Madam Chair, thank you very much. With your indulgence and the committee's indulgence, I'd like to make a brief intervention on the question of trust.
Going back to what Mr. Garrison said a number of interventions ago, I think trust is front and centre in so many ways. Trust is what drives the effectiveness, the health and the reputation of any organization. Trust takes a long time to build, and it takes a very, very short time to destroy, threaten or erode it. That's what we're facing in the Canadian Armed Forces. That's, as I've alluded to, what a number of other jurisdictions are facing.
I want to point out to the committee that trust takes a number of different forms. It's trust among serving members. It's trust across ranks. It's trust across genders. It's trust across the entire spectrum of equity, diversity and inclusion within the Canadian Armed Forces. It's also trust vis-à-vis civilian employees, trust that recruits have by exploring whether or not they would want to join the Canadian Forces. It's trust between militaries. Equally important, it's trust as we talk, as members of this committee, among ourselves. In that respect, I think it is important that we overcome partisanship to the greatest possible extent and start to get to the same side of the table to tackle the problem together. I think the conversation this afternoon is taking us in that direction, so I'm encouraged and optimistic by what I've heard so far, Madam Chair.
Let me start this brief intervention with a quote. I'm going to quote a tweet from Minister Sajjan that was sent literally 24 hours ago, yesterday afternoon. He wrote on Twitter:
Every day our @CanadianForces members risk their lives to support our allies, partners & friends.
But it is clear that we have not lived up to our responsibility to protect members from sexual misconduct.
That is our Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, who's testified to this committee for a six-hour period.
Prime Minister Trudeau has taken questions on this issue in the House. With respect to the allegations involving the former chief of the defence staff under the tenure of our government, as colleagues have pointed out in previous interventions—I won't repeat all the details—it is clear that the evidentiary threshold that's required has not been reached. It has not been reached because the preference, the strong preference, of the complainant was that she did not trust the system to the extent that she would want to come forward.
Madam Chair, even if it had been reached, we have received strong evidence from witnesses submitted by all members, by all parties, on this committee that it is not appropriate for a minister, for a prime minister, to then take action to launch an investigation, to influence an investigative process, but that the right process is to bring this to the attention of the proper regulatory and investigative authorities. That's the state of evidence as it is before the committee.
A minute ago, my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld mentioned some new information that came to the committee's attention with respect to the former chief of the defence staff. In an article about a week ago, he is reported to have claimed that he was untouchable, that he owned the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. We then found out that there was an investigation that, subsequent to his appointment, was stopped some four days afterwards.
The appointment of the former chief of the defence staff took place under the Stephen Harper government and members of his cabinet, including Erin O'Toole, who was then minister of veterans affairs. I say this not because it is a partisan conclusion; it's not. It's no more partisan.... It is non-partisan in the same sense that the discussion with respect to the former chief of the defence staff and the allegations of misconduct from 2018 forward are not partisan. They occurred under the Trudeau government, but we heard very emphatically that elected officials do not have a role in the investigative process. To the same effect, that would hold true of Prime Minister Harper and of Erin O'Toole in his then capacity.
However, the trans-partisan interest on the part of every official and every member of this committee should be to find out how and why a chief of the defence staff who claimed to own the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service was then somehow, all of a sudden, let off the hook four days later because, subsequent to his appointment, an investigation was dropped. That is a question that is non-partisan. That is a structural question with respect to the power structures in the Canadian Forces. That is a question that needs to be answered. Recommendations need to be put forward, as my colleague in her previous intervention pointed out, to the effect that a serving member of the Canadian Forces who is under investigation may not or should not be promoted during that investigation. That is one clear recommendation that colleagues could react to, that we could put forward. That's the kind of track that we should move forward on as members of this committee united in our quest to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Madam Chair, if you'll permit me, I'll say just a brief closing word on the question of trust. Trust also extends, as was pointed out in previous testimony, to the leadership role that the Canadian Forces play in so many parts of the world, and to the potential for the Canadian Forces to continue to lead on questions of gender equality, diversity and inclusion.
We're out front on the Elsie initiative, on the initiatives around women, peace and security. We have recognized that when we empower women in the Canadian Forces, in peacekeeping operations, in NATO operations, we do the right thing morally because women have a right to serve as much as every other gender, but we also achieve much better peacekeeping and operational outcomes. It is that trust also that we should focus on. It isn't only limited to what the Canadian Forces do within our borders; it is the leadership role that they can and should project around the world. That is really where the committee should and could direct its attention.
I encourage all of us, as we have moved towards in conversation this afternoon, to come to the same side of the table on this problem. It cuts across two governments. It isn't solved yet. We have a very authoritative leading, eminent thinker who has been empowered to write a report and to give us her recommendations. Parallel with that, we can keep pace. We can potentially even move some recommendations out front and achieve some changes out front as she does her work.
With that, I'll turn it back to you and thank you for the time.