National Defence Committee on May 21st, 2021

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to address my intervention to paragraph (b) of the amendment on the motion. As I've said before, I applaud Mr. Barsalou-Duval for focusing on the culture. Paragraph (b) specifically talks about putting an end to the culture that has persisted for too long within the CAF in order to prevent women and men from becoming new victims of sexual misconduct. This particular part of the amendment is very important.

We have been discussing particularly in this committee what happens after there has been an incident, after someone has been victimized, has been harmed, but really what we need to do is to prevent the harm from happening in the first place. That's why I am very pleased to see that amendment. Unfortunately, it's an amendment on a motion that obviously is very difficult to support.

I would like to talk a little bit about how we do that prevention. It is one thing to have supports in place when you have a person who has gone through a very difficult and traumatic experience, but in order to prevent it, you really need to address the culture. You need to address the values: What it is that is valued and promoted within the Canadian Armed Forces, and what characteristics and skill sets are valued?

I said this in the status of women committee, but I think it bears repeating here. All too often there is an attitude of “Well, he's a womanizer, but he's a good soldier or aviator or sailor.” That does not exist. We need to make sure that the qualities of a good soldier, good sailor and good aviator include the kinds of qualities that allow leaders within the Canadian Armed Forces to draw out the best talent, the best skills, the best of everybody who serves and who is serving under them.

That requires a completely different value set. That requires us to look at the promotion system and how we advance people within the Canadian Armed Forces. If you advance based on certain hard skills, and you look at the leadership skills, the team-building skills, the empathy and the understanding as peripheral, those are the types of things.... Worse yet, if you look at behaviours that can be very toxic, behaviours that can undermine, diminish, condescend and make people feel unwelcome, and treat those behaviours as peripheral to the skill set you're looking at, that is harmful.

I think that paragraph (b) of the amendment really addresses the core of the issue. It also addresses why we need to get on to the military justice study, because for so much of this, it is a matter of ending impunity. When people see that there are consequences to negative behaviours, that the kinds of characteristics that are rewarded include the skill sets that facilitate inclusion, that ensure every single member is not just ending harm but are thriving, that there is an environment in which everybody feels they are fully and completely equal and that they are valued, those are the kinds of things that you advance.

On the corollary of that, with the kinds of behaviours, the kinds of characteristics that are causing the culture of toxic masculinity—we heard from a number of our witnesses on the normative warrior culture, which is very harmful—we also need to make sure there is justice and that there is not impunity when those kinds of things occur.

That's why I'm actually very pleased that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right, this meeting is suspended.

Thank you.

[The meeting was suspended at 6:22 p.m., Wednesday, May 26]

[The meeting resumed at 11:15 a.m., Monday, May 31]

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I call this meeting back to order.

I do note there is a motion of estimates from the House, and at some point the will of the committee will be needed to provide direction on that matter.

This is a resumption of meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, which started on Friday, May 21, 2021.

If interpretation is lost, please inform us immediately and we'll make sure that it is properly restored before continuing, because it's very important that everyone have a full opportunity to participate in these meetings.

All members should address their comments through the chair, and when speaking, again, as much to remind myself as everyone else, please speak slowly and clearly. The speed of speaking of some members is actually making the work of the interpreters really challenging, especially on very technical subjects. When you're using acronyms and things like that, that makes it really difficult for them to do their work. So, please, if you have a technical piece, if you can share it in advance, I think that would be very helpful. If not, then please make sure that you're speaking at a speed that would allow the interpreters the time they need to do their job, which is very challenging, even at the best of times.

With regard to a speakers list, the clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether you're virtual or here in the room.

We are resuming the debate on Monsieur Barsalou-Duval's amendment. Madame Vandenbeld had the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I continue the debate on the Bloc amendment to the motion the Conservative members brought forward, I would like to note there was a motion in the House requesting that the minister come for the estimates, which I think committee members will note that the minister has always done. He, in fact, has always come when this committee has asked him to come to present and answer questions. I can confirm the minister is available before the deadline of June 10 and is able to come to the committee should the committee request that.

I also want to note that on Friday, I submitted a notice of motion to bring Justice Morris Fish forward. I know that notice of motion didn't get to members, in keeping with the 48 hours' notice. That's why the chair also suspended at the beginning. I think it would be something that all committee members would find helpful.

As you know, there is a requirement for a review of the National Defence Act. A year ago, the minister asked former Supreme Court Justice Morris Fish to conduct a review of the military justice system. The minister has indicated publicly—and I do believe it's been sent to the clerk, and soon to be sent out—that he plans to table that tomorrow. There will be a technical briefing offered to all members of Parliament who are interested. I think that will be going out to members for the details and timing.

I also think this committee would want to hear from Justice Fish. This is a very important review. I think committee members would probably very much benefit from being able to ask questions and get his views on that report, particularly since Madam Arbour has also been tasked in her terms of reference to look at the military justice system. I would note that the next study we had planned is on military justice. I think that would be a very helpful thing for the committee.

I do note that right now we are still in a meeting that has been continuously suspended and has not adjourned, and that we are debating an amendment to a motion. I take note there was a notice of motion, and I would imagine my Conservative colleague will probably speak to that. I just wanted to say I think it would be very helpful for this committee to withdraw the amendment and the motion we're debating right now and to immediately go to a fulsome study of the reports.

