National Defence Committee on May 21st, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Robillard.

On to Mr. Bagnell please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to thank some of the members, now that these meetings have been extended, for the tremendous amount of additional information they've provided. Mr. Spengemann, for instance, provided information from other cases where these studies have been done.

In response to Mr. Baker's question as to what we will have achieved, we now have a tremendous record of data and information that those working on this, including Madam Arbour in the future, can use to come up with actions and recommendations that still need to be done at that time. Certainly if this committee can't come up with some recommendations, I will be inputting my recommendations, and we certainly have a lot of backup from experts and survivors to make those from.

Before I get on to my input on what I think the recommendations should be, if this is the only chance I get to do that, I did want to say that Mr. Garrison made a good point. I think it would be fair for committee members to know how long the opposition is going to debate this inappropriate motion, when they could adjourn the debate or the meeting so that we could either get on with the report or get on with other important business. It would be good for committee members to know when the opposition plans to bringing back unreasonable motions related to, for instance....

We had one email that was reported within 24 hours. No one knows what's in it because the member didn't want that, and the report and the investigation was done and completed very quickly. Why would we have motions to bring back witnesses whom we've already heard from for up to six hours, etc.? It would be fair for the committee to know when the opposition members are going to stop bringing forward these things and causing these delays and stopping us from getting to the report.

Also, the committee members, before they move on, would obviously have to know why the opposition members are suggesting no response from the government. My understanding of what committees do is that they investigate with expert witnesses and study a topic and make recommendations for the government to act on. Why do the three opposition parties not want the government to act? Why do they not want a response to the report? It would be good to hear that. Obviously, we have to hear that before we can go on to Mr. Garrison's request.

Also, the response, as Mr. Baker said, to my idea, if I didn't make it clear enough, is a compromise from this apparent stalemate that's stopping us from getting to the report. The compromise would be that we could start right away on the items we agree on or go through every recommendation to see which ones we can agree to go through the Bezan procedure on, with a couple of minutes on each, so we would have some things we could tell the victims. As Yvan said, we could be proud we had items to move forward on. Then we would go back, and the things we couldn't agree on the committee could have the normal debate on those.

Of course, as Ms. Vandenbeld mentioned, we also have this whole Fish report, with a lot of valuable information we can get into. If we can't get into it through a reasonable route through the committee, then we would have to bring that into this debate.

Just to give time for the opposition parties to think about my compromise and to make some comments on that and on why there's no response from the government, I will, as I said earlier today, go on with some of the things that I think should be in the report if this is the only time I get to say them.

First, I would assume that all members from all parties would really want to have their input into the recommendations, but not necessarily under the conditions of this motion. One of the items would be, because there are suggestions that the effects, the results, of investigations depend on.... Before I get into that, I just wanted to say, also related to some of the points Mr. Garrison made, that he seems to have a slightly different view from the views of other committee members on the emphasis on a particular part of our report being on political accountability. If that's true.... That's fine. That's his view. But if that's true, then, of course, as we all know, since we started our reports, there have been at least three detailed inputs—and one was very recent—of evidence suggesting that the political accountability is at the time of the appointment of General Vance.... There is a recent one of, let's say, June 1. I'm not sure if Mr. Garrison has seen that, but I could read it into the record. I won't right now because I want to stay on the important things of culture change, the fear of reporting and the chain of command.

Really, if anyone wants to deal with the political accountability, that's obviously, from the facts that have come out very recently, where it would be at, but I want to stay on the things that would help the survivors. As I said, there has been input suggesting that the effect of investigations or reprisals or sexual misconduct is different between genders and ranks—junior and senior—so I think that data should be disaggregated, collected and analyzed as much as possible to help our decision-making or our recommendations or Madam Arbour's recommendations. I will certainly pass that on if I can't do it through the committee.

Another item would be that we want to make sure that the recommendations or the procedures we come up with are really ensuring that the wants and needs of those impacted by sexual misconduct and other forms of non-inclusion—the minister has been very strong on those other forms of non-inclusion—should be the guiding principle for research, policy and program services and benefits. There have been some suggestions.... I can't remember which report it was in now, but the administrative directives, I think it was suggested, were not centred around the survivors and around those victims. They were more centred around protecting the system. That's why I think a recommendation along those lines would be valuable.

I also think, of course, that to help Madam Arbour the CAF needs to do a strategic review of the existing processes, including oversight from the beginning to the end, with a trauma-informed, survivor-centric-informed lens, similar to the first item I talked about.

Also, I think there needs to be, in our recommendations or in our report, the trauma awareness. Some of that has come out through what Mr. Baker said today, but also from the many other victims who we've heard and who have come to us either individually or through the committee, or who you've heard even in the media and, from that, we have to respect that trauma affects the dignity of the impacted individual and that trauma is not short term.

It's not dealing with something where there's a penalty to the perpetrator and it's all over. This type of trauma will be in a person's mind quite often for the rest of their lives. Somehow that needs to be reflected in the report, as the witnesses have said, and the seriousness of the recommendations we make need to deal with that point.

I also think we need to recognize that, although the majority of times it affects women, as we heard from at least one witness, it's not just women who have been victims of this type of trauma.

