National Defence Committee on May 18th, 2021

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

I just wanted to refer to Ms. Gallant's most recent comments to keep this discussion focused on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

Madam Alleslev, are you done, or do you have more remarks?

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

I am done for the moment. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have made my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much.

We go back to you, Mr. Spengemann.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

We'll go to Mr. Bagnell and then Monsieur Robillard.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll just speak to the amendment. As I think Mr. Baker said, there is a lot to speak about on the other parts of the motion. In fact, as people have said, there are a lot of substantive parts. It doesn't deal with the main, big issue—the elephant in the room in the military—but there are a lot of parts. I think we each ought to figure out whether each one should be discussed with an amendment. They're totally different and have different ramifications. I'll just deal with this particular amendment first.

I agree with Mr. Barsalou-Duval on the amendment. The surveys that have been done recently showed that there are hundreds of allegations continuing to go and that people are aware of situations that are going on. Every few days there is a new one. We've studied these allegations every time there is one. In fact, we've spent so many meetings on one email that we'll never really get, as some members have said, to the substantive items about misconduct in the military, the chain of command link, the fact that people are worried about reporting because of repercussions, and the whole culture item. Those are the things.

Rather than going complaint after complaint, witness after witness on one individual situation, on one email, as I've said in all the meetings, it would be much better to get on with recommendations to help members of the military feel safe and deal with the substantive issues.

I'll leave it at that for now. I have a lot to say on the other parts of the motion, including the more serious allegations that were brought up about General Vance's appointment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Go ahead, Mr. Robillard.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madame Chair, I think we have heard enough. I'm asking for the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Baker had his hand up already. Did you want to speak before the vote, Mr. Baker. or...?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm sorry; I was having trouble finding my mute button.

If I can, I'd just like to speak to the amendment. Can I do that, or is that...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

I want to add to what I said earlier. I think Mr. Barsalou-Duval's amendment gives us an opportunity to apply what the witnesses told us. According to them, when allegations are made against someone, an independent investigation has to be carried out.

Under the initial motion, we, as members, would conduct an investigation into the matter. It's clear that what the witnesses told us went over the head of whoever drafted the part of the motion Mr. Barsalou-Duval is proposing be removed.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

We will now go to the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

The amendment carries.

Mr. Baker, your hand is up.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I was hoping to speak to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

That is where we are now. You are speaking to the motion as amended, correct?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm speaking to the amended motion. That's correct.

There are a few points I want to raise.

First off, I want to speak about something that Ms. Vandenbeld spoke about, which is the way in which this motion was brought forward. This is a substantive motion. There are many elements to it, with a range of implications. That it was brought forward minutes before this committee meeting started, as has been done by the members opposite many times during the hearings on this study, is incredibly disappointing.

The reason notice is given—and the members opposite know that—is that it gives members who haven't yet seen the motion a chance to consider the implications of the motion and therefore use our time in committee productively. That hasn't been done on multiple occasions, including this time. Madam Chair, you've spoken at a number of the meetings about how table-dropping motions at the last minute is counterproductive, yet despite those flags, the members opposite decided to do that again.

I'm concerned about it because it doesn't allow the members who haven't seen the motion to be able to properly consider the motion before having to debate it and ultimately vote on it. I have the opportunity to work with some of the members opposite in other settings, and that's not how I treat the members opposite in the committees—not even the committees, but some of the other projects on which I work with them.

I just want to take this opportunity to ask the members opposite to not do that, as certainly I, on my end, would not do that to them. It's counterproductive to our committee's work.

The other point I want to raise is that this meeting is being held because of a Standing Order 106(4) motion by four of the Conservative members. That is why we are meeting during a constituency week. Aside from the fact that a motion was brought at the last minute without warning—which I've already spoken about—what's particularly disappointing about this meeting is that the Conservatives chose to use this meeting to bring forward a motion that really seeks to do nothing more than politicize this issue for them and play further political games with an issue that deserves a substantive study, substantive recommendations, and substantive work by thoughtful MPs who actually care about solving the problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. That's what this should be about.

This motion is not that. This motion is about trying to call more and more witnesses to answer the questions that have already been answered countless times before this committee and that have absolutely nothing to do with actually tackling the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. It boggles my mind that those questions have been answered over and over again, in some cases by having the same witnesses come back over and over again to answer the same questions over and over again. We're recycling witnesses.

