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.