I'm speaking to the amendment and the motion that are currently before us, because I can't speak on what might come. The motion said—and this was May 28, so it was last week—that members are going to be limited in the amount of time they can spend debating recommendations in a report. In most committees I have participated in, I have had very, very good experiences with colleagues being able to come to a consensus on recommendations.

In fact, one of the committees that I've sat on is a consensus committee, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. We've been able to do tremendous work by coming to a consensus. Sometimes it takes time. We have to really go back and forth, talk through each of the recommendations, make our case and convince one another, and then come to that consensus. We did that on the Uighurs last summer. We had extensive conversations around that in order to come to a unanimous consensus report.

When I chaired the committee on pay equity, we made sure we came to a consensus, and it took time.

In addition to some of the other issues we've raised in the Bloc amendment to the motion, I would like to put something to members. What if there were a majority government, and the majority decided in a committee there was a limit, in this case an hour and 45 minutes—it would be none now because the motion is moot as it was supposed to be last Friday—to the amount of time members could actually spend debating and discussing a report? In a minority maybe that's not so bad because you can go back and forth. However, if you do this and there's a majority government, then any committee report could be passed with very limited debate. It could just be voted; it's an up-down vote. It's a couple of minutes of debate on the recommendations and, boom, it goes to a vote.

I was the founding chair of the all-party democracy caucus. I implore committee members that we not set a precedent in this committee of a majority of the committee being able.... Ultimately, the majority will be able to vote in what they want anyway, but to have a majority say that you can speak only for x amount of time and then it's just an automatic vote, I would say that's not democratic. I'm very concerned that this committee is going in that direction with this Bloc amendment to the current motion and any other that may possibly come forward.

What I really think this committee could do right now is.... If this motion is withdrawn or if we just adjourn debate on this motion.... All we need is a majority to adjourn debate on this motion. If we were to agree to adjourn debate, that would allow the committee to then have the three reports.... We have three reports right now that need to be debated. We could actually then go straight into debating.

One of them we're almost through. There are only a few recommendations left; we are almost finished. That one is a study that we started before Christmas. We could actually make sure that the work this committee has done, especially the one on mental health.... We had people who came to this committee, and it was not easy. It was hard for some of these people to speak and to take the time to relive their experiences. To not then have a report come out of that is not fair to those witnesses.

I would love to be able to stop the debate on this motion, go to those reports, get those reports done, have Justice Fish come for one meeting—that is also a fairly urgent thing because, of course, it's tabled tomorrow—and have the minister come to answer questions about the estimates, which, again, is about accountability, which is what the members opposite are talking about. They're talking about accountability. Accountability for spending is what the estimates are about. I note that the deadline for that has been extended. I imagine that's something the opposition would like. I have assurances that the minister is available to come. We could do those two meetings and go to the reports. Before the summer recess, we still have enough meetings so that we can get those reports out and translated and hopefully be able to get them tabled in the House.

I guess at this point I'm imploring the members opposite to just put aside some of the dysfunction that's happened in this committee and look at what good we can do. I do believe this committee can do good; I do. I think we've heard some really important testimony. It just hurts me that some of that testimony might not make it into a report or recommendations because we're stuck at an impasse.

My preference right now would be that the motion be withdrawn and we can then talk about what we want to do next as a committee, including the reports, bringing Justice Fish and having some hearings on military justice. We know that every survivor who came forward talked about the justice system and how it needs to be reformed. We have a generational opportunity here to be able to weigh in on that. This is the moment, because we know that Madam Arbour is starting right now as part of her terms of reference on military justice. We have a moment right now as a committee to weigh in on that.

I really hope the committee can see past some of the very undemocratic motions that are coming forward and really try to come to some kind of consensus.

That's all I have to say, Madam Chair. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Ms. Vandenbeld.

Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I find it a little rich coming from the parliamentary secretary that she's concerned about shutting down debate at a committee on a report that the Liberals don't want to see the light of day, when they move closure at every whim in the House of Commons to shut down debate on important legislation. I think this government is on track to move closure a record number of times in parliamentary history. If the parliamentary secretary is sincere about fighting for democracy and parliamentary processes and decorum, then let's quit having closure motions by the government on legislation, often bills that have barely seen the light of day, never mind having a significant amount of debate on the substance of legislation that would impact all Canadians.

I'll just say this: The Liberal members of this committee have spent hours and days in filibuster. The Liberal chair suspended this committee on this report 25-plus times. We've been in this meeting, in suspension and actual filibuster, since May 21, so when you take into account all the suspensions, just the suspensions that we've had, it's now over a month that we have been trying to deal with this report and have some more witnesses called, like Zita Astravas. Instead, we've spent a month in suspensions and filibusters. That is not democracy. That is obstruction, and it's contemptuous behaviour by the government members.

Zita Astravas must have some fairly important information, because the Liberals have been complicit in the cover-up of the minister and the PMO on how things progressed after they found out on March 1, 2018 about the sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance. Zita Astravas was front and centre as the one who carried that information from the Minister of National Defence, Minister Sajjan, to Katie Telford, and the Liberals definitely don't want to have her appear at this committee.