This motion calls for the calling of witnesses we've already heard from, just to answer questions we've already heard the answers to multiple times. We've had evidence presented to answer those questions multiple times. To me, this is incredibly disappointing—and I'm being diplomatic—because what we should be doing, in my view, is focusing every minute we possibly can at this committee on writing the report that actually makes a difference for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are suffering sexual harassment and sexual assault.

How can members sit here and say that they care about that issue when they want to use virtually.... This motion calls for using the majority of the committee's time to further politicize this issue and to call more witnesses to answer the same questions, which serves only to further politicize the process. No matter what those answers are to those questions, they serve nothing. They do nothing to help the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who need our help.

All the members of this committee have said that they've spoken to men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are asking us—many of them are begging us—to take action on this issue, to make recommendations and to voice our position on what should be done. That's what that report is for. That's the mechanism by which we as a committee can do that. We as MPs can make a difference. That's why we all ran for office: to make a difference.

Here's an opportunity to make a difference, and instead of making a difference on that issue, this motion calls for more politics. What message does that deliver to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces? I would just ask my colleagues opposite to think about that.

Let's get to work on that report. Let's use every single minute we can at this committee to write that report, to make a difference. Instead, we are putting forward a motion that calls for the recycling of witnesses for more politicization. I suspect that many victims and survivors are watching this committee; I cannot imagine what they're thinking when they see this type of motion brought forward. Those who are supporting this motion aren't saying they're serious about tackling this issue; they're saying they're serious about more politics and games and drawing headlines.

I'm sorry, but that's not why I ran for office. That's not why the folks in Etobicoke Centre elected me to be here. They elected me to solve problems that face Canadians, and the biggest problem that is faced by the Canadian Armed Forces at this moment is sexual harassment and sexual assault, so let's solve it. Let's get to work. Let's write a report and make a difference. That's why I'm here.

To have this meeting during a constituency week, when my constituents and constituents of all the members of this committee are facing a pandemic and need their MPs to be available to them, is disappointing. What we could have done and what we should be doing is focusing on writing that report. If we were going to meet during a constituency week and we were actually going to tackle this issue, write the report and make a difference for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, I'd be all for it. I'm sure my constituents would be very supportive of it, but that's not what this is about. I have to tell my constituents that I'm not focused on responding to their needs during the pandemic because I need to be part of a discussion about political games that the opposition wants to play. How is that okay?

I'm disappointed on that front as well. I think my constituents who are watching this would be as well. I would think constituents of some of the other members would be disappointed as well.

I think the motion itself focuses on questions to which we've heard answers, and if we've heard the answers, we can write the report. If the members opposite want to write a report and make it full of the political conclusions they've drawn, they can propose that. That can be part of the discussion around the writing of the report, or they could write a report dissenting to the will of the committee. That's their choice.

We've heard the answers to these questions. Let's do what we were elected to do, which is write a report that serves the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and serves the victims who've told us they want action. Let's take action. That's why I ran for office. I think that's why all of the other members did too.

Let's get to work on the report. Let's defeat the motion and do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Spengemann, please go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

This is on the main motion. I want to thank colleagues for the change we made in it through the amendment.

We've said a lot about the virtue of having the power to summon somebody, and many of us, I think, have thought a lot about the restraint we need to exercise when deciding to issue a summons. This is a tool that's best held in a committee's vest pocket as something to use only as a last resort in extreme circumstances.

We've had extensive testimony from officials at the Prime Minister's Office, from officials at the Privy Council Office and from the minister himself, who was in front of this committee for six hours alone. As my colleague Mr. Baker just said, the desire on the part of some of us to want to recycle through some of that testimony at this point, with the runway we have left, really isn't helpful.

I want to take Mr. Bezan at his words, which I cited in my last intervention. He has expressed a desire to dive in deeper, to really do the work to correct the issue of systemic sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces. Diving in deeper doesn't just mean looking at the most recent case in the headlines. It means looking at the recommendations in the Deschamps report; it means look at the witness testimony; it means listen to the minister, who has flung the door open, saying that the time for patience is over and that we need complete culture change now.

The volume of recommendations in our minds and hopefully in discussion within in this committee is extensive, and prioritizing those recommendations is incredibly important to serving women, to former serving members of the Canadian Forces, to male allies, to recruits, to members of our reserves, to those deployed overseas, to those deployed at home. Nothing could be more important at the moment for the Canadian Forces.

With respect to the time frame we have, when we look at the motion and the window of May 28 and a desire to bring in additional witnesses now, we can see that it would require a week and change to drill through these recommendations, prioritize them and identify the ones that are going to be most impactful and pass them to the House of Commons before we break for the summer.

