Thanks, Madam Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Bagnell for his thoughtful intervention, first of all for his kind words, but most importantly, for really summarizing the cost of the political game-playing that the opposition is leading at this committee, and the cost in terms of the positive impact we could be having on a whole series of issues that matter to so many people in so many different contexts, whether that be equipping the armed forces, whether that be our position in foreign conflicts, whether that be securing our own Arctic, our own future and our own interests, or whether that be sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military.
I want to thank Mr. Bagnell for summarizing the opportunity cost, if you will, of the political game-playing the opposition has undertaken since this study began. It has driven us away from delivering the positive results that we should be delivering for folks and, particularly, for members of the forces.
I want to focus our attention on what I think our report and our committee should be focused on, which is addressing the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military, the issue of addressing the concerns that survivors and victims have raised, that experts have raised over and over again. As much as I and other of my colleagues on the government side have been criticized by some members of the opposition for trying to share with this committee the perspectives and testimony of victims and survivors, I'm going to keep sharing those. I know my colleagues have continued to share that perspective. To me, that should be our focus, not the political game-playing that has been the focus of the opposition.
In that vein, I want to share with you some thoughts that were shared by a survivor, Ms. Emily Tulloch, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. When you hear her perspective, I think you'll understand why I'm sharing it. I think it shines a light on what's at stake and why we should be writing a fulsome report with a government response, like Mr. Bagnell has proposed in his amendment, and why I hope that Mr. Bezan will consider withdrawing his motion, which Mr. Bagnell has tried to constructively amend.
I hope Mr. Bezan will withdraw his motion. Mr. Bezan's motion would result in a report that would not allow us to properly and thoughtfully analyze the issues, what we heard, to really identify all the components of the problems that are driving sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the military. It would not allow us to develop and compile the solutions to those problems. It would not allow us, ultimately, to address that problem. Mr. Bezan's motion would not allow us to address the needs of survivors, of victims. They are begging us for that work. They are asking us over and over again to take action. They've been asking us to take action for years. I think this committee should heed their call.
I'm going to repeat one of those calls here today. Ms. Emily Tulloch was testifying to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. She said:
I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in July of 2018. Since then, I feel like I've experienced a lifetime's worth of sexual assault and misconduct. I'm here today to tell you that I was raped only one month—one month—into my basic training in Saint-Jean. I was also sexually assaulted during my training in Borden. I have been groped and kissed unwillingly at crew parties and mess events. These degrading behaviours are more common than you think.
On top of all that, I have put up with misogynistic and sexist comments all throughout my career. They range from being told that I only got in because I'm a girl to what an instructor in Borden said to me while looking me dead in the eye: If you've had daddy fix everything for you in your cozy little life, let us know so we can give you a hand.
I believe in the importance of the military. I hope to continue my career and to serve my country to the best of my abilities. My experience with our military justice system, however, has been quite negative. It has left me with a lot of questions about how military police should conduct their investigations. I had three interviews with the military police since I first reported misconduct. Two of those interviews were honestly dreadful. These so-called interviews felt more like interrogation.
I want to pause there for a second, because I think it's important to reflect on what Emily Tulloch is sharing. First of all, she talks about the fact that she was raped one month into basic training in Saint-Jean and then sexually assaulted during her training in Borden. That is what we should be stopping. This is the issue that we should be singularly focused on. We should be focused on solving the problem that Emily Tulloch and others have raised and have shared with us, which is that women primarily, but members of the forces, are sexually harassed and sexually assaulted.
In Ms. Tulloch's case, one month into her training she is sexually assaulted by someone who purportedly is a colleague, who purportedly is to serve, who swears the same oath, who supposedly believes in serving our country and who treats a fellow armed forces member this way. This is what we should be focused on, doing everything we can to come together, shed our partisan labels, write a good report and do right by victims who have suffered in ways I can't possibly comprehend.
Mr. Bezan's motion does not allow us to do that. It prevents us from doing that. It took me over two minutes just to share Ms. Tulloch's story, and Mr. Bezan's motion would force us to write a report where each MP gets two minutes to speak and then, boom, we move on to the next clause or the next paragraph. That would not give us enough time, and it would not be based on consensus. As Mr. Bezan's motion indicates, we'd all just vote on each clause, up or down, and move on.
I think survivors deserve much better than that. I don't understand how you can listen to something like this, to what witness Tulloch has shared with our colleagues, and think that this shouldn't be our priority as a committee. I don't understand why we would pass the motion that Mr. Bezan proposed, which would handcuff us and prevent us from addressing what Ms. Tulloch is telling us.
Ms. Tulloch is not alone. We know that. We've all spoken to that. We know this is a widespread problem. Mr. Bezan's motion effectively would force this committee to look the other way. Even worse than look the other way, it would require this committee to write a report that claims to address this issue when it actually wouldn't. It's worse because it's misleading.
Folks, people are suffering. Mr. Bezan's motion is about grabbing headlines and claiming to have done something when nothing has been done. That's why I hope that he'll withdraw it, not because it's politically convenient, but because it's the right thing to do. I don't know a single person who can't help but be touched by this kind of testimony. This kind of testimony is exactly what we should be....