Because of these ongoing suspensions and filibusters, and blocking the ability of the committee to hear from key witnesses in this study, knowing that the current motion before us, along with the amendment, is no longer valid because the dates have passed, I am going to withdraw that motion, Madam Chair, and I move the following motion:

That, the committee, in respect of the committee's study on addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance,

(a) the committee hear no further witnesses before a report to the House has been adopted; and

(b) the provisions of the motion adopted on Monday, April 12, 2021, concerning a report to the House, be supplemented as follows:

(i) notwithstanding the motion adopted on Monday, April 12, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. on Monday, June 7th, 2021, or, if the committee is not then sitting, immediately after the committee is next called to order, the proceedings before the committee shall be interrupted, if required for the purposes of the motion adopted on Monday, April 12, 2021, and every question necessary for the disposal of the draft report, including on each paragraph and proposed recommendation which has not been disposed of, shall be put, forthwith and successively, without amendment, provided that each member of the committee may speak once for two minutes on each proposed recommendation,

(ii) the committee declines to request, pursuant to Standing Order 109, that the government table a comprehensive response to the report,

(iii) dissenting or supplementary opinions or recommendations shall be filed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(b), in both official languages, no later than 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 9, 2021,

(iv) the Clerk and analysts be authorized to make such minor grammatical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report, and

(v) the Clerk be instructed to inform the Chair and vice-chairs when the report is ready to be presented to the House, so that the Chair may present the report when the House next takes up Routine Proceedings, provided that, in her absence, it be presented by one of the vice-chairs.

Madam Chair, I'll now speak to that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay, stand by.

Unfortunately, we still have the amendment on the floor. That needs to be withdrawn as well before we can take something else on the floor. Then there is the main motion as well.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, since you were the mover of that amendment, do you wish to withdraw it?

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

Madam Chair, I agree to withdraw the amendment moved.

I would also like to speak about the new motion when possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right, thank you very much.

To finish this off, Mr. Bezan, you need to ask the committee for unanimous consent to withdraw your original motion before we can go back and talk about the new motion.

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

Okay, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Are there any objections? No.

It looks good, and it's done.

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

Okay, I will not bother moving that again since I've already read it into the record, if you're okay with that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, that's fine.

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

Madam Chair, taking into consideration the debate that was ongoing for the last 10-plus days on that motion, knowing that we want to get to the point of tabling a report in the House before we rise for summer recess, realizing that we have only four weeks left, a maximum of eight meetings, counting this meeting here, unless we add more meetings to the schedule, if that's possible, and knowing that there are limitations on the available resources because of other committees that are currently meeting, I would implore, Madam Chair, that, if the opportunity presents itself and other committees have wrapped up for this session, we take their times in respect of trying to get our work done.

As the parliamentary secretary earlier alluded to, we have this report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically surrounding allegations against General Jonathan Vance and Admiral Art McDonald, but we also have our study on mental health and our study on COVID and the armed forces that we'd like to get finished, completed, and tabled, and then, at that time, move on to hearing from the minister on supplemental estimates, as well as from Justice Fish on his statutory review of the National Defence Act as it relates to military justice.

Now, the purpose of this motion is to provide some clarity on how we go forward. If the Liberals continue to talk paragraphs and recommendations ad nauseam, then we need to be able to move into a format where we can still have debate, so this motion would still allow each member of the committee to talk for two minutes on each paragraph or recommendation that is in the report that we have started to consider.

I would think that it's more than ample time for concerns to be raised on a paragraph-by-paragraph and recommendation-by-recommendation basis and would focus our efforts in coming to a decision on the best report to present to the House of Commons, and ultimately to Canadians, and provide direction to the Government of Canada as well as to the Canadian Armed Forces. I think this is an easy path forward for us, and I would encourage members to support this so that we can get on to the drafting of the report on sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

If the Liberals decide to filibuster this motion, which provides a timeline for us to get a report tabled in the House of Commons before we recess.... It states here that dissenting opinions would have to be submitted to the committee no later than Wednesday, June 9 at 4 p.m., which would allow us to table this in the House of Commons either on June 10 or on June 11. I would ask members to see this as a way for us to get some solid recommendations in to the government and to the Canadian Armed Forces. It will prove to Canadians that this committee has done more than just play politics, as Liberals like to accuse us of, yet all the evidence points to their ongoing filibustering as political games that have been played here.

We know that ultimately, at the end of the day, we can come to a decision. If the Liberals decide to filibuster this motion, it proves a fact to everyone watching, as well as to committee members: that, indeed, they don't want the report to see the light of day, mainly because there was a concerted cover-up that was done between the Prime Minister's Office, Katie Telford in particular, and the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan. Because of their action and inaction, ultimately there was a failure of Operation Honour, a failure in protecting the women and men who serve in uniform, and the culture was allowed to fester and become more toxic than what had previously been experienced.

I encourage all members to look at this and accept the motion so that we can finish writing the report and get it tabled in the House of Commons within the next couple of weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you have seen and as I pointed out earlier, I agreed to withdraw the amendment on Mr. Bezan's original motion. I must say that I regretfully agreed to have it withdrawn.

There was unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. Mr. Bezan's current motion was also unanimously supported.

I said that I did so regretfully. I think that the committee could have done a much better job if we hadn't been subjected to endless filibustering. This has been the case over the past few months. The committee has been unable to do its job properly. I think that this is particularly sad.

