Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I've been thinking a lot about the last meeting of the committee.
During the debate, we wondered whether the committee would invite witnesses to appear and whether it would invite others. I was present at the last committee meeting, but had to be replaced by my colleague Mario Simard. The committee members voted on motions, and in the end, passed the motion that no witnesses be heard. I have consulted with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on National Defence. They are closely following what is happening. Clearly, the goal is not to duplicate or repeat their study. However, I sincerely believe that the feminist perspective is essential and crucial to this study. This is the mission of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. This is an important issue, since there seems to be a problem within the Canadian Armed Forces.
However, we must also look at this from the perspective of equality. It's not just about women. Members of the LGBTQ+ community and men can also be victims of sexual touching. We cannot deny that. The study will help women, men, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and everyone else feel safe in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are taking a feminist approach to our study, since we are the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
I also looked at the list of witnesses and there are some very important people on it. I then compared it to the list of witnesses who will appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence. The names are not the same. The Standing Committee on National Defence will hear testimony from the following people: Zita Astravas, Elder Marques, Michael Wernick, Janine Sherman and Bernard Boland. Those names are not included in the motion before us today.
We are not replicating that meeting or targeting people. The purpose is for the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to conduct a study that will provide the broadest possible overview of the issue. The Standing Committee on National Defence may be looking at the operations of the department, while we may be looking at the feminist culture and why women are still too often victims of this type of assault in the Canadian Forces. Hearing from witnesses whose testimony complements the others will give us a comprehensive view of the problem. I am therefore inviting us to receive the witnesses.
However, I would like to know whether these are the only witnesses we will hear from. Could we consider having an additional meeting to hear from other groups? Should there be an additional meeting?
I encourage the committee to think about that, rather than to take names off the list. If we start from scratch, we will be missing key aspects of our study.
That is how I personally feel, and I invite my colleagues to express their views.