I also want to talk about the support systems. As I said before, I'm a little hesitant to talk at length about support. I think we should concentrate more on eliminating the problem so that we don't have to have the support. Obviously when you have—as Mr. Garrison and I outlined in detail—hundreds of cases, we'll still need support, and we'll need support for situations that went on long before we studied this situation, because they can be long lasting.

Part of that support that the victims have asked for is a peer support network, which exists in other places. It should be tailor-made for the military under the special circumstances—and I know that military members of the committee would understand this—so that there can be a support network for a victim to discuss with other victims how to move forward.

Also, I think the seriousness of these types of injuries should really be defined as a full operational stress injury and identified as such within the scope of the federal framework on PTSD. I think that would give it more.... It would put it in a more serious light, where it should be.

Another area where I think we need a recommendation is on the attributes of an ideal soldier. It should be modernized to reflect the realities of the 21st century military needs, including an examination of the CAF's presently dominant heteronormative, white European background, assumed masculine culture. The values and attributes of the ideal soldier and the impact this norm has on sexual misconduct reporting must be critically examined.

Another area that we heard numerous times was related to the requirements or the things that help lead to promotions: what's considered, what would be considered, how that should be updated, the rewards of taking the appropriate actions and not taking inappropriate actions. All of these need to be discussed. I don't think any member of the committee thinks there shouldn't be a serious discussion on this type of issue.

I have a whole bunch more, but I think I will save them...except for one that I mentioned before.

I think it will take a more lengthy debate by committee members, because it hasn't been really talked about by members other than me. How do reprisals fit into the system, in either the code of conduct or in offences, even?

Obviously, reprisals—whether overt or not overt—have occurred in the past, but where is it listed that that's inappropriate, that it's an offence, that there's a result of having that offence on your record? I think if that were prohibited, it would certainly help many more victims come forward with the reports, as the recent report—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

The meeting is suspended.

[At 3:25 p.m., Friday, June 4, the sitting was suspended.]

[At 11:04 a.m., Monday, June 7, the sitting resumed.]

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I call this meeting back to order.

Good morning.

Welcome everyone.

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 let me know immediately so we can make sure everyone can participate fully in these proceedings.

I remind you that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair, and this is a reminder, as much for myself as for the rest of you, to please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to a speaking list, the clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they're participating virtually or in person.

We are resuming debate on Mr. Bezan's motion.

Mr. Bagnell had the floor.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Just to recap where we are, we've been about 58 hours and 49 minutes on this very important topic. We found out about systemic, inappropriate sexual conduct in the Canadian military. We've had many, many witnesses and heard sad testimony from survivors. This has been going on for decades upon decades, and we certainly need very complex and important action to try to turn the tide of this.

The major items we heard from the experts and from survivors were on culture change, which I'm sure we'll be hearing more about today, and the fear of reporting, partly because of the order of the chain of command and the fear of reprisals in that, if you do report, it could affect the honourable career that you've chosen.

That's why I hope we can get to the report as soon as possible to deal with all these very serious issues in the military and do what we can as part of helping the survivors.

The department and the minister have already taken action by appointing Madam Louise Arbour, and a number of steps are being taken. In the previous meeting, I went over almost an hour on things that have been done already, but obviously, more needs to be done, and we could certainly be part of that if we could get to a report right away.

I think the purpose of the report would be for the department and the minister to make the changes we're talking about. I don't imagine there's any member of the committee who does not want those changes that we recommend to be made or to be taken seriously, and the government should respond to them.

Somehow that isn't the case in the present motion, so I'm going to propose an amendment that the government has to respond to the things we're suggesting, the things the survivors have suggested and the things the experts have suggested, which could be a very productive report.

We want to make sure—and I'm sure all committee members do—that the government takes action and that the minister takes action on the items that survivors and experts have recommended could help the department move forward so it would be a safe working environment for members of both the CAF and the department.

The amendment I propose is to remove the first part of (b)(iv), which says, “the committee declines to request, pursuant to Standing Order 109, that the government table a comprehensive response...”

I would add “that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Since we don't have a written copy of that, do we wish to have some time to review it and get a copy out to you?

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

Are we going to get a written copy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, I think we should wait for that to happen.

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

I believe it's been sent to the clerk. I think Larry sent it. You can double-check.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. We'll just suspend for five minutes and then we'll give everybody a chance to have a look at that.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Resuming debate, we'll go back to you, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Just so people know, I'm amending subparagraph (b)(ii) of Mr. Bezan's motion to ask that the government provide a response to our report.

Just before I do that, I want to remind people that at the last meeting I threw out a suggestion of how we could proceed with the things we agreed on and leave the difficult things and then do them after. I haven't heard any objections to that from the opposition, but I'll leave that out there.

Related to my amendment, we want to make change. We're serious about making change. This is really a good point at which the committee could actually have influence and we could make that change.

We have a minister who, time and time again, has said that everything is on the table, that he wants to make the changes, that he wants to hear from us what those changes should be. We have an acting chief of the defence staff who has said he's very willing and eager to make changes and even agrees to take “outside” advice and do things outside the military chain of command.

These are dramatic, huge types of changes that will be required if we're really going to have an effect on what's been a sticking problem, not only in our military but in other militaries, as Mr. Spengemann has outlined in good detail.