I hear the calls for democracy from the governing party, the Liberals, with respect to the passage of the motion currently before us. It could shorten or limit debate.

In any other context, I would tend to view this type of motion with a great deal of trepidation.

For the past few weeks or months, the Liberals' arguments have left me in disbelief. I doubt whether they really intend to co‑operate in a reasonable way to get a report through before the House closes.

I must say that I've overdosed on filibustering. I've seen enough of it to avoid being naive enough to give them the chance to block the committee's work once again. In my view, we could have done some real work. We could have heard crucial testimony for our study. Unfortunately, we weren't able to do so.

We can still have brief discussions on the items to include in the report. I think that a report is important. I've emphasized this several times before the committee. You can understand the sincerity of my commitment in this area. A report must be tabled in the House. We must do everything possible to ensure that this type of report is tabled.

The motion currently before us doesn't prevent anyone from expressing a different opinion. There's still time for debate. We still have the opportunity to obtain additional opinions or a dissenting report from people who disagree with the content. This could even be my case.

That's why we must stop the sad spectacle of filibustering and get to work to bring the committee back on track under the current circumstances.

I, for one, will be supporting the motion moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

We'll now go to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I want to start by responding to some of the things that Mr. Bezan said a few moments ago. I find those things completely objectionable. Mr. Bezan referred to government members, who include my colleagues and me, as performing what he called “contemptuous behaviour”, by debating motions that he has presented repeatedly at the last minute. He accused us of being “complicit in the cover-up”.

First of all, to be able to allege that, you'd have to prove that there was a cover-up, which Mr. Bezan desperately has tried to do but has not been successful at. I can appreciate why he is frustrated, given the number of committee meetings he has wasted trying to do that.

Then, even if he had proven a cover-up, which he hasn't, he'd have to prove that we were complicit before accusing us of doing so, and neither of those things is true. I am incredibly disappointed, and I am wondering if it is even in order to say such things at a committee or in Parliament.

The third thing is that he referred to filibustering. It's interesting, because Conservative members—and Mr. Bezan, in leading them—have continually introduced motions at the last minute that call for witnesses, whom in many cases we have heard from already, to come back over and over again, to answer the same questions we have asked and heard answers to over and over again from those same witnesses and other witnesses.

What I find shocking is that Mr. Bezan is completely comfortable wasting the committee's time on that political finger pointing and recalling witnesses on those same topics we have already debated and heard from them on, but now he has the gall to suggest that the Liberal members are not allowed to spend time at committee debating the very motions he has introduced.

I want to respond to those points, because I found them all objectionable. I would be shocked if using words such as “contemptuous behaviour” and “complicit in a cover-up” is in order.

Going back to the motion that Mr. Bezan introduced, I agree that this committee needs to present a report, a fulsome and thoughtful report, that actually makes recommendations to the government on what to do to fix the problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the armed forces. That's what we should be doing.

In fact, that is what the government members have been fighting for, meeting after meeting after meeting, while Mr. Bezan and his colleagues decided instead to play political games and introduce further motions at the last minute to call witnesses and point fingers and try to grab headlines.

Yes, we should be issuing a report. The way you issue a report—and I don't have to tell the members of this committee how that's done, because they've all been part of it many times over on this committee and on others—in committees in the House of Commons is that you work together. You meet and you find a consensus, because that is the only way to build a report that reflects the will of the committee. What you don't do is waste months and months of this committee's time pointing fingers at the Liberals, unsuccessfully trying to repeat to people that there is a cover-up, which there isn't. Just because you repeat the word “cover-up” hundreds of times, that doesn't make it true.

Mr. Bezan has tried that tactic unsuccessfully, and now he is frustrated. Now what he is trying to do is make up for lost time, which he wasted, by introducing a motion that basically requires us to ram a report out of this committee that will not have the consensus we need. It won't speak for what we've heard at the committee—it will speak for what some members think they heard at the committee—and it won't do justice to the people we should be trying to help, who are the victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Yes, of course we should be issuing our report. That's what you've heard from the government members over and over again for the past many weeks and months, while Mr. Bezan and his colleagues played political games. This motion would make a farce of that report. That's not a report. This is a way for Mr. Bezan to say, “Well, I ticked the box. There is some sort of document that came out of this committee that says 'report' on it.”

The victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment deserve way better than that. It should be a report that reflects the will of the committee, that is thoughtful and debated and considered. By limiting the amount of time that members can actually speak to the issues.... Come on, that's not the way you create a report on a complex, serious topic where you're serious about defending the interests of the people who are victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. That's just not how you do it.

I'm surprised that I even have to take the time to explain this. Members here should know that. This is something that is....

What I also find objectionable is that in the motion that Mr. Bezan has presented, he is limiting MPs' ability to debate the report. Never mind the fact that limiting the amount of time to debate the report is not going to lead to a good report because, knowing that, members who disagree with the members who are speaking, instead of working towards consensus, can just ignore it and vote the way they wish. They have no interest in finding consensus and no interest in working together. It's like pretending that some of the members weren't even at the committee the whole time—just let them have their two minutes and then I'm going to ram through the report I want.