Every time I come to this committee and I share with you some of these stories, this testimony is on my mind for hours afterwards. Hours after our committee meetings, I'm still thinking about what these women have gone through and are going through. I don't know, but somehow there are members on this committee for whom it doesn't have that impact. Maybe the politics are more important to them than this, but this should be our focus.
Ms. Tulloch talks about how she believes in the importance of the military. She hopes to continue her career. I flag that only to say that Ms. Tulloch testified in a public setting at a House of Commons committee and shared what I've shared with you, and still hopes to serve. I applaud her for her courage, not just for sharing this in a public realm, which takes a tremendous amount of courage, but she's done so and still wants to serve in the military. I think that just demonstrates to what degree Ms. Tulloch and others are asking us to act and are asking us for help. I underline that just to say, colleagues, friends, let's respond to that call. We should be responding to that call.
Mr. Bagnell has proposed an amendment that makes a lot of sense. It basically says that the committee's report needs to be responded to by government so the government is held.... In my view the value of and one key reason for Mr. Bagnell's amendment is that it requires government to put on the record what it's going to do in response to this committee's recommendations, to this committee's concerns. I believe it was Mr. Bagnell who, earlier in our discussion today, mentioned that by eliminating that requirement, which is a standard requirement for committee reports, included by committees that are serious about having government act on their recommendations, by proposing the removal of a government response, which is what the opposition has done, it is basically saying it doesn't really care what the government does.
Why are we all here as MPs if we don't care what government does on an issue like this? Why are we here?
I cannot get my head around why the opposition would go out of its way to say we don't want the government to act on what we recommend. Is it because they don't think it's a serious problem? Is it because they don't put a lot of stock in what we're going to recommend?
Anyway, I think the fact that Ms. Tulloch and others, who are active serving members of the armed forces, have had the courage to come forward, we owe it to them. We have to appreciate how much courage that takes, how important this is and, therefore, how important it is that that be our focus.
In the latter part of what I read from Ms. Tulloch's testimony about her experience, she started describing her experience with the military police. I think it's important to hear the perspective of the people who are interacting with the military police. When I read Ms. Tulloch's testimony—I should read some more, to be frank, so that we have the full context, in fairness—the fact that she felt the way she did when interacting with the military police speaks to another component of this problem that this committee needs to be taking on, addressing in our report, recommending solutions for and holding government accountable for solving.
I want to read a little bit more from what Ms. Tulloch had to say. She said:
Two of those interviews were honestly dreadful. These so-called interviews felt more like interrogation. During these interviews, I felt that investigators were not treating me like a human being. I was just another case file to them. There was no empathy or humanity. It was so frustrating that I left early during the second interview. I felt like I wasn't being heard and was being treated like a criminal. No one should be treated like a criminal when they are that vulnerable and in need of help.
I'm going to pause there for a moment. Ms. Tulloch is the victim and is describing treatment that I think we could all agree has to stop. She's talking about the fact that she needs help and is instead being treated like a criminal. I'm not professing to be the expert. In fact, all of us who've heard testimony from experts and from survivors need to sit down, as we write the report, and discuss, debate and figure out how we want to tackle this particular element of this much broader problem. This is just one element of a much broader problem, but we need to address this. Again, Mr. Bezan's motion would prevent us from doing that.
Ms. Tulloch went on to say:
The military police need to improve their training for how to conduct interviews of sexual assault victims. There needs to be a specific course made to teach them that victims need understanding and empathy. If there already is a course, then they need to tear it apart and rebuild it from the ground up.
I'm going to pause there again. Is this something we would recommend as a committee? Is it in our report? Will it be in our report? If we pass Mr. Bezan's motion, members who feel strongly about this wouldn't be able to fight for, debate and discuss it. This could get voted out. It might not even be in there for all I know, but it should be in there, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure many of my colleagues on all sides of the aisle would agree that recommendations to solve this problem of how military police investigate these allegations has to be in there, but we can't do that if we pass Mr. Bezan's motion. Mr. Bezan's motion doesn't allow us to discuss it except for two minutes. Good luck. I've spent two minutes just sharing what Ms. Tulloch told us. How would we ever come to consensus in two minutes?
This is another example of the issues. I'm conveying what Ms. Tulloch told us because I want us to refocus on what, in my view, we should be focused on here, on how multi-faceted and complex the issue is that we're facing, and on how many components there are likely to be to the solution, if we're serious about solving it.
Therefore, how Mr. Bezan's motion would prevent us from doing that, how Mr. Bagnell has proposed a government response.... At the very least, what Mr. Bagnell has done is constructive. He has tried to say that we should at least find consensus that whatever we do recommend needs to be tackled by the government.
What Ms. Tulloch is talking about is just one of the many elements of this problem, and the opposition parties are basically supporting a motion that allows them to say that we wrote a report on this topic. However, it does nothing to address the issues that face survivors—that survivors have faced and continue to face.
I know that others want to speak, Madam Chair, so I'm going to pause there.
I would just ask us to refocus on survivors and on writing a solid report.
Thanks very much.