Any problem like this requires complex and very thoughtful recommendations, which I hope we can get to soon, but change is major and, as everyone who has been around here long enough knows, change is difficult. It's not in human nature or organizational nature to make changes.

We would want the department and the government to offer a response to any recommendations we make. The whole purpose of our doing a report is that there would be changes. I don't think any members of the committee would not want changes or would want the minister and the government not to respond to our suggestions for these changes in terms of what they are going to incorporate out of what we're recommending.

It's sort of standard procedure when committees do reports to ask the government to respond to show that it is taking our recommendations seriously and is making changes that can really make life better for members of the military and make it a better option for people to choose. They should be able to choose that honourable career without fear of inappropriate sexual conduct, and all members should be able to carry on equally in one of the most honoured professions available to Canadians, one that is so essential to preserving our security.

I will leave it at that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Baker, go ahead, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I wanted to thank Mr. Bagnell for his amendment.

I think I want to pick up on what Mr. Bagnell was saying. He was talking about how we drive change on this issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the armed forces. If this committee is serious about doing all we can.... Well, let's take a step back. If we're serious as Canadians, as people who care about this issue, about taking action, then we need government to take that action. I think we can all agree on that.

I think this committee's role in ensuring that action is taken is to do the most we possibly can in terms of putting our shoulders to the wheel on making sure that government takes action. It's to write a report with thoughtful recommendations and ask that the government implement those recommendations. Then it's to hold the government to create an accountability mechanism, or do all we can as a committee, anyway, to ensure that the recommendations that we've put together and that we believe in are acted upon and that the government tackles this issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the armed forces.

To me, the government response, which is traditionally provided to most committee reports—almost all, from my understanding—has an important role. It plays the role of an accountability mechanism in my view because, in a transparent and public way, it asks the government to address to what degree it plans to implement what the committee has recommended. I think that's why it's a useful.... It's an important mechanism when committees issue reports, and it's important that we have that response in this particular case.

We've all been shaken by what we've heard from some of the folks who have testified at the committee. We've all spoken about how we've spoken to members of the armed forces and to victims and survivors. We owe it to them to make sure we do everything possible as a committee to make sure the right ideas get put to the government by this committee in terms of tackling this problem. We need to do everything we can to make sure the government acts on that—to advocate. I think the response from the government is an important mechanism in making sure we can translate into the government's acting on what I hope will be a report built on consensus that's very thoughtful and that would allow us to tackle this problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military. I really think that what Mr. Bagnell has proposed is constructive and important over the medium to long term, to make sure we tackle this problem.

When I think of some of the things we've heard, I know we've heard many times from witnesses who have come forward to this committee, from witnesses who have come forward to the status of women committee, from victims who've spoken in different forums in the public realm, etc. We've all been touched by that, and if we're going to.... However, we've also heard from them that this is not a new problem. We all know that. This problem has existed forever, and people have spoken out about it in the past in different forums. It's not easy to do. Certainly, what we have heard is just a fraction of what's been happening, of course, and we've all heard that from those who have testified, from the witnesses and from the survivors.

The facts that there have been so many victims and that such a small fraction of them are heard from, that such a small fraction of their cases of this problem are being tackled—being addressed and brought before an appropriate enforcement mechanism—show how important the accountability piece of this is. It's not just about putting forward good ideas. It's about putting forward good ideas and then making sure we are all on the same page, no matter which political party we're members of or elected from, in making sure that this government, the following government and the government after that continue to move the ball forward on this issue. I think we would all acknowledge that this is a complex problem. It's a difficult problem. It's going to require commitment from all future governments, if we're going to tackle it.

When I think about some of the people who have spoken out, and whose advice has not been taken, one person I think of is Julie Lalonde. She has spoken publicly in the past, and she was good enough to present to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I want to share with you something she shared. I want to share it with you because I think it's important. It underlines what we need the government to respond to and address, which is what Mr. Bagnell's motion is striving for, I think.

In French, she said the following:

I'm pleased that the committee decided to take some time to hear from experts in various fields, including me. My name is Julie S. Lalonde. I've been working for almost 20 years to end violence against women in Canada. Each year, I provide training to thousands of people. I've worked in five countries, on three continents and in two languages. Although I am the daughter of a former CAF member, my expertise in system change, violence prevention and bystander intervention is what dragged me into this conversation. I had a now-infamous day of training all officer cadets at the Royal Military College in Kingston in the fall of 2014. The anti-harassment educator got harassed at RMC, was the headline across the country. What was unfortunately missed is that I filed a complaint with RMC for reasons that go beyond the harassment I personally experienced. I was, and remain, deeply troubled by the comments cadets made with regard to sexual violence. Victim-blaming was rampant and the cadets insisted that women who drink too much are asking to be raped, except for one Navy cadet. He showed immense courage, and courage is what I would like to focus on for my comments today.

Just to recap or contextualize this, Julie Lalonde was speaking and providing testimony at the status of women committee. She was speaking about how she has tried to speak up, how she has tried to act to help train Canadian Armed Forces members to address this issue. She spoke about how awfully she has been treated and the resistance she and her thinking and what she was trying to teach have faced in the system.

