to work with the defence team to create a new organization and a chief of professional conduct and culture. Under the leadership of Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, this team will be responsible for creating the conditions for cultural transformation by unifying, integrating and coordinating our government's ongoing efforts across the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Their goal is ensuring that the actions and behaviours of all defence members reflect the very best parts of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team's efforts will closely align with the work being carried out by the external review. They will be informed by best practices, as well as experts, advocates and those with lived experience inside and outside the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, and at all levels. This is something that will bring clarity to all our defence team members.

We have taken a step in the recognition of members and veterans who have military sexual trauma, and with the $236 million in funding that was in the last budget introduced, budget 2021, our government will work with Veterans Affairs Canada to develop a peer support network for Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans affected by sexual assault or sexual harassment during their service. This is something that we have heard survivors asking about, and we're delivering on it.

During yesterday's announcement, the minister stated that our government is funding peer-to-peer support online and in person, as well as expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centre across the country, as noted in budget 2021. This program will include both online and in-person group support, as well as an app that will connect members to confidential peer support 24-7 anywhere across the globe. It will be designed and facilitated by professionals, clinicians and people with lived experience, ensuring the very best support is available for all defence team members.

Throughout the past months we have been hard at work, and yesterday's announcement shows just that. We have spent countless hours at this committee on the study, and I truly hope that this committee too can contribute to making things better for all Canadian Armed Forces members. I'm looking forward to getting to the reporting stage to share this committee's recommendations and share the substantial work we've been doing.

Going back to the funding in budget 2021, it will also ensure that our government will continue our efforts to implement the Declaration of Victims Rights in our military justice system. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are currently consulting with victim groups and will soon launch an online questionnaire to solicit anonymous feedback so we can implement the regulations needed for Bill C-77.

Taken together, I think everyone can agree that these initiatives are critical to building a true culture of inclusion, one in which everyone is treated with dignity and with respect.

As the Minister of National Defence stated yesterday, these are just the first steps. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to a lasting change, one that sheds the toxic and outdated values, practices and policies that have harmed our brave women and men in uniform.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

As I mentioned before, the version that we circulated of the motion had an omission in English; the French was correct.

I just want to put that on the record. I believe that the corrected version of the motion was sent to the clerk, but at the end it should also read, “and that the witness be called to testify within seven".... No, that's still wrong; just hang on. I have too many files.

It should read, after “this motion passing”, “and that the timelines for completing this study remain unchanged.”

As I said before, the French version that was tabled was correct, and there was just an omission at the end of the English.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I have point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madam Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That isn't a point of order. That is the member reading out his motion that he already read out, and therefore that is not an admissible point of order.

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

I would disagree on that, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure that we're going to correct that wording. The debate that we're pursuing right now is based upon the motion that was tabled, and I wanted to make sure that the correct version was in the hands of committee members.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

We'll talk to the clerk, but we can let our next speakers carry on while we just clarify this point.

It's Mr. Spengemann next, followed by Mr. Garrison.

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I appreciate the motion. Mr. Bezan has every right to bring it.

I would like to give the committee my reflections in response to that motion, on where I think we are, and what this case is fundamentally all about.

I'd like to echo the comments made by my colleague Mr. Baker a few minutes ago with respect to the importance of the work of this committee and what is ahead of us, and the expectations that Canadians have for this committee to invest itself in the formulation of recommendations that will lead to real change in the culture, which we have heard so much about.

Madam Chair, fundamentally this is about power. Specifically, it is about the abuse of power, primarily against female serving members or former serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces. In a recent article in the Ottawa Citizen, dated April 22, Jonathan Vance is reported to have said—to have boasted—that he was "untouchable" by military police. He bragged about "owning" the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, or CFNIS.

Jonathan Vance was appointed by former prime minister Harper and his cabinet, which then included the leader of the official opposition, Erin O'Toole, in his capacity at that time of Veterans Affairs minister. We've just heard from my colleague Mr. Baker that General Vance was still under active investigation at the time of his appointment. His tenure then extended into the current government under Prime Minister Trudeau. During that latter part of his tenure, until most recently, in every instance there was no actionable evidence. There were rumours, but nothing that was actionable.

Madam Chair, it's important to note that Jonathan Vance did not create the harmful culture in the Canadian Armed Forces, but he was a beneficiary of it and exploited it. Again, this is about power. It's about the abuse of power and the exercise of power in a way that has greatly harmed each individual victim and, in my submission, the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.

