National Defence Committee on May 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

We will go on to Mr. Barsalou-Duval and then Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Earlier, I spoke to Mr. Bezan's motion, which contains a number of important points, including the summoning of Ms. Astravas. My understanding is that she would be able to provide the committee with the information it needs to draft its report. I would not feel good about preparing a report without that information.

We have received conflicting information from both sides. I think Ms. Astravas could shed considerable light on the matter and give us the answers we are looking for. I really think it's important that the committee hear from her.

What I find quite frustrating is how much time we have lost, not to mention how much the stories have changed over time. These conflicting versions of events hinder the committee's ability to do its job properly, which makes hearing from Ms. Astravas all the more necessary.

The main reason I wanted the floor a second time was to put forward an amendment, one I referred to earlier but did not move formally.

I would like to do it now. I move that point (b), which deals with expanding the study to include the allegations against Major-General Dany Fortin, be removed.

I'm basically comfortable with the rest of the motion, as it stands right now.

That's my amendment, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. The debate is now on the amendment.

Did you want to go ahead?

An amendment was put forward to remove section (b)—am I correct?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

My comments were in general, so I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Would you like to come back afterwards?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Then it's Mr. Bezan, and then Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had my hand up for a while because I wanted to respond to some of the questions that our colleague Mr. Barsalou-Duval had earlier. I wanted to again make sure that the committee understood that section (b) is about the new allegations that have come forward on General Fortin. We don't want to at all dive into the allegations themselves, and although this seems very fresh, we have moved quickly as a committee on all of the allegations against former generals and admirals as they became public.

It's interesting to note that all the action by the government doesn't take place until after media outlets start reporting on an allegation of sexual misconduct against one of our commanders. If you actually look at the way things have played out, February 2 is when Global News broke the story on General Vance, and then we had the headline on February 8 about Minister Sajjan not having acted upon it for three years. On February 9, this committee then had an emergency meeting, and we brought forward the motion to start the study into sexual misconduct allegations against the former chief of the defence staff. On February 24, news broke about sexual misconduct allegations against chief of the defence staff Admiral McDonald. We moved as a committee, and by March 8, we already had a motion to expand the scope of our study.

Having us look at the allegations against General Fortin—or, not the allegations, but rather how this information has been handled—is germane to the overall study. Again, we have allegations that broke in the news media that General Fortin wasn't even aware of last Friday, and Prime Minister Trudeau, in a press conference this morning, said he was aware of this several weeks ago, and of course it only became public after media sources started to report.

Madam Chair, and to my colleagues, it is important that we look into how that flow of information is being handled and why there is this lack of transparency. If we have commanding officers who are continuing to be implicated in sexual misconduct allegations, why are they allowed to stay in command posts as long as they have, until we actually get to the point in time when due process has been completely fulfilled for both the complainant and the commanding officers?

We should be drilling down into this. On the report side, I'm not suggesting at all that we slow down the report, and that's why part (c) is there. It's to make sure that we have a timeline, that we have an autopilot in case we can't come to decisions through constructive debate and working together on the draft report. It's to ensure that we do get to the point of just voting on each paragraph and each recommendation as we go forward after the end of the month. If the Fortin part of this study yields some extra information on how information flows from the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence and up into the Prime Minister's Office, we can include it before the deadlines that are laid out in this motion and include it as a separate paragraph or two. If it is impossible because it actually creates more questions than answers, we would then have a supplemental report just on this part of the motion, on part (b).

It's about making sure that we can address the full scope of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces as it's impacting our highest-ranking officers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right, thank you, Mr. Bezan.

We will go to Madam Vandenbeld, then.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think the amendment would remove one of the problematic pieces of this particular motion, so of course we would be supportive of that.

In this country we do have due process. We want to ensure that people are not tried in the court of public opinion. I think that is incredibly important, not only for the person who stands accused but also for the survivors, for the people who are impacted by that behaviour. It is, I think, very important that we allow that due process. I would support the amendment.

However, there are significant issues both procedurally and with the content in this motion, and frankly, in the tone of the debate we started seeing here today.

First of all, a motion that is this comprehensive was once again table-dropped minutes before the meeting began, without any courtesy for other members of the committee, especially in an era when we're mostly using Zoom. We're not sitting side by side with our colleagues, as we normally are, when we can look to each other and say, “What do you think of this? What do you think of that?” We are at a distance.

The Zoom format also makes it more difficult to look at the other side and come to agreements on things, but even more so when something is table-dropped just before a meeting starts, when we have to start speaking on it minutes after the first time we read it. That's fine if it's a sentence that you want to change in a motion, but for a motion that is I don't know how many paragraphs long, it's very unfair. This has been a habit throughout the last number of weeks and months.

