Status of Women Committee on March 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we are voting on the subamendment that each party may submit further witnesses.

Clerk, could you take the vote?

[The Clerk]

The result is five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I also vote nay because it's something the committee can do at any time.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We return, then, to the discussion on the amendment.

Could I have the amendment read?

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

The amendment is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, including a review of Operation HONOUR; that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the First Session of the 42nd Parliament in the report titled “A Force for Change: Creating a Culture of Equality for Women in the Canadian Armed Forces” be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session; that the committee invite the following witnesses before the committee with a one-hour panel dedicated to the Minister of Defence; a one-hour panel dedicated to the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff, Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, and Lt.-Gen. Frances Allen, military representative of Canada to NATO; a one-hour panel dedicated to the Canadian Forces provost marshal, Simon Trudeau; a one-hour panel dedicated to retired Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps; and invite a representative from It's Just 700; and that the committee dedicate a minimum of four consecutive meetings to this study; and that the study begins the next scheduled sitting of the committee on Tuesday, March 23, 2021.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We can now vote on the amendment.

[The Clerk]

The result is yeas 5, nays 5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Then I vote nay as well. The amendment is defeated.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Now we return to the discussion on the original motion.

Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Given that neither the subamendment to add more witnesses nor the amendment passed, there are some names I would like to add to the witness list and to the motion.

I would be amending the motion to add the following names: Rear-Admiral Rebecca Patterson, Brigadier-General Lise Bourgon, Brigadier-General Andrew Atherton, Dr. Denise Preston, Professor Maya Eichler, Professor Al English, Professor Al Okros, Major-General Jennie Carignan and Julie Lalonde.

Like last time, I have this in French and English, which I will immediately send to the clerk.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I very much appreciate that you are delivering your motions in both official languages and that we can see them.

Is there any discussion on that amendment?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, can we have the motion emailed to us, like the previous motion?

I am trying to figure out how we could have it sent to the interpreters as well. If it can be emailed to us, can the interpreters receive it too?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes. I think this is a very good practice.

Clerk, can I ask that when you receive that email, you send it to the members so they can take a look at what has been proposed and the names on that list? Then we will continue our discussion on it.

I have Ms. Alleslev. We're debating the new amendment on a list of names Ms. Vandenbeld would like to add.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Chair, the witnesses Ms. Vandenbeld has suggested would probably add to our discussion. However, we first need to hear from the witnesses who are critical, whom we've outlined in this motion. That way, we can determine what additional information we need after that.

We need to get going. We need to start somewhere. We need to hear from these critical people in the time frame we've specified. We've also specified a minimum of four meetings. With that additional, comprehensive list of witnesses, I'm not sure we could do that in four meetings. Essentially, we're now trying to capture our entire study in one motion. That's just too much for what we need right at this moment.

The motion Ms. Mathyssen has put forward is excellent. It's very clear. It's very specific about the key people we need to hear from, for where we need to start on this. Once we are able to tackle that piece, the committee can then determine what information is missing, who we need to hear from to provide us with that information, and how and where the committee needs to take the study next.

While Ms. Vandenbeld has given us a number of very important and appropriate witnesses, let's save them for another time. The motion is exactly what we need at this time. As an incredible committee committed to doing an excellent job on this study, we can revisit what we need to do later, after we've gotten through this phase.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

You're welcome.

Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Madam Chair, I want to respond to what Ms. Alleslev just said.

I think there is a genuine fairness issue here. To my understanding, there was a motion passed by this committee previously that didn't name witnesses. Then, of course, we have this emergency meeting, which just came with a list of witnesses. Liberal members, of course, have our own witnesses, and were not prepared to put those names publicly.

However, now that this has been done, what I'm understanding is that my honourable colleague opposite is now suggesting that the witnesses brought by the opposition are the priority, and that the witnesses that the Liberals had planned to submit, according to the process that had previously been agreed upon by the committee, are somehow less important. There's a real fairness issue there.

I would venture, Madam Chair, that it is equally important that all members of this committee have the opportunity to put forward witnesses and to not have names that come from one side be prioritized over names from another side just because of the process in which they were put forward. These are vitally important witnesses who have a tremendous amount to say to this committee. I would very much hope that the members of this committee would vote to hear from those witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with my colleague on what Ms. Alleslev has said. It is a fairness issue. It's an important study and we want to hear from all the witnesses. Justice should be given to all the witnesses. Usually, the process of the committee is that we submit the list of witnesses. The clerk then arranges and schedules them to appear before the committee, based on their availability.

We can't say that those witnesses who are named in the motion are more important than those Ms. Vandenbeld has submitted. Equal opportunity should exist for all the witnesses. It is really very important in terms of how we treat everyone. There are no justifications for saying that one witness is a better witness than another witness. That's really not the right thing to say. I think it would be unfair to the other witnesses.

Everyone should be treated fairly. It should be up to the clerk to schedule the witnesses based on their availability and based on the calendar. If we are saying we will have four meetings, then for every panel the clerk should have the opportunity to schedule the witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Alleslev, go ahead.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm very concerned by the comments of my honourable colleague Ms. Vandenbeld, that she would say that witnesses are opposition or government and that somehow we determine at the committee whom to hear from based on partisan perspectives. That doesn't do justice to the witnesses or to the committee, which wants to hear comments independent of partisan-appropriate comments on a very balanced and non-partisan study. This is above partisanship. This is what is in the best interest of the Canadian Forces and our country, so