Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like a clarification on the amendment, because we don't have it in front of us in both languages and I am trying to keep up. So, the Liberals' amendment is to add Simon Trudeau's name to the motion and to remove the names of Dawn McIlmoyle-Knott and Stéphanie Raymond. Are those the changes that the proposed amendment seeks to make?
In that case, we would still invite the minister, the chief of the defence staff, Frances Allen and the ombudsman. We would also remove the reference to the Canadian Forces national investigation service. I am trying to get a solid grasp of what these changes might mean. I'm thinking of the names that were in the original motion. With respect to Ms. Deschamps, I spoke with my colleague on the Standing Committee on National Defence, and she was the only witness that we had both invited. As I mentioned earlier, this is proof that we can conduct studies at both committees without any duplication. Having spoken with my colleague who is studying this issue with the Standing Committee on National Defence, I believe that Ms. Deschamps would have something to say to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. As Ms. Alleslev said earlier, she will bring another perspective to our committee. So, I have no problem with that.
In addition, we're talking about the importance of finding solutions to this toxic masculinity in the military and listening to survivors. This past Sunday, Noémi Mercier appeared on Tout le monde en parle. She is a Quebec journalist who wrote a piece in L'actualité in 2015 about an investigation from 2014. She had spoken to Stéphanie Raymond, among others. She took issue with the fact that it seems nothing has changed and that today, in 2021, we're still discussing the same problems she brought up in her 2015 article. She said how important this issue is and spoke of Ms. Raymond's struggle and courage.
So, regarding the names included in the motion, I would like to hear from the analysts, because, at the last meeting, they said that it is not unusual to name people in a motion. I am just trying to clarify that, because we seem to be saying that it could be detrimental. On other committees, it's common practice to name people. So I would like to hear what the analyst has to say about it.
In my view, it's important that we listen to survivors like Ms. Raymond and others who have testified about the problems in the military. After hearing from the witnesses named in the motion, we will be able to see if we need to add another day of study and invite other witnesses to talk about certain subjects that have not been addressed. In fact, I have one that I would like them to address.
As I mentioned, and as Ms. Mathyssen said, we have done this for other studies, including the study on rural women and the unpaid work study.
I want to make sure that the committee is approaching this issue from the right angle in order to properly understand it. So, if we add a day of study, perhaps we should invite people who have looked at the sensitive and psychological aspects of this specifically feminist issue. I fully agree with my Liberal colleagues that we may need to invite other witnesses to talk about issues not addressed by those named in the motion. However, we need to hear from those witnesses first. Then we will need to keep an open mind.