Having said that, I think there's some very inflammatory language being used here. I truly don't know where the idea that anybody would hold a report “hostage” is coming from. I know there have been many meetings set aside over the last few months in order to look at those draft reports, some of them when opposition members decided they were going to stop participating in camera in order to start a motion, as opposed to actually looking at the draft reports. This is something that's gone on for three or four months. I think there have been many attempts to make sure we do get those reports out. Frankly, I think we still would very much like to see all of the reports.

As a committee, we passed a motion that required that we would consider the sexual misconduct report before a certain date. I think to suggest that the chair is doing things unilaterally is very unfair when all the chair is doing is following the motion that was adopted by this committee, a motion with a particular timeline.

Having said that about the timeline, Madam Chair, I feel as though each time we get to a point where we say, “Okay, we're going to make sure we get this report done, and we have finalized all of the witnesses”, then there's one more. I remember that in the discussions about having Mr. Elder come, the idea was, “Well, this is the last one we need. Once we get his perspective on things, we don't need to have any more” and we could move on with not just the reports but the next study, which is on military justice.

I can tell you from my discussions with survivors that military justice is an incredibly important piece. We know that former Justice Fish is working right now on finalizing a review of the National Defence Act that looks at military justice. I know that right now it is very important for us as a committee to move on to study that review.

Then we said, “Yes, of course”, and Mr. Elder came. He said the exact same thing that all the other witnesses said, which was that clearly there was no substantive knowledge—I think his words were “very limited knowledge”—about what the complaint was. Nonetheless, there was an attempt by PCO to reach out, to try to have it investigated. Without knowing anything or knowing what it was or who it was, there was very limited ability to pursue any investigation. I think we heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council that there was an impasse.

Nonetheless, we were preparing at that point to get the report done. I would note that there's mention about differences of views about what this report is. This could be the single most important report that this committee does. This is one of the biggest issues facing the Canadian Armed Forces today.

Obviously the report is still in draft form, so I can't comment on the report itself, but I can comment on the recommendations that I know the Liberal members put forward. Out of 24 recommendations coming from Liberal members, 23 are focused specifically on survivors and on how to fix the system moving forward.

I believe there has been enough finger pointing. To be honest, we could do the same thing. We have seen in the Toronto Star this weekend some really concerning quotes. Different people are saying different things. What is becoming very apparent is that unlike what happened in 2018, it does not look like the allegations that Mr. O'Toole brought forward in 2015 were investigated at all. In that case, they actually had something. They knew where it occurred. They knew what it was. They knew that it was a relationship with a subordinate. There was actually something that could potentially have been followed up on, which—as we are starting to see and I think we could elaborate on—didn't happen.

I'll be honest. I would love to have this committee have both Mr. Fadden and Mr. Novak sit here side by side and ask them questions. Both of them are saying different things. Mr. Novak came to this committee and was very clear that there was an investigation, that everything was done properly and that it was Mr. Fadden who conducted the investigation. Now we find that Mr. Fadden is saying to the media that he did not, in fact, conduct any investigation and has no recollection of it.

We could keep the study going and bring those witnesses. We could bring.... Honestly, I have a whole list here of people we could add. I'm not sure, but perhaps that's something we need to do. What I would prefer is not to continue down this very politicized road. Every single time another witness is called, we think we're going to be able to get that report done, and then there's yet another one.

We had the chief of staff to the Prime Minister come. Even at that point, it wasn't enough. Now we're recycling back through the older witnesses, going back to Ms. Astravas and Mr. Walbourne and the minister. The minister was here for six hours at this committee alone.

It seems to me that at this point, what we're looking at is.... I'm not convinced that the opposition wants to see this report or the other ones see the light of day. Every time we get to a point where we could move forward as a committee, there is yet another motion and yet another series of witnesses to call. Now they're literally going back and recycling witnesses who've already appeared. I'm not entirely certain that this is completely good faith.

Having said that, I want to address some of the things in this motion.

First of all, we have a piece here that talks about Zita Astravas. First of all, the minister did come—

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

We are speaking to the amendment, not—

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Okay, I will save those comments for when we speak to the main motion.

In terms of the amendment and in terms of the process, I honestly think that if this committee is concerned about the survivors and about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, there are some very good recommendations in that draft report and in the other two draft reports.

Instead of continuing to put forward these procedural things and calling meetings so you can move motion after motion to surprise the other side with and putting things in that you know the other side won't agree to so that you keep the debate going, honestly, what we should be doing is getting the reports out. We should be moving on to the study on military justice and trying to use the time that we have in this committee to work together to find ways to solve the problem.

This is not a new problem. This is something that has existed for decades. It is something that I believe all governments have tried to find solutions to. I could go through all of the things that we have done since we came into—

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

Madam Chair, I have point of order. We are discussing the proposed amendment and she is discussing our work, our line of business and our calendar. Could we get onto the amendment, please?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, I am discussing the process that we took to get to this amendment and—

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

That didn't have anything to do with—

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

—that it's a very poor process. I'm discussing what we could be doing instead of the amendment and the motion. Frankly, we could be doing some substantive work and getting substantive reports out that will really matter and make a difference.