That's what she was speaking about in the segment I just read to you. She underlined how challenging it was, even when giving the opportunity to young cadets, presumably young members of the armed forces, to address this problem. There was tremendous resistance. This is one reason Mr. Bagnell's motion makes a lot of sense.

Julie Lalonde's been doing this for years and has faced that kind of resistance. We need everybody pulling in the same direction on this. Obviously, government is at the top of that list of organizations that need to be pulling and pushing in the same direction as the armed forces, this committee and many others.

That's why I think the amendment Mr. Bagnell proposed makes a lot of sense. Mr. Bagnell's motion, in my view, is trying to ensure that government is publicly declaring its position on the recommendations this committee would make.

I now continue reading from Ms. Lalonde's testimony.

I was invited to train all officer cadets grouped by year on a rainy October day in 2014. The first and second years were unruly but manageable. The third-year group was by far the worst audience I have ever dealt with.

Yes, they did accuse me of hating all men, laughed at the definition of consent, and took every opportunity they could to shift the blame from perpetrators to victims. During a particularly tense moment, I frankly lost the room. They were furious with my focus on bystanders and began yelling over each other and heckling me.

Ms. Lalonde described what happened. What I take from her testimony is that she came up against resistance and was even mistreated because she was trying to solve the problem of harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. She was talking to very young members of the Canadian Armed Forces. As she said in her testimony, she was talking to third-year groups. That demonstrates that cultural resistance exists, as do other reasons that cause people to resist. That is why the committee, the government and the Canadian Armed Forces must do everything they can to make sure the problem is corrected.

Let me continue reading from her testimony.

In a sea of largely green uniforms a man in a Navy uniform shot his hand up. He was sitting amongst the most boisterous group, so to be honest, I called on him with hesitation. To my surprise, and the surprise of everyone else in the room, he stood up for me. He began to berate his classmates for attacking me, told them they were being babies for being so upset, and went so far as to say that the way we talk about women at RMC is embarrassing. The room was stunned into silence. I think of this man often. In the days and months that followed my day at RMC, cadets and CAF members took to social media and traditional media to praise the cadets for being brave enough to challenge the educator. Hundreds of men derailing a conversation on sexual violence prevention to call the female facilitator a man-hater is not brave. Being the sole voice in a room of 200 people willing to take a stand in support of progress is bravery of the highest level. That is what we need from you now. You will not eradicate sexual violence, misogyny and other forms of oppression within the military, such as racism, transphobia and homophobia, unless you are willing to be brave. Are CAF members uncomfortable with terms like rape culture, toxic masculinity and survivor-centred? Absolutely, we've seen that, but you cannot change something that you won't even name.

I will end my reading of Ms. Lalonde's testimony at this point. It is incredibly important, in my view. She testified before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but she could say the same thing before this committee, right here, right now. That is why I believe that I thought it was important to read you her testimony.

I want to repeat a sentence she said about the Navy cadet who stood up to intervene. She said: “Being the sole voice in a room of 200 people willing to take a stand in support of progress is bravery of the highest level.”

Let me ask my committee colleagues: is what we are doing “bravery of the highest level”? Put another way, what bravery of the highest level should we be showing for our other colleagues, for the survivors, for the government? How brave are we going to be?

As I see it, our bravery of the highest level is to write this report constructively, productively, and to make sure that the government will act on our recommendations. The amendment that Mr. Bagnell has proposed is an essential mechanism by which we can be sure that the government will do so.

If we do not demand a response from the government, I will be concerned. We may have a productive, constructive report that contains magnificent recommendations—and I have no doubt that we will succeed in that—but we must also seize that possibility and demand action from the government in this regard.

I implore you to support Mr. Bagnell's proposal. It is constructive. Ms. Lalonde spoke about a sailor being brave enough to stand up in a room of 200 people who were abusing her. I am not asking you to do the same today, nor yet in the coming weeks. The sailor did something very courageous. What I am asking from you does not require as much courage, we simply have to act and do what we can. It requires only that we are driven to help and support victims and survivors, to solve this problem of sexual harassment and assault in the Canadian Armed Forces.

So I am asking you to support Mr. Bagnell's amendment. It is our best way to make sure that the government will take heed of our recommendations, and that we will have done everything we can to solve the problem of sexual harassment and sexual violence in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

We will go on to Mr. Spengemann, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, colleagues.

I'd like to thank, first of all, Mr. Bagnell, for having introduced his motion to amend the previous motion, and to ask for a government response.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Baker for his intervention, which in very compelling terms restated the profound moral question that we're facing. He restated it through the testimony of Ms. Lalonde, as others have also come forward and spoken to various committees.

Most importantly, this question is one that our committee is seized with, and this is a question that really has the eyes of the country on it. There is an expectation that's increasing day by day, week by week, that this committee will come up with a report that will move the yardsticks on this question of systemic sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

In previous interventions I have outlined the state of affairs in a number of allied forces that we work closely with, including the United Kingdom. I have some comments on New Zealand, and there are other forces, South Africa included, that are dealing with this issue in similar ways, roughly at the same time. A lot of the reports that I have looked at began right around the time when this became an issue following the release of the Deschamps report. Some of them are more recent.

The international landscape really gives us an appreciation of the systematic nature of this issue. It's something that's far greater than just a problem in Canada alone, significant as that problem is, and in a very deep sense our allies are grappling with the same issue. Some of them have done the work, and just because they've done the work it doesn't mean that we get to piggyback on their conclusions.