Not only is that bad for the quality of the report, the calibre of the report, but it's completely undemocratic. Also, as Ms. Vandenbeld raised earlier, imagine what happens when there's a majority government of any political stripe. Imagine that. This is a motion that, once you pass it here.... If we were to pass Mr. Bezan's motion here at this committee, it would set a precedent that any majority government could ram through any report and claim it's the will of the committee without it actually being the will of the committee, because if a government is a majority government, they'll have the majority of the members on the committee and they can vote through anything they want. As a member of the governing party, I don't like that, but if I were in an opposition party, I certainly wouldn't like that, especially if I didn't think that I would be in the majority.

I'm really shocked that Mr. Bezan is willing to set this kind of precedent, and I'm shocked that he wants to limit MPs' ability to debate. He had time to play political games for months and months on this issue, but he doesn't have time to debate the report, which is what the victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment actually deserve. I'm incredibly disappointed. I think that when you limit debate on a topic like this, you're not allowing the members of this committee, who've heard the testimony from so many experts and others, to be able to bring into the report what they actually heard.

I think we heard a tremendous amount that was incredibly important and that has to be in that report, has to be heard, has to be documented and, most importantly, has to be documented not just for the sake of documentation, but documented so that insights can be drawn and the recommendations of the report actually reflect what we learned. When I think about some of the things that we learned, there's so much that needs to be in that report.

For example, I think of what we heard from a survivor and a CAF member who presented to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I want to share this with you. This is the kind of thing that should be in that report and should be debated. Her thoughts and her insights should be included.

The Canadian Armed Forces member who testified before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is Heather Macdonald. She said as follows:

It becomes even more difficult if you are in the navy and the incident happens on a navy ship at sea or in a foreign port. We do not have police officers with us on ship, so if there is a need for an investigation we rely on our coxswains and chiefs to do unit disciplinary investigations. This greatly reduces the chance that there will be admissible evidence gathered and preserved to help the victim find justice in a court of law. Most times, the victims pay a greater price than the perpetrators when they come forward, and that is why most victims are reluctant to come forward.

That last sentence, that victims will pay a greater price than the perpetrators when they come forward, is very important. That's why she says that most victims are reluctant to report people and bring up what happened. We've heard about this issue several times here in the committee. We need to address the issue as a committee.

Our report should include recommendations that would help resolve the issue. But no, Mr. Bezan doesn't want to do that. He just wants to quickly issue a report to say that he prepared a report and then move on. That's unacceptable.

I think that these types of testimonies provide very important information. We must use and include this information in our report, to make sure that the recommendations reflect the victims' opinions on what must be done to resolve the situation in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I'll continue with what Ms. Macdonald told us:

We need to fix this. We need to make this a better and safer place for females to work. The #MeToo movement very much exposed our societal gender problems. The military somewhat amplifies those issues, because of the fact that females are also a minority. As a minority we stand out, and we end up being more under a constant microscope than the average male sailor or soldier. Added to that, females of all rank levels have a very fine line that they have to walk. Act with too much empathy or concern and you are labelled as “mothering”, which is not perceived as a positive or sought‑after trait. On the other end, be too firm or decisive and you are labelled a different derogatory term.

I don't know how many times in this committee we've heard Ms. Macdonald's point from witnesses discussing the internal culture issue. This is one glaring example, among many others, of that issue. To resolve this issue, if we're serious as a committee, we must think about it and discuss what we've heard. We must prepare a report that emphasizes that this issue must be resolved.

Mr. Bezan's motion doesn't serve this purpose. It says that we shouldn't discuss all this. Each member has only one or two minutes to talk about it, and that's it, the report is finished. This motion is a joke.

I'll continue with what Ms. Macdonald said when she testified before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

One area that I also think we need to understand is what I have heard called the old boys' club. For the most part, what I hear is a denial that it even exists. We are in an organization that relies on the most basic trust of your fellow soldier or sailor. When we find ourselves in hazardous conditions, we rely on the people we are working with to have our backs, to keep us alive. This creates relationships that are strong and cohesive. This is what we want for our organization.

So again, Ms. Macdonald, a survivor of sexual misconduct, is talking about culture. We need to understand the nuances of this issue. We should include what we've learned in the report. We can't do that by speaking for one or two minutes and then approving a report as such. That isn't fair. We aren't honouring the victims, women such as Heather Macdonald or others, who have testified before committees and who have spoken publicly. These women are incredibly brave to have done that.

Mr. Bezan's motion seeks only to show that a report has been prepared, but a report that doesn't reflect what we've heard, what these women have told us, and what must be included to provide recommendations that will resolve the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

As a result, Madam Chair, I'm completely opposed to the motion, obviously. I'm disappointed in Mr. Bezan's comments. I'm disappointed that he would move a motion of this nature. As I said, I think that this is undemocratic and that it sets a very dangerous precedent for future governments. If we set that precedent today by passing the motion, the majority parties can simply write whatever they want in a report, regardless of the perspective of the opposition parties.

Ultimately, we're here to resolve the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. To do so, we must take the time to write a quality report. This motion is created to do the opposite, in other words, to say that we've written a report, but not a quality report that honours the victims of harassment and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Spengemann, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much. To begin, I would like to thank you for your leadership on this committee over the past months. It's clear that some partisanship has taken hold. Thank you for keeping us on the rails and for keeping the conversation going. I think we are talking about extremely important issues, even though we now have different visions, clearly, in terms of what needs to be done and how to arrive at the conclusions before the end of the parliamentary term. Perhaps today will offer an opportunity to get to a better space.

