Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I thank Mr. Bagnell for bringing this amendment. I'm very disappointed to hear that my colleague Mr. Bezan would not want to have a government response to our report. On the argument about being able to have a debate in the House, certainly once there is a government response, that is a possibility. It is always a possibility to debate concurrence in committee reports.
However, I believe it is somewhat cynical to put forward a report with recommendations and then say that we don't want the government to respond to this report, that we don't want a written response, that we don't want the government to be accountable for saying whether it supports or does not support the recommendations in the report. In all the committees that I have sat on, the norm has always been that we would request a government response. By not requesting a government response, it seems to me that the only purpose of tabling a report, in that case, is not to actually make change. It's not to actually have the government implement those recommendations. At that point, it would simply be a communication. It would simply be to try to get things tabled without actually making a difference.
I've heard a lot in this committee about holding the government to account and accountability. One of the key things is to have a written government response. To me, this is really a no-brainer. I don't understand the motivations of the other members who don't want the government to respond in writing to our report. It is fairly cynical.
I'd also point out that to talk about giving a voice to survivors, to amplify the things they have said before Parliament, in committee in testimony, and to call that callous is really doing a disservice, because one of the problems we've had in all the decades that this has been occurring is that there has been no voice. There has been no amplification.
When survivors come forward, when they speak before a committee, that's not an easy thing to do regardless of which committee it may be. One thing that is very important for us as legislators, as public officials, is to amplify the voices that are rarely heard, to amplify the voices that, for whatever reason, have been ignored historically or have been silenced or self-silenced out of fear. When those voices speak out in a public forum, I think calling it callous for us to repeat and reinforce and amplify the things they're saying again shows a tremendous amount of cynicism.
I would also like to remind my colleagues on the committee that if we were to agree to adjourn this debate, a debate on a motion and an amendment that, frankly, limit debate and don't allow for a real substantive discussion, simply agreeing to adjourn the debate right now, right at this moment, we would be going into the study on the reports.
Concerning the next item of business we have on this committee, we did actually have some meetings when we were studying reports. I'll remind our colleagues that there are three reports. We were actually making quite a bit of progress on those reports. If there's good faith to actually allow the real discussion, the real debate around the amendments, around what is written in that report, the analysts' work in capturing the testimony we heard, I would very much encourage that. If we were to adjourn this debate right now on this amendment, this motion, we would be able to go in camera right now and start the discussion on all three of those reports.
The fact is that the opposition is forcing the chair to suspend every meeting instead of adjourning the meeting. We need permission to adjourn the meeting. The chair can't do that unilaterally, and they've made it very clear in the past that the chair can't do that. The only option, then, is to suspend meetings at the end of the time scheduled, which means that we come back to this motion when the next meeting starts. However, if we were to agree to adjourn a meeting, just adjourn a meeting at the end of the meeting, we would be able, then, to have the chair, in the next meeting, schedule a meeting specifically to go to this report.
I think it is very disingenuous to say that there's an unwillingness to review the report when you put forward motions that are essentially poison pill motions, motions that are limiting every person to only speak for two minutes. I don't know many people out there who, whether in their family or their workplace or a social setting or a formal setting, when they're trying to solve a problem, a complex problem...and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces is a complex problem. When they're trying to solve that problem, I don't see very many situations where they say that each person can speak for two minutes and not respond to each other, with no dialogue. They can just speak for two minutes, where it's automatically up, down, majority rules—and that's it. That is not how it should be in Parliament. That is not how it should be anywhere. I don't think that's how we can actually get to a report, a good report, on this.
I am still appealing to my colleagues on the other side to please allow us to adjourn the meeting and allow us to go to the study in good faith and have a real discussion. I still believe there is definitely an ability and room to be able to find a compromise and at least, on the testimony we've heard, the important recommendations that have come from survivors, get that done, get that tabled and get done the other two reports based on the testimony people gave to this committee at that time as well.
At the moment, I'm not seeing that willingness. I know that members are very concerned about the motion. We've tried to improve the motion with an amendment that at least would require accountability from the government. I cannot imagine the reason that particularly the opposition parties would not want the government to respond—unless they are not interested in hearing what the government has to say and are not interested in dialogue. It's clear that there is very little interest in dialogue, because the motion says you can only talk for two minutes and then that's it. Every person talks for two minutes. You don't have the back-and-forth. The motion itself is to say that there's no dialogue.