The solutions, then, will have to be about effective oversight. They will have to be about investigative mechanisms, accountability and, ultimately, culture change.

Oversight, Madam Chair, falls into two components. There is internal oversight and external oversight. In my last submission at the last session we had on this issue, I made reference to the fact that a number of our friends and allies in other countries around the world are going through very similar questions and processes, some of which are helpful and illuminating to our work. With respect to internal oversight, very recently—literally within the last 24 hours—there was a Hill article referring to developments in the U.S., which says that retired admiral Michael Mullen, who is involved in the examination of this issue on the U.S. side, says that he now supports removing commanders from sexual assault prosecutions. He is quoted by Politico as saying, “I'm at a point now where I am ready to support removal, which is a huge step for me because I recognize how serious that issue is," and "We just can't keep doing what we're doing because it hasn't worked."

Mullen's comments come after Senator Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, on Thursday released a bill with bipartisan support that would take away the power of military commanders to decide if a sexual assault case should be prosecuted. The bill would give specially trained military prosecutors the reins in navigating sexual assault cases. Many lawmakers have changed their minds on this issue and have come to support Gillibrand's proposal, but Mullen's statement is particularly impactful as he is a former chair of the joint chiefs and is the top adviser to the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, in the U.S.

Madam Chair, I raise that example because there are ideas and solutions that are coming at us from other jurisdictions. I will hopefully have a chance to make some other submissions later on in the committee's work today.

It's also important to recognize that with respect to internal oversight, we need to support the allies—the serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, male and female, who are prepared to speak out, who recognize this to be an issue, and who are fighting for change inside the Canadian Armed Forces.

Clearly, internal oversight has not been enough. As we saw, the former chief of the defence staff claimed that he was owning the CFNIS, so internal oversight would fall flat if we take that at face value. With respect to external or civilian oversight, Madam Chair, the committee has learned from witnesses, virtually uniformly across the testimony, that elected officials, including prime ministers and ministers, cannot launch or oversee investigations. It is simply inappropriate to do so in Canada, because we are founded on a system that is supported by the separation of powers.

If the military investigative service in Canada, due to the constellation of internal power structures, can indeed by owned by a particular chief of the defence staff, then external mechanisms need to be explored so that victims can indeed be empowered to come forward.

Minister Sajjan has been very clear across his six hours of testimony before this committee. He said, “The time for patience is over.” That is the call to action for us as members of this particular committee.

The work of this committee fundamentally includes the development of recommendations for urgent structural changes to break down the harmful culture of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Colleagues, Madam Chair, why is this work so critically important? As in many cases involving work on justice and on gender equality, there are two components to that. The first and most important is the moral component and the rights of women. Sexual misconduct is simply wrong. It cannot be sustained. We cannot be accepting of the fact or the idea that there will be more victims going forward.

There's a second component that we've talked about in this Parliament and in the former Parliament when this committee conducted a study with respect to equity, diversity and inclusion. Colleagues who are on the current committee have been part of that study. That's the conclusion, Madam Chair, that the Canadian Forces will be better in the field when we overcome the culture of sexual misconduct.

It is about sexual misconduct today inside the armed forces, but unless we extinguish this culture, there are risk points in the interaction of Canadian Armed Forces members with other militaries in their field work, in their alliances with NATO or inside the UN. There are also risk points vis-à-vis the behaviour of members of the armed forces vis-à-vis civilian populations. There is that second instrumental component. Not only do we need to prevent any form of misconduct, sexual violence or abuse against women, but equally, once we've overcome it, the Canadian Forces will be a stronger, better organization.

Much work has been done on the second point. The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, as it was once known—now the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, which I've referred to in the previous session—has done extensive research and reporting. It has a plethora of recommendations that may be helpful to this committee going forward.

Let me just finish with the thought, Madam Chair, that Mr. Bezan has said that he is seeking to respect the timelines. Really what we're looking at now is another session being proposed. Another single witness is being called in the hopes of the Conservatives that this will take them somewhere in their largely political argument.

We're running out of runway to formulate the recommendations that this committee really needs to make and that Canadians need to hear in parallel with the work of Madam Justice Arbour, as my colleague Mr. Baker has outlined. For that reason, in my submission, Madam Chair, we should embark on that work.