I would like to support the comments made earlier by my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld with respect to the intersection of this topic with the issue of military justice. She mentioned a potential appearance of Justice Fish. I would support that. Time is ticking, and we're rapidly approaching the end of the parliamentary term. If we can create connection points and synergies that stress the horizontality and systematicity of the issue of sexual misconduct into the domain of military justice, we should absolutely take advantage of that—even though, as I said, the clock is ticking and time is being used now to discuss the different visions that we have in front of us.

In response to Mr. Bezan's motion, it's very clear that Mr. Bezan and colleagues of his have a particular view. They've made certain allegations. They've been spending the last few weeks trying to substantiate those allegations by chasing after one more witness, one more statement, that would allow the conclusion that what they say is accurate. In the meantime, the clock is burning and ticking away. We have a different vision, a different narrative, a different account of what needs to be done, which is to solve the systematic issue of sexual misconduct in the armed forces in a deeper way.

It's easy for opposition colleagues to say that we are filibustering. We're not filibustering. What we are doing is putting on the table not only, most importantly, the ideas, the visions, the experiences of serving and former members of the Canadian Forces and people who aspire to join the Canadian Forces, but equally, as I've tried to do over the past number of sessions, work that's been done elsewhere. This is work that's been done in other jurisdictions with a military that is structured similarly to ours, that is under democratic control, where the issue of sexual misconduct, all the way up to sexual assault, has equally caused concern and equally led to initiatives. In several cases, the work has been done. Colleagues in those jurisdictions at the parliamentary and executive levels have been able to get to the same side of the table and create high-quality reports with recommendations and accounts that are granular enough to warrant serious consideration by this committee.

In some cases, our experience has been cited elsewhere, in a good way, in a salutary way, but it's very clear that in Canada a lot of work remains to be done. It's urgent work. Those countries that are working in parallel with us are going to look to see if Canada will follow suit, take a leadership role on this issue and solve these questions and issues urgently. That's one thing I've been trying to do under the “filibustering” description by opposition colleagues.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval's amendment, which has since been withdrawn, stated very clearly that with the study under way, there was an expectation that this committee take cognizance of new facts. New facts come to us in the form of witness testimony but also in the form of, very often, comparable experience from other jurisdictions, particularly Five Eyes countries. We work with them very closely on questions of military co-operation, security and intelligence. That includes the U.K., as I've highlighted in recent interventions, as well as New Zealand and others.

In my last intervention before the committee, I drew attention to the work we had done as parliamentarians in a very different way, in a much less partisan way, in the 42nd Parliament. The report we issued then was not directly related to sexual misconduct. It was related to equity, diversity and inclusion in the armed forces. There were sections on sexual misconduct and the issue of the sexualized culture in the military. Some of the witnesses who appeared then appeared before us as well, but the outcome was different. The outcome was a report where colleagues had opportunity to consider among themselves, in a non-partisan way, a series of recommendations and approaches that we made to government, with respect to which a government response was requested. It wasn't a dissenting report. That means that even though it was a majority government at the time, if colleagues had disagreed with what was put forward, they would have had the opportunity to voice those concerns in a dissenting report. The committee spoke with one voice.

In this intervention, Madam Chair, I just wanted to put to the committee the consideration that it's time to move out of the partisan divisions and find a way to work together fairly, because time is tight. It's not impossibly tight, but we're at a stage where we now need to make the right decisions with respect to this report.

I think it's incredibly important that colleagues—as my friend and colleague Mr. Baker has outlined—have an opportunity to debate, but not in the form of a two-minute statement on each paragraph or recommendation. By the way, if we take that at face value, that would be utterly inconsistent with the time frame that's recommended. The motion recommends that we be done, as I read it, on June 7. That level of debate—each member of the committee making a two-minute statement for each recommendation or paragraph—would potentially, first of all, be a series of monologues without the ability to really interact with each other, because we can't amend the recommendations or paragraphs. It would also take more time than the timeline of the 7th would allow.

Third, Madam Chair, it eliminates your ability to act as chair to really exercise discretion and debate among colleagues and guide debate in a very complex setting to a productive conclusion on recommendations or textual paragraphs. If we simply vote paragraphs up or down after a two-minute monologue, we don't create a report. We create a run-on series of statements that may or may not solve issues. We wouldn't raise the chances of them solving issues, because we haven't had the ability to combine, amend or reconsider motions, or to look at experiences from elsewhere to see if the recommendation hits the right tenor. We haven't had the ability to prioritize them in terms of timelines—in other words, what needs to be done first and what the government should most urgently take account of to really get on top of this issue quickly.

Time is of the essence. It's not only parliamentary time, in terms of getting this report finished before we rise for the summer, but, most importantly, it requires such urgent attention with respect to protection of members of the Canadian Forces who are currently serving.

Our efforts are to do two things. One is to prevent additional cases of misconduct. The other is to allow, in those instances where sexual misconduct has happened, victims to come forward in a much more empowered structure and with greater independent oversight that takes into account the evidence we've heard with respect to senior ranks and the cultural differences between various ranks within the armed forces.