I really think most of our constituents who send us here to this place want us to try to work together. They want us to try to get along and to find the common ground, to find those compromises. We have said very clearly that there will always be things that we may not agree on with each other. There are always possibilities for dissenting reports. There are always possibilities to have a debate back and forth and then actually come to an agreement. I've had many reports here in this place where the members of the committee found common ground when many people said they couldn't.
Madam Chair, when I was first elected in the last Parliament, I became the chair of the Special Committee on Pay Equity. I said to the committee members at that moment that I wanted a unanimous report. That was the goal. I said that if I as the chair was not looking for a unanimous report at the outset, then I was not doing my job. Particularly then, when we had a majority government, it would be very easy for the members of the majority party to just put forward their motions and say, “Okay, there won't be any debate. You can talk for two minutes, but then we're just going to vote you down anyway.”
That's essentially what the opposition parties are doing in this. That would be, in my view, a disservice to members and to the constituents who send us here, expecting that we will actually debate real issues. Samara has done a number of surveys of parliamentarians. In one of their recent surveys, they found that the one area that parliamentarians found they could have influence, and where they really found that the partisanship was set aside and the real work happened, was in committees.
Going back to the example of when I was chair of the pay equity committee, everybody told me that it would be impossible to be able to have a unanimous report on pay equity. The positions were so far apart. There were such polarized views on that issue that it wouldn't be possible. Guess what? We did have it. We reported, and we actually now have implemented the recommendations of that pay equity report in Parliament. We were able to get that consensus in the committee on something as polarizing as that.
I really think, if there's good faith, that right now, at this moment, we could adjourn the debate on this motion, we could get to the study, and we could make sure that we work together, as members, to have the best report possible.
Mr. Spengemann said earlier that this could very well be the most important report this committee ever does, and Mr. Spengemann has been sitting on this committee for some time, longer than I have, longer than many of us. I really think it could be.
I know that there are many occasions where partisan politics gets in the way of our being able to sit down together to say what's good for the people we are serving here. I really would like for us to be able to do that in this case.
We can't do that if this motion passes. We can't have a real discussion and come to a real consensus if we say beforehand that you can only speak for two minutes and that we would not have a government response.
I am very surprised, Madam Chair. I actually expected, at least on the issue of having a government response, that the opposition would be supportive. As I've mentioned before, that is the norm. It is something that is done—I don't even remember the last report that didn't ask for a government response. Certainly in the committees I have been on, I don't have any recollection of that.
The only thing I can think is that it is because, given the two things together where you can only talk for two minutes and then vote up or down—and we know that the opposition parties are a majority, so by voting up or down, they could push through anything they would like to see or not see in the report—and then not having a government response, it is essentially trying to ensure that it is a political position being put forward. It's not something that you're trying to get action on and through which you're trying to make a difference. It is essentially putting forward a statement of position, of opinion, and not having that dialogue.
Madam Chair, again, I'm very disappointed. I think that at minimum we should pass this amendment. I still have problems with the main motion, and I think we would need to discuss that, but I also would ask that at the end of this meeting or at the end of the next meeting we know that suspending and not agreeing to adjourn means we can't get to the report.
Right now, if we were to adjourn this debate, we would get to the report and we could actually work together. I am once again imploring my colleagues opposite to please work in good faith because, as I mentioned, this idea that the things we're saying here.... If we don't get a report, it may be that this is the only opportunity that members will have to be able to put those recommendations on record and give voice, but to say that it's callous to amplify someone's voice who has not been heard....
As I mentioned, I have had more than one person call me and say that I'm the first or second person they have told about something that happened to them 30 or 40 years ago. Those voices have been silenced, self-silenced, for so many reasons, for so many decades that when someone speaks and an elected official repeats or amplifies or speaks and puts on the record what that person has said, to me, that is our job. That's not callous. That is what we're here for.
That is the reason we were elected, and my constituents know that I have spent all of my time in Parliament trying to give voice to those people who are not generally heard in a debate, who are not those that have the loudest and most powerful voices, and then to make sure that we are truly debating and having a dialogue on that.