This is hard work. This is work that will take discussion among ourselves. This is work that will take place not in front of a camera, but among colleagues—with disagreements, yes, but with a desire to actually achieve the change.

Mr. Bezan brings a motion and says he wants to dive in deeper. This motion leaves out a significant issue, Madam Chair, concerning the time when the former chief of the defence staff was appointed. There are witnesses whom we could potentially, and maybe should, hear from again. In the same breath as Mr. Bezan brings forward the name of Ms. Astravas, we could ask for Richard Fadden. We could ask for Ray Novak and we could ask for Erin O'Toole, who, at the time of appointment of the former chief of the defence staff, was in office.

I'm not saying this to be partisan. I'm saying it because the former chief of the defence staff is now reported in the media to have said that he “owns” the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. Back in 2015, he felt that he “owned” the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

From a systemic perspective on the deep-rooted, systemic sexual misconduct problem that the Canadian Forces have, nothing could be more important than a former chief of the defence staff saying that he “owned” the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. How can any one official rise to a position of asymmetric power within the Canadian Forces to have that kind of influence and to potentially alter or quash or get rid of investigative processes at the stroke of a pen or at the click of a keyboard?

That is a systemic issue that goes far beyond the name of Jonathan Vance. That is a systemic issue that my Conservative colleagues and colleagues from all parties on this committee should be deeply interested in.

If I saw the names I just mentioned and saw a desire to look at them in this motion, I would say that this is a transpartisan motion that is really focused on the issue at hand, but we don't see their names. I take seriously the comments from my colleague Mr. Baker that this is not a time to play partisan politics but a time to move to the same side of the table, with very limited runway left and with full knowledge of what the recommendations are that are at issue. We have them; we've identified them.

What we need to do now is prioritize them, sequence them, adopt them and pass them as a committee—not in a single session without any further discussion, but with deliberation, with thoughtful input from all sides, having listened to our experts, our witnesses, and the women and men who have served in the Canadian Forces.

Nor is it just those who served just during this Parliament; we've heard their voices in the previous Parliament and in other studies. The issues are known. The willingness on the part of the minister and this government are there. The country is now looking to our committee as the pivot point to take these recommendations and put them into the hands of government so that in very short order we will have made the changes that are so urgently needed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

We will go on to Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As Mr. Baker said, we've heard all sorts of testimony about the big problem—sexual misconduct in the military—and three overriding themes that aren't addressed in this motion, number one being the culture, number two being the fear of reporting and number three being provisions to deal with those so that people feel safe outside the chain of command.

As Mr. Baker said very passionately, which is why I won't use all my time right now, and as we've both said since we started, this is what we should be focusing on to get the answers to those major problems so that people can again, or for the first time, feel safe, especially women in the military. Many have said in reports that they were aware of those problems or have been affected by them directly.

I sympathize with Mr. Garrison's comments that we should get on with the three reports, and I pass that on to anyone who keeps moving motions to bring more witnesses to deal with the one email. We had one email that had details that the person had every right not to want to be provided, so it was investigated right away, yet we're dealing, meeting after meeting, with that one email when we should be dealing with the major issues in the military. It would be easy to do if we just got on to the report.

On the elements of the motion, the first one related to a witness we've already dealt with. The minister replaced that witness, so obviously we need an amendment related to that and a discussion on that. On a second item, as the chair said, this is a very complicated motion, so I still have to have more study on it. Obviously we have to have more discussion and debate down the road on an amendment related to the scheduling of the report.

I don't see that it leaves very many meetings to discuss the substantive recommendations in the report on the schedule that's proposed in the study, and it seems that the motion suggests that a whole bunch of clauses.... There are many clauses and recommendations. As Ms. Vandenbeld said, all the Liberal recommendations except perhaps one deal with the survivors and these problems that we're talking about, but it sounds like the motion is suggesting that all those that aren't dealt with in the short period of time are just are voted on without any discussion, without any politicians who have been elected by their party being able to comment and give their provisions. They just have a vote.

I think we have to have an amendment on that at some time in the future. When we get to that, I would really like to know—and research can be done between now and when that happens—what kind of precedent there is for just approving a report clause by clause with no discussion or recommendation by recommendation with no discussion. I would find that people wouldn't take such a report seriously if we weren't even allowed to debate it and weren't even allowed to debate the recommendations and put comments related—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madam Gallant.

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

When did we do that in this meeting? In this meeting we have not discussed putting forth this report without going clause by clause.