We need to do our own work, but I have introduced that state of affairs as illustrative of the magnitude and the severity of the issue, and the conclusion that if we do not take it seriously, if we do not resolve it, there is not only most profoundly the lingering moral question, the conclusion basically, that we have failed the women—the serving women, past serving women and future recruits in the Canadian Forces—and men, but also that we are moving into an area where there are going to be operational ramifications with respect to this question remaining unresolved. A military force that has not gotten on top of the question of systematic sexual misconduct is not a strong force. It will be weaker because of the residue of that problem.

That has a broader implication with respect to the work we do internationally, be it through NATO or through the United Nations and peacekeeping operations. If we are not a strong ally to those we work with, then the entire assembled force, be it a coalition force or be it a UN force, is going to be less effective.

There is yet another layer. If forces do not take systematic sexual misconduct seriously within their own ranks, there is also a high risk that sexual misconduct will extend not only to other serving members of that same force, or other forces, but also vulnerable civilian populations. With that in mind, there is some work that's been done in that area already through NATO, through DCAF, the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, and other entities. The more leadership we put behind this as Canadians, the more effective our alliances will be through NATO and through the UN, in contexts where there are pressing global issues that need to be resolved.

I'd like to just put that to the committee for consideration. Again, the bifurcation is that there is a moral component that is fundamentally important, but also an urgent operational component. Canada has invested a lot of resources, a lot of thinking and a lot of leadership in the question of women in peace and security. We are talking to our allies; we're talking to UN agencies and others to increase the number of women serving overseas in our peace operations, to not only increase the number but also to put women into leadership positions and into peacebuilding positions. If we have an unresolved problem with respect to systematic sexual misconduct in these contexts, those investments will be not stronger, but weaker for it.

We have layer after layer of questions or reasons why this issue is so important, and why the time is now.

I'll give you yet another one. We are facing, at the moment, a number of questions with respect to justice and systematic ramifications and systematic factors that keep them in place, which extend beyond any given case or any number of cases with respect to complaints that are making their way into the media. We're facing systematic racism here in Canada, which we've acknowledged, against Black Canadians and against indigenous peoples. We need to look no further than the headlines of the last two weeks here in Canada to see just how disturbing these questions are.

This is also a question of justice. This is also a systemic question. It is a question of the right of Canadian women, and all Canadians, to serve in the Canadian Forces, to aspire to serving, to go into retirement looking back on their careers as having been fulfilling and having been free of harassment, bullying and misconduct of any kind.

This question is connected to yet another current relating to justice and systematic challenges that we need to address, and these challenges are monumental in their outlay, their components and their elements. They need strong recommendations from this committee. Yes, we have the work that's being done in parallel by Madam Justice Arbour, and it's important work. This committee may well want to consider whether to speak to her through its reports, as well as to the Canadian public.

Fundamentally, though, Madam Chair, the committee needs to speak to government, and that is why it is so important that we have this mechanism of inviting, in fact, insisting on the fact that the government prepare a response to our recommendations. If we don't do that, we're having a conversation among ourselves that really doesn't gain traction in a direct way with respect to prospects for resolution.

Receiving the report from government, looking at the report from government in future sessions of this committee, and seeing what follow-up work is required are incredibly important, and that is the our role as parliamentarians—all our ministers in government, our fellow parliamentarians. It is our institution that is charged with that accountability to the kinds of recommendations that the committee will hopefully issue in very short order.

For those reasons, I think we can all be very grateful to our colleague, Mr. Bagnell, for having introduced this amendment to make sure that the government issues a report. In fact, I'm struggling with questions as to why we would not invite a response from government.

Madam Chair, I've highlighted a number of components of the work of the United Kingdom that's been done in this respect. What I've not gotten to yet is their recommendations, and I will do that in a minute, with respect to a centralized authority that they have put forward. It's important for us to look at those recommendations, but through the lens of this being the kind of recommendation that would move the yardsticks, and that requires a government response.

If government tells us that certain recommendations aren't viable, or they're already doing them, or a different approach is required, we need to receive that information in the form of a response from government. The U.K. has, following the Wigston report, come forward with a response and with a review process a year later, which I will speak about later on, through the Right Honourable Ben Wallace, MP, Secretary of State for Defence. It was issued in December 2020.

If government action is requested on an urgent issue through a report like Wigston, and government is invited to step into the fray, as in this case—the minister said the door is wide open, we need to act now and the time for patience is over—good things can and do happen. That is why it's so important for this committee to at least take note of the work that's been done elsewhere. Again, it doesn't replace what we need to do here as members of Parliament, but it gives us guidance. It gives us a sense of reality. It gives us insights into the opportunity to actually move forward within a very progressive time frame, again in parallel with the work that Madam Justice Arbour is doing.

Madam Chair, if you'll allow me, I have a few issues that I wanted to raise and didn't get to in my last intervention. Most importantly, what I wanted to put to the committee is a list of about a dozen or so recommendations with respect to the central defence authority in the United Kingdom. Again, if this committee makes a recommendation similar to the tenor that the U.K. has developed, it's almost unimaginable that we would short-circuit or sidestep the question of a government response. The government is accountable to Parliament, and we in turn are accountable to the Canadian public. That is the central line of accountability in the Westminster system.