I've been the chair of multiple all-party caucuses, the all-party women's caucus. I founded the all-party democracy caucus, and the reason I did that is that I believe that members of Parliament who are elected here are elected because we want to make things better. I may disagree with, for instance, Mr. Bezan, about what makes things better. I might think something makes things better that he thinks makes things worse. That's what Parliament is about, but that dialogue, that back and forth is what we have to do.
Madam Chair, every Friday I used to do a coffee hour at Tim Hortons, at a local college—now I do it on Zoom—where any constituent who wants to can come for an hour and talk about issues.
What I have found on those calls is that people come with diametrically opposed views. They're very entrenched. Then they hear from neighbours, constituents or other people who, in their day-to-day lives, perhaps they would never have listened to. An indigenous young person might be talking to a senior who's never talked to an indigenous person. You have young people. You have older people. You have Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and people who aren't even on that spectrum. They all come together. The way I structure it, they have to listen to each other.
Everybody gets a chance. Someone raises a topic and everyone who wants to gets a change to respond to that person. Of course, I'll answer questions and respond, but by the end, people realize things are rarely black and white. They start to see each other as human. They start to see each other as people who have truly legitimate points of view that might be different. As those discussions happen, I see people moving toward each other, and, if not agreeing, understanding where the other person is coming from because they know that the rules of the discussion are that everybody has to be respectful.
Madam Chair, I wish our discussions here in Parliament, in committee, could be a little bit more like that. I think part of my goal as a member of Parliament is to make Parliament a little bit more like that. I said when I first ran for Parliament that I was running so that I could change Parliament, not let Parliament change me.
If we let this amendment and this motion pass, we're doing the opposite. We are blocking debate. We're blocking the opportunity for members to really engage with one another to try to find, if not agreement, some kind of understanding where we can at least put something forward that has the agreement of all members, and then still have the ability of members to put supplemental or dissenting reports on the other pieces. We can't do that if this motion passes.
Madam Chair, I know it's taking a lot of time. Frankly, had we started right away on the report when this motion was put to the floor and had we said we're going to adjourn the debate and had actually gone to...I think we'd have the report done by now. We've had enough time.
It's not just that report, but the mental health report and the report on COVID and the CAF. I think we would have had all of those reports done by now, but we couldn't do it when we have the constraint of not being able to talk to each other. That's essentially what this is.
Frankly, I think that it's a really bad precedent. I don't want to be a member of Parliament in a Parliament where committees start to not talk to each other, not discuss with each other and not debate. That's the whole point of being here. It's to debate and we debate fiercely. I know that. We believe very passionately and very strongly in the things we say in Parliament.
At the same time, I look at those Friday coffee hours that I do. There have been many occasions where I've changed my mind based on things that my constituents have said, or where I've seen the group come to a consensus where in the beginning there was even anger. It's because we make sure that everybody has a chance to say their piece. This is very important, Madam Chair, because often there are situations where the strong voices are heard, but the voices of those who perhaps have been taught throughout their lives that their voice isn't valid or that to speak out causes harm or reprisal, or people to attack them.... Those who have suffered abuse or suffered people trying to silence them are not as likely to speak up. Madam Chair, when they do, it is not callous. It is very important for us to amplify that. It is vital that, if we can't get a report, at minimum we need to talk about the things that the survivors have brought forward and get them on record and in the public domain so that the government can respond.
Thank you, Mr. Bagnell, for this amendment about a government response. I can't imagine, for anything that's tabled in Parliament, why any member of Parliament would want to have important testimony and important recommendations get tabled in Parliament and then not ask the government to say whether they agree or disagree with it and what they're going to do about it. That is the normal procedure in Parliament.
I'm not certain, Madam Chair, what the opposition thinks that they could gain from not getting a government response. I'm not impugning any motives on any individual member of the opposition parties, but I find it very cynical. It's basically saying, “I'm going to get my views out there. We're going to make sure we get only what the majority wants, and we don't want to give the government a chance to provide a response to it.” It's very cynical.
Madam Chair, I know that the committee is at an impasse. I really hope that we can find a way though it, because this topic is just too important to too many people. We tried. I don't know what will happen to this amendment, but we are trying.
I thank Mr. Bagnell for putting this forward, because I think it is really important that we get to that report.
Thank you, Madam Chair.