I have yet to hear from Mr. Bezan any recommendations or reactions to the recommendations that my colleagues and I have put forward with respect to how we actually change this culture. Let's take that work seriously. Let's prioritize it. Let's achieve the changes that are so urgently needed.

I will leave it there for this submission, but we'll probably come back with more detail afterwards.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

Up next is Mr. Garrison, followed by Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am going to make fairly extensive remarks here because of my great disappointment as to where we are, both as the committee and as a country, on the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian military.

I want to start by saying I'm very disappointed to hear the Prime Minister refer to sexual misconduct complaints as “#MeToo” complaints and to hear that terminology echoed by other members in other parties.

The #MeToo hashtag was created in the United States among survivors so that they could connect with each other and not feel alone in their suffering from sexual misconduct or sexual assault. When we take #MeToo out of that context of survivors and others use it—either perpetrators or those who have a responsibility for acting—I believe that it, perhaps inadvertently, diminishes the importance of those complaints. It's a function of the language being used. I hope that we would, in this debate, focus squarely on the correct and accurate term here, which is sexual misconduct, and leave the term #MeToo for its original purpose, which is to express solidarity among survivors.

I think language is very important. I think it illustrates and demonstrates whether we, as members of Parliament, understand the nature of sexual misconduct and understand the nature of the question we're dealing with.

My second disappointment comes whenever the Liberals and Conservatives get involved in a debate about who failed survivors first or who failed survivors more. This does not serve the interest of survivors in any way. I cast blame equally in both directions here. We did hear from the chief of staff of the former Conservative prime minister and in parallel, I think we should also hear from the chief of staff for the current Prime Minister, but I don't think it is effective for us to engage in arguments that compare failure.

We have failed the survivors of sexual assault in the Canadian military. All of us have failed them by not getting policies in place not just to support them—because I think that's looking at the wrong end of the problem—but to change the culture and prevent such an inordinately large number of victims of sexual assault in the Canadian military.

The third way in which I'm disappointed is that we haven't seen action on recommendations made by Madam Deschamps. I have the utmost respect for Madam Arbour and I believe that she will provide additional and valuable advice to a government that clearly needs that advice. In the interim, while we wait, there are things that could and should have been done. The members of the Liberal Party on this committee will argue that we need to get on to those things, but I'm also disappointed when we forget that the question of trust is central to any changes that we're going to be recommending in the future.

If women, and indeed men, serving in the Canadian forces don't trust that there is understanding at the highest level on sexual misconduct and that there will be action at the highest level, then I fear that any reforms made will have very little credibility and very little trust, and any system set up will not be used by those survivors.

We have to answer the question of why no action was taken. When General Vance was accused of sexual misconduct—more than one time, as we now clearly know—in 2018 and when this went forward to the Minister of National Defence, why was no investigation completed?

Let's look at results, not process. You can talk about where things were referred and who they were referred to, but the fact is that no investigation was completed. The fact is that General Vance remained not only as chief of the defence staff, but in charge of Operation Honour, which was to root out sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. We need the answer to that question.

The Prime Minister himself, in his press conference, told us who he believes has that answer. The Minister of Defence says, and his defence is, that he referred it to the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister was supposed to take care of it. We now need to know from the Prime Minister's Office if it is true that the information was not correctly conveyed to them that this was an accusation of sexual misconduct. The evidence we have heard in committee seems to point very clearly to the fact that if they did not know, they should have known.

Again, the Prime Minister pointed to his chief of staff in his comments as the one who has the answer to that question. For that reason, I will be supporting this motion.

This is not dragging out the hearings; this is getting a final witness who the Prime Minister himself has said has the answer to the question that we need answered in order to restore trust that those at the highest level, both in the Canadian Forces and in the government, understand and will act on cases of sexual misconduct.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Well go to Mr. Barsalou-Duval, followed by Madam Romanado.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to start by applauding the message sent by my NDP colleague, Mr. Garrison. He has elevated the debate with his very eloquent speech, with no willful blindness as to the situation. It is in everyone's interest to get to the bottom of this.

Unfortunately, over the past few weeks, the government has changed its version of events as it went along...

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

I have a point of order. We've lost interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Stand by.

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

Is there a problem with the interpretation, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We are okay. Go ahead.