Again, with my gratitude to Mr. Bagnell, I wanted to just touch upon a few remaining items from the Wigston report before concluding this intervention.

Wigston made recommendations with respect to communication being central to the elimination of systemic sexual misconduct in the British forces and to getting at individual complaints in such a way that victims and survivors are empowered to come forward.

It said that communication is crucial in the sense that “[c]lear and user-friendly guidance must be produced for people to recognise the scope and range of inappropriate behaviour.” It states:

Effective communication of definitions, policies and guidance helps people understand what inappropriate behaviour is; what Defence's stance is on it; how it can be reported; what the process will involve; and how long it is likely to take. People are less likely to report inappropriate behaviour if they are not clear on what it is; where to “draw the line”; how to raise concerns; or what raising a concern will entail.

The recommendation Wigston makes is to implement “a clear, simple and enduring communications campaign to articulate the range and scope of inappropriate behaviours, and what to do when instances occur.”

If we imagine that we were to put forward a recommendation similar to that tenor and granularity in our report, again, it defies understanding that we would not ask government to respond to that recommendation, to tell us whether it's realistic, whether it's already being done and, if it's not, what kind of resourcing would be required to put it into place.

The U.K. also has [Technical difficulty—Editor] for all defence personnel. Again, that's something our committee could turn its attention to in the formulation of our recommendations. We could also ask the government to respond with its position on such a suggestion.

In the United Kingdom, mediation has been suggested as an area of attention. The report concludes:

Mediation is only currently utilised in small pockets across Defence, with its use being viewed with caution by the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The benefits of certified and professional mediation for individuals and organisations are widely recognised, however, with much useful material produced by the Arbitration, Conciliation Advisory Service and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. In her review, Sue Owen reported that one of several changes respondents to her survey wanted to see was the option of using informal resolution, including mediation, in preference to formal procedures, where that would be more beneficial. Those benefits might include: flexibility to suit particular circumstances; a space for more open and honest discussion; a quicker response to conflict to prevent escalation; less chance of the working relationship breaking down beyond repair; the chance for employers to understand the problem, and make changes that benefit employees and the wider organisation.

It goes on to state that feedback on the current mediation services is positive, in the assessment of the reporters, but there is a recommendation that “Defence should resource, train and deliver an effective, certified and professional mediation service, recognising and addressing the potential risks of mediation identified by the Service Complaints Ombudsman.”

Again, this is the kind of recommendation that if we were to explore it—the role of mediation services in those much more minor instances than sexual assault for quick resolution, for a resolution that is supported by all sides in these cases—we would want government to have an opportunity to respond and to give its view.

Madam Chair, let me conclude this intervention, perhaps, with the “defence authority” that's proposed by the United Kingdom, which would be responsible for “cultures and inappropriate behaviours”. Wigston really took a strong view that a centralized authority is required and made a number of potential recommendations on its mandate. I'm going to put these forward for the benefit of members of committee.

Again, let's ask ourselves, if we were to recommend something like that, or very different, but with the same tenor and the same aspiration of resolving the cultural challenges, would we not want the Government of Canada to issue a response to these kinds of recommendations?

Wigston's first recommendation is that the defence authority in the U.K. be responsible for “governance of Defence cultures and behaviours” as well as ownership of “pan-Defence strategy and policy for inappropriate behaviour and oversight of the implementation”.

The second recommendation is “Ensuring consistency in messaging internally and externally on behaviour, attitude and beliefs, including celebrating positive behaviours; and facilitating sharing of leading practice across the organisation.”

The third is “Assuring values and standards are upheld across Defence.”

The fourth is “Recording, analysing and tracking management information, including identifying and advising on trends.”

The fifth is “Setting the Defence training requirement for cultures and behaviours.”

The sixth is establishing a defence authority service complaints team for selected service complaints relating to inappropriate behaviour, operating in support of and with respect to the single services' chain of command. The seventh is etablishing a system for the anonymous reporting of complaints utilizing modern reporting methods, including a phone-based app, web-based forms, email and telephone. The eighth is to develop and oversee support programs for victims and other people affected.

The ninth recommendation is ensuring a consistent approach pan-Defence to climate assessments, mediation and helplines. The 10th is “reporting annually to the Permanent Secretary, Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chiefs of Staff.” The 11th is overseeing the implementation of those recommendations of the Sue Owen Review that have pan-Defence implications, and the 12th is monitoring and reporting on the recommendations of the report.

Again, Madam Chair, this is a very strong view that in the U.K., a central defence authority would be part of the answer in creating a culture in the U.K. armed forces with respect to the elimination of sexual misconduct and the resolution of complaints. Again, these are recommendations with granularity to them, with implementability, with achievability questions and with efficiency questions. In a report like the one we're currently contemplating, to make those kinds of recommendations without an explicit request for the government to respond would miss the mark in the following senses. We would not close the accountability loop, we would not know what the government's position would be, and this committee would then not have the capacity to potentially engage in follow-up work, either in the fall or even in a subsequent Parliament, as this is clearly an issue that's not going to go away.