These are very important considerations. To do a quick, slapdash, up/down approach in the course of a week, where the real heavy lifting.... I've described this in other interventions as the tip of the iceberg being the cases we've actually looked at, high-profile as they were. The important cases of misconduct that have really taken the entire country's attention with respect to the problem are one portion. The massive issue of the lower part of the iceberg, which is hidden, is the system itself. It's the system that empowers people like the former chief of the defence staff to say, in 2015, that he owns the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

How can this happen? How can one senior-ranking officer of the Canadian Forces be so empowered institutionally—“misempowered” is probably a better term—that he would claim that he owns the entire national investigation service. That's a system challenge. That's not a challenge I've heard any thoughts or recommendations on from opposition colleagues, who are now saying that we should find another witness who may have an additional sentence to add.

Let's do the real work. Let's work on the iceberg. Let's chip apart the iceberg and change the culture. Let's look at those countries that have done it well and incorporate their experience and their testimony. Let's prioritize the deeply scarring emotional impacts of the messages that came directly from former and current serving members of the armed forces. That needs to be front and centre. That can't be done in a report that's voted up and down in a quick session with a basket of recommendations that we have not even had the opportunity to relate to each other, to prioritize or to discuss in any meaningful way.

I appreciate Mr. Bezan's concern that we do need to get this report out. I think it's incredibly important. As I said earlier, no report in this committee's recent history will be more important than this one. It needs to be finalized and it needs to be published, but it needs to have impact. To publish something that falls flat on expectations and impact is not worthy of this committee's mandate and effort.

For that reason, I hope the motion on the table now will give us a pathway to a potential amendment, to a discussion or to a much more constructive approach where we can actually sit down as a committee on the same side of the table with the problem on the opposite side of the table and find a pathway to make those changes that are utterly, urgently needed.

I'll leave it there. I have additional thoughts that will take us into more detail with respect to other experiences and insights that we may inject into the consideration of the recommendations, if and when we get to them in a meaningful way.

For the moment, I'll turn it back to you, Madam Chair, with my thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

Next we have Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion.

When the motion was first presented, I thought it was an improvement. I thought it was a step forward, and I was hoping, as Mr. Spengemann just said, that it would leave room so we could amend it in such a way that all the parties would agree that we could move forward in a co-operative way.

I have a number of things to say on the motion, at least four, but before that, as Mr. Bezan at times presents inappropriate preambles to the motions, I have to set the record straight on the comments he made in the preamble to the motion.

First of all, remember where we came from. There was an email. The person was anonymous. They didn't want their name put forward and they didn't give permission for the information to be put forward. So we had an email, and no one knew what was in it. It was anonymous. It was reported immediately to the investigative officials, who investigated as far as they could, case done.

Then, the Conservatives started presenting motions to bring in all sorts of witnesses about those emails. The Liberals agreed for a time, even though it wasn't studying the major things that witnesses, experts and survivors had told us we should be studying: the culture, the reprisals for reporting, the chain of command. There was nothing on that. It was on an email that no one knew anything about and that had already been investigated.

Finally, the Liberals said, enough, stop wasting the time of the committee on bringing forward motions to either bring back the same witnesses on that email, which no one knew what was in, or to bring other emails that were not necessarily appropriate. Let's get back to what we should be discussing, which has some possibility in the new motion.

I appreciate the things that Mr. Bezan mentioned in his preamble we should move on with, but going back to what the facts were, remember that the situation was investigated fully, as far as it could go, because there was no permission or information to do anything else.

What came out subsequent to that motion was that, at the time of General Vance's appointment, there were actually two serious allegations that the dogged research of the media found out—I think it was Global News and the Toronto Star—and General Vance was still appointed.

As I said, this isn't where I wanted to go on any of these past witnesses. I wanted to get on with the things the survivors wanted us to get on with, but those who were seriously thinking of calling more witnesses—Mr. Barsalou-Duval talked about more witnesses in his preamble—would really have to change the witness list to those who found out at the time about those two investigations, and why General Vance was still appointed.

One investigation, the military police ended it, or announced they were ending it, the day he was made commander-in-chief, and four days later it was ended. They said, under access to information, and I have no idea who filed it, that they were under pressure. That could be a serious allegation. If you're talking about witnesses, those would have been the types of witnesses.

The other investigation into General Vance at the time was referred to Mr. Novak. It was very similar to what happened with the email in 2018. In 2018, it was investigated as far as it could go. In the case of Mr. Novak, he said he went to Mr. Fadden—the very same process—but Mr. Fadden said there was no record of complaint or current investigation, so if there wasn't, then there needed to be one. But the national security adviser says he never did that investigation. If that investigation wasn't done, why was Mr. Vance appointed?

If you really wanted to go back and do witnesses, then, unlike in Mr. Bezan's preamble, those are the witnesses you would call on what recently came to light, which was more serious. As I said, that's not my area of interest—it's getting on with the future.

Since that story came out, there was even more. The outgoing chief of the defence staff, General Tom Lawson, said he was crystal clear: No allegation related to misconduct by Vance in Gagetown was brought over to him at any time, including while he was helping find his replacement, the chief of staff. He said he wasn't fuzzy at all. He would have looked into it. Subsequently, more people have come forward, such as former vice-chief of the defence staff Guy Thibault, saying they were never told either.