I know that everybody on this committee wants the best for the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have no doubt about that. I would really hope that we can put the politics aside and try to work together on the areas where there is agreement so that we can put some real recommendations forward.

In terms of just this particular amendment, it removes one of the very poorly drafted pieces of what I think is an attempt to just delay the committee, so of course we'll support taking that out. If we want to go one by one, I would do the same for all of the parts of this motion. I think the entire motion is just designed to take up time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Baker and then Madam Alleslev.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have much to say about the rest of the motion as well.

I'd like to address Mr. Barsalou-Duval's amendment.

I think his proposal is very constructive, to be honest, so I applaud him for working constructively. What Mr. Barsalou-Duval is proposing is to remove the part of the motion calling on the committee to do what would normally be done by police or a court through due process, and the committee cannot fulfill that role.

We are a committee of elected members of Parliament, and it is not our job, as elected members, to conduct an investigation. That is something the committee has repeatedly heard from witnesses. It's important to have processes that allow professionals to do their job and conduct independent investigations into allegations.

I think Mr. Barsalou-Duval has proposed something concrete. His proposal to remove that section of the motion makes a lot of sense, because this particular element of Mr. Bezan's motion concerns allegations against Major-General Dany Fortin, and those allegations need to be investigated by the appropriate bodies.

We have heard from witness after witness at this committee that a lack of due process is part of the reason that so many victims, so many members of the armed forces, have lost confidence in the processes that should be there to defend their very interests.

This motion would go counter to that very recommendation, as we have heard over and over again. The fact that this section is even in the motion shows that the drafter of the motion hasn't heard that, or doesn't agree with it, and that the drafter of the motion believes that politicians should be investigating allegations. I just don't think that's appropriate.

I support Mr. Barsalou-Duval's amendment. If we really want to show that we have learned something important from the witnesses we have heard from these past three or four months, one of those things is the importance of due process, which is separate from elected members of Parliament. That means removing this part of Mr. Bezan's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Madam Alleslev, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The point about investigating who knew what and when in the government around the allegations against General Fortin must absolutely stay in this motion. The reason is not that we are looking to influence or interfere in any way with due process or bring this into the court of public opinion. What we are doing in this committee, as our responsibility as legislators, is hold the government to account. We are the elected representatives who Canadians have sent here to hold the government to account, and the actions of the government—what they knew, how they acted and what they did—are what's material, not allegations about General Fortin.

We can leave that investigation quite separate, but how he remained in his position, how he was appointed to that position, who knew what, and when, and how they sat on this allegation, as they sat on other allegations that have been brought forward at this committee and done nothing with, is the responsibility of this committee. It is our responsibility to Canadians to hold the government to account, to understand whether or not they acted appropriately in dealing with not only General Fortin but also with the allegations around General Vance and the allegations around Admiral McDonald, which leads us to Zita Astravas, who has been called repeatedly by the House of Commons as well as this committee to appear on this study before the committee.

The Minister of National Defence appeared in her stead, and for the moment we, as a committee, decided that was appropriate. However, since then, information has come to light that contradicts the information that the Minister of National Defence provided on Zita Astravas' behalf, and therefore the only way to know what took place is to hear from Zita herself, which is why that is a critical element that we've been trying to get to since the very beginning of this study.

I, like Ms. Vandenbeld, am also disheartened by the tone that this committee is being forced—or feels that they are being forced—to take at this juncture. That is largely because of the way that the matters are being dealt with, from arbitrary suspensions to adjournments to, yes, filibustering to ensure that we can't get to a vote.

If we really want to move forward, then we need to be able to make our points clearly and succinctly and then be able to get to a vote and allow the will of the committee to transpire, instead of simply discussing and complaining about the tone. In fact the tone could quite clearly change if there weren't a filibuster by various members, which would go a long way toward improving the situation and allowing us to do the job that we have been sent here to do.

That brings me to my third and most important point. Yes, we do agree that this may be one of the most important studies that we have done as a defence committee, and we have done it at the moment in time that this information is required. We have seen from lengthy study of witnesses' testimony that the government perhaps did not behave in the way that we expected them to behave—appropriately, efficiently or accordingly—and we need to make recommendations to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future. That's why we need to put in place a timeline to ensure that this report moves at the pace that it needs to and that various factions of this committee are not able to unduly hold up the process.

More importantly, I think we need to understand from the government why, when they had the opportunity to implement all the recommendations in the Deschamps report, they didn't, and why, with Bill C-77, a clearly important aspect of victims' rights, they didn't implement those either, so—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

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

—we need to be moving forward rather than holding things up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.