Again, the minister said the time for patience is over. Culture change is absolutely required, but in my estimation, Madam Chair, this committee is going to remain seized with this question through to its resolution. The need to ask government to respond to this report and to successive reports in the future, to make sure that Parliament and—indirectly, through Parliament—the Canadian public can see, evaluate and ask questions about the process is absolutely indispensable in our system of democracy.

With that, I'd like to thank my colleague, Mr. Bagnell, for bringing forward this amendment, and my colleague, Mr. Baker, for his thoughtful comments with respect to the voice of women in Canada.

I just want to circle back and say that when I talk about other countries, behind each recommendation and behind each page of policy work that's done in the U.K, New Zealand, South Africa and so many other jurisdictions, there are also women victims and survivors in those countries whose voices we haven't heard directly. They have not hit our headlines. They have not spoken to our committee or to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. This is driven by a moral question relating to women in the armed forces of many, many countries. For that reason, the magnitude of the problem we are facing exceeds our own borders and therefore requires even greater attention by this committee. There's an extraordinary amount of leadership ahead of us, I believe, and ahead of our government. However, without the accountability loop being closed in the form of asking government for responses, we will not be able to do our work.

With that, and with my thanks, Madam Chair, I will hand it back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

Mr. Robillard, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let us continue with Report 5, which I referred to earlier, and let us examine the recommendations. The report is very significant because it reminds us of the importance of a response from the government, a central factor in this motion. This is why the motion put forward by Mr. Bagnell is so important.

The researchers examined the confidence that victims had in the system:

We found evidence of the impact that reporting had on the victim. In 21 of the 53 cases, the file showed that the victim experienced fear, distress, discomfort, a lack of support, reprisal, or blame, including from the victim’s commanding officer, senior leaders, instructors, and colleagues. In addition to the psychological trauma, such outcomes can only reduce victims’ confidence in the system and contribute to the belief that there are negative consequences for those who report inappropriate sexual behaviour. One primary victim support service provider told us that the Forces could improve support and increase victims’ confidence in the system if each victim was assigned a case manager. This individual would have the required knowledge and expertise to support and guide victims through the reporting process.

The researchers' recommendations were as follows:

The Canadian Armed Forces should make victim support a top priority by introducing comprehensive and integrated victim case management services from the time the victim discloses an incident to the conclusion of the case; and ensuring that members, service providers, and responsible officials have a clear understanding of what the complaint processes are, how they work, and what the possible outcomes are for both the victim and the alleged perpetrator.

The department's response was as follows:

Agreed. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee the development of a comprehensive Operation HONOUR campaign plan that will designate victim support and the implementation of an integrated, national case management system as the main effort. The Sexual Misconduct Response Centre will play an active role in the development of this campaign plan. The Centre’s charter will be amended to permit broader engagement with Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces senior leaders. The campaign plan will be sent for review and approval by 1 October 2019. The Canadian Armed Forces will continue the development and publication of new policies, including related Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAODs) and an Operation HONOUR manual as a comprehensive source of information on processes as they pertain to inappropriate sexual behaviour. The Forces will continue to evolve the Respect in the Canadian Armed Forces Workshop and provide briefings, updates, and reports to ensure the widest distribution of information.

The Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct will ensure that the multiple sources of information (such as the manual, Operation HONOUR website, and Respect in the Canadian Armed Forces mobile application) are up to date with the latest information regarding policies and processes.

The workshop, mobile application, and website are already operational and will continue to be updated as new information, orders, and policies are produced.

The manual is in advanced draft form and will be reviewed by the Centre before it is sent to the Deputy Minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff for approval. The new DAOD 5019‑5, Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Disorders, is in draft form and will be reviewed by the Centre and sent for formal approval by summer 2019.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Robillard.

We'll go to Mr. Bezan, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be brief. I just want to point out that the Liberals are filibustering their own amendment to ensure that this report is blocked and never sees the light of day. This is a procedural discussion on whether the report requires a government response to it, if we ever get to tabling the report.

I should point out that there is an advantage to not having the government respond in writing. It allows the opportunity for the House of Commons to actually have a concurrence motion and a four-hour debate in which the government can respond verbally and talk about the value of this report. It allows the report to then come to a vote in the House of Commons. For that reason, I will be opposing this amendment by Mr. Bagnell.

I have to say that I'm getting very tired of the political grandstanding by some Liberal members. I find it very disappointing that they are using the testimony of victims of military sexual trauma from the status of women committee here. That is callous. I believe it's unfair to those victims to have their testimony repeated here, especially if there has been no permission given to members of this committee to use their testimony at our committee.

We need to be more balanced in our debate as we move forward. We want to make sure there is relevance to the amendment and to the main motion, rather than this ongoing obstruction, and come to a vote so that we can get to writing the report and tabling it before we recess for the summer.

What we're seeing here is an ongoing filibuster, with the Liberals talking out the clock on their very own amendment. This is disappointing, especially for those in the armed forces who want to see us come out with an actual report on what went wrong, as it revolves around the sexual misconduct allegations against our current chief of the defence staff and our former chief of the defence staff.

Sitting here and debating needlessly and endlessly is very disheartening to those of us who want to get to a report. I'm sure it is disgusting to watch for those who currently serve or have served in the armed forces, especially for those who have been victims of military sexual trauma.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

We'll move along to Madam Vandenbeld, please.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Madam Vandenbeld.

