Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I'll be brief.
Despite what my colleague just said—and I appreciate her argument—it will not be possible from a perception perspective to distinguish between the kinds of things that she wishes to bring to the committee and the kinds of things that are going to be subject to an investigation. There are now three investigations involving the former chiefs of the defence staff and Major-General Fortin.
It's extremely important—and we've heard this time and again throughout the entire testimony on this study—that there be no political interference. It's not just actual political interference; it's the perception thereof. If the committee now is engaged in looking at these cases as cases, there's a great risk that arguments that will be brought before this committee and names that will be put forward by this committee would also be arguments and names that would be subject to the investigative process. It is therefore extremely important that they be kept independent. For that reason, I would support the amendment that was brought forward, with my thanks to our colleague Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.
Even with the amendment, though, I think when Mr. Bezan opened the discussion, he said he had a desire to dive in deeper. I think the motion taken as a whole is still an exercise that remains at the top level, that looks at individual cases and headlines—at the tip of the iceberg, so to speak—and does not go into the depth of the systemic issues that the Canadian Forces faces. I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that there are weeks of study left during which the committee could turn its attention to the recommendations. Even with the amendment that's before us—and I support it—I think there will be very little, if any, time left for the committee to actually look at, discuss and prioritize the recommendations.
Therefore, I disagree with the perception that's being created by Mr. Bezan that there is time, or weeks, left to study the recommendations. There really isn't, especially with the additional names that the original motion wanted. It seems rushed and it seems that there is no discussion to turn the committee's attention to what matters most to the current and former serving members, particularly the women, of the Canadian Forces. That is the question of how we break the systemic challenge of sexual misconduct in the armed forces if we just look at a couple of individual cases that are symptomatic of it, important as these cases may be, but do nothing more than that in a fairly rushed report.
That would be extremely unfortunate, and as my colleague has just pointed out, this is really an opportunity, perhaps the most important opportunity in this committee's recent history, to correct a significant wrong across the nation that is being looked at as much by other countries as it is by Canadians. It would not be a good outcome if this committee did not take that opportunity very, very seriously.
Thank you, Madam Chair.