Those are the types of things that the people who thought that other motion was appropriate.... If they were serious, then they would have changed the witnesses to discuss the serious allegations that were actually found later. As the Liberals have been saying all along, the important thing is to get on with what the experts and the survivors have been telling us needs to be done, and have a serious debate, not a two-minute debate, on the very complex things that need to be done and need to be recommended.

Good examples are that, for instance, the administrative changes that were made in some cases were very good. But obviously, as Mr. Garrison has pointed out in the past, and I have pointed out, there were many hundreds of incidents still going on related to sexual misconduct. It's not working. It may be working to some extent. We listed at the last meeting for over an hour the things that the government has done, but still obviously a lot more needs to be done. It's very complex, obviously, when that many things have been done that may have made progress forward in some areas. If it's too simplistic an answer, then obviously it's not going to make progress on that.

That's why I think—and I've said this at almost every meeting—that's where we need to be having serious debate. They are not easy issues. There's a saying that for every complex problem there's a simple answer and it's wrong. That's why we need to have more than a two-minute input on each item. Whether it's two minutes on a paragraph.... Does that paragraph do justice to the witnesses? If not, do you just get to speak for two minutes, and that's it?

Obviously, these are very serious changes of direction for an organization, the military. For some of these recommendations, is two minutes serious? As both Yvan and I have said, either in this or in previous meetings, how seriously is anyone going to take a report where you've had two minutes each to discuss a paragraph or a recommendation?

It has been said many times that the purpose of this study is to hold the government to account. On this motion, how could you hold the government to account if the government doesn't get to do a response? Why would we not want to have the government respond to the various recommendations? The government has already taken a lot of steps but is in the middle of taking some more, with Louise Arbour, etc. We need to make sure that what the survivors and the experts said is included in the report and the recommendations, in the things they are doing. If that's not included in the report....

Then, with a major report like this, with so many recommendations, I was hoping, similar to what Ms. Vandenbeld said, that we could in some way initially come to a way of agreeing on all the ones we all agree on, to get that part done. If not, when you have only two minutes and you don't know what's going to go through, is 48 hours really a reasonable time for a consenting report, with all the paragraphs that may be inaccurate or recommendations that may need further input?

Also, on the limiting of debate, I'm just wondering how the NDP or the Bloc would feel if this precedent passes and if in the future there's either a Liberal or a Conservative majority and they'll get two minutes per person input on major recommendations that could totally go against their party philosophy, against their principles. In fact, think of the things we're debating at length right now, for instance the Broadcasting Act; if you only had two minutes to deal with a recommendation there, would people think that was appropriate?

The last thing I would say at this time is that on this particular part of the procedure, which is where I think we could come to some agreement and have some discussion, because it's a very serious change in procedure, when I was chair of PROC the Conservatives and the NDP spent several months debating a change of procedure because they didn't feel it was appropriate. They made it pretty apparent, time and again, how important it is not to change procedures without all-party consent.

I'll leave it at that for now.

The last thing I would say, because it is related to my next comments, is that on the serious recommendations and serious paragraphs, if we have more than two minutes' input, we're going to have to make it now, during this debate. I assume all committee members who have some serious input on either paragraphs or recommendations, unless that has changed over the discussion of this motion, will put all their input into the recommendations or paragraphs for which they have more than two minutes' input to make their point, because this is the only time they're going to be able to make it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like my colleagues, I'm surprised by Mr. Bezan's motion.

Limiting the speaking time of each committee member prevents us from doing our job properly and effectively. In the committee, we had witnesses tell us how much this situation needs to change. It seems that this motion seeks to relieve us of our role as committee members by giving us the chance to say that we've spoken for two minutes and that we've contributed to the study. That obviously isn't true.

Also, by failing to leave room for any government response, this report won't change the situation. This proves once again that, for the opposition members, the motion is just a way to say that they tried, but that we didn't want to listen. That simply isn't true.

However, as a committee, we could focus on the victims and survivors and stop trying to score political points.

Once again, every member of the national defence team should feel safe and respected in their workplace environment. Eliminating harassment and sexual misconduct and creating a safe work environment for every defence team member is a priority.

An independent external comprehensive review of current policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture within the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence will be initiated. Its purpose will be to shed light on the causes for the continued presence of harassment and sexual misconduct despite efforts to eradicate them; to identify barriers to reporting inappropriate behaviour; to assess the adequacy of the response when reports are made; and to make recommendations on preventing and eradicating harassment and sexual misconduct.

Here are the types of concrete steps that we can take to change this toxic culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. To that end, we'll also review the recruitment, training, performance evaluation, posting and promotion systems in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as the military justice system's policies, procedures and practices for responding to these types of allegations.

The review will also assess progress made in addressing the recommendations contained in Marie Deschamps's external review into sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. The sexual misconduct response centre's mandate, independence and reporting structure will also be reviewed.

Here are the concrete ways that we can make a difference in the Canadian Armed Forces. The reviewer will deliver its draft review report to the Minister of National Defence, and, subsequently, to the deputy minister of National Defence and the chief of the defence staff. The final review report will be made public by the minister within 10 days of receipt and will be forwarded to the Prime Minister.

I don't think that Mr. Bezan's entire motion should be eliminated. I hope that the member will be open to the possibility of making amendments so that we can move forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Robillard.

We'll go on to Mr. Baker, please.

Oh. You're next, Madame Vandenbeld.