We will go on to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I feel the need to respond to what Mr. Bezan said about it being callous to read the testimony of survivors who presented to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. After Mr. Bezan spoke, I looked up the definition of “callous”. It says, “Showing or having an insensitive and cruel disregard for others”.

The only thing to me that would be callous would be if this committee didn't undertake to listen to the survivors, heed their stories and act on what they're recommending and asking, what many of them have been pleading with the government to do, and have been pleading for for far too long. That would be callous.

Sharing their stories that they have had the courage to share publicly is not callous. They need to be heard. If we don't hear them, how will we ensure that those listening know that it's time for change? If we don't share those stories and listen to them, how will we understand their concerns—truly understand their concerns—so that we can address them? If we don't share those stories, how do we motivate MPs, people in government, leadership of the armed forces and people throughout the armed forces to act, to do right by those survivors?

It's not callous to share their stories. It's callous to ignore them. It's callous to try to silence them. Most importantly, I think, it's insensitive and cruel. It is callous not to do everything possible to act on these stories.

That's why I continue to share them. We need to honour the courage of the survivors who have come forward to present their stories in a public setting on the record. I'm sharing what they have shared on the record.

I hope Mr. Bezan and others will listen, but most importantly, I hope that they will come around. We're debating right now Mr. Bagnell's amendment to Mr. Bezan's motion. Mr. Bezan's motion is designed to undermine the writing of the report. It means we cannot take what we've heard from the survivors' stories and translate it into action. That would be callous. That would be cruel. That's what I'm fighting for and I'm going to continue.

I want to continue sharing with you what I started sharing in my prior intervention, which Julie Lalonde shared with the status of women committee. It's the tail end of her testimony.

As you will recall, Julie Lalonde was invited to speak to train cadets of the armed forces at the Royal Military College. She spoke about how the third-year cadets in particular mistreated her. One of the members stood up in the classroom amongst 200 of his colleagues to defend her. She called it “un acte de courage du plus haut niveau”. My best interpretation of that is that it was an act of courage of the highest level.

Here is what she said to our colleagues at the status of women committee:

I want to end by reminding you that I am calling on you to do something that I am doing myself. I am not asking you to do something that I am not personally willing to do myself. Since I came forward about my experience a few years ago, I have received thousands of threatening emails, social media messages and even phone calls. I have been accosted at in-person events and I can no longer speak in public on any topic without a security detail. I have paid dearly for my courage, and so it is very disheartening to see those of you with immense power shying away from the hard work that's necessary to make change. Sexual violence has existed within the Canadian Armed Forces for decades. The blame does not lie with one individual, one leader or even one political party. Please keep your eyes on the prize and choose bravery when having this conversation.

I think that testimony is very powerful in any setting, but it's incredibly appropriate here in the context of this discussion. I don't know what Julie Lalonde would say if she were testifying before us right now, but I think that these words that I just shared with you, that she shared at the status of women committee, apply here.

She's asking us to do something. She's asking us to honour her courage. She can't speak in public without being harassed, without a security detail, and she continues to speak out. Certainly, I'm going to share her stories and share her experiences. If she needs a security detail to do it, certainly I can do it in the House of Commons or in this committee. She's asking us to take action.

She talks about the fact that her courage has cost her so much, and when speaking to our colleagues at the status of women committee, she said—and I'm translating from French—that it's incredibly disappointing to see that those of us who have immense power refuse to do the important work that's necessary to change things, that those of us with immense power refuse to do the difficult work that's necessary to change things.

I know that we all have different perspectives on what needs to be done to address sexual harassment and sexual assault in the armed forces—I know that—just like we have different views on a range of topics. That's why we have to do that difficult work of sitting down like we always do, like all committees do in the House of Commons, and debating all of the issues, channelling what we've heard and writing a report that takes action. That's the difficult work that we can do—we must do—if we're going to honour the victims, honour the courage of Julie Lalonde and so many others. That's the difficult work.

That is nothing compared to the courage and the difficult work that Julie Lalonde is doing or that the other survivors whose experiences I've shared, whose testimony I've shared here in this committee before, have shown and have done.

The government members of this committee are asking the opposition members of this committee to do that difficult work. The opposition members, by supporting this motion by Mr. Bezan, are basically saying, “We don't want to do the difficult work. We want it to be easy. We want our way. We want to make a political circus of it.” That's a completely separate topic, but also true.

Yes, coming to a consensus to write this report will be hard. It will be really hard, but it's the only way. It's the only way forward, folks, on this issue for this committee. I really hope that I will not have to look Ms. Lalonde, or any of the other survivors, in the eye, knowing that the committee passed the motion presented by Mr. Bezan. It would result in a “tick the box” report that didn't actually go through the process that's required to get to a good outcome for them.

If that happens, and if Mr. Bezan's motion were to pass, survivors would have every right to say to us what Julie Lalonde said to the status of women committee, which is that it's disappointing to see those of you who have an immense power refuse to do the difficult work that's necessary to change things.

Let's change things. Let's pass Mr. Bagnell's motion. Let's withdraw Mr. Bezan's original motion, and let's get to work on the report.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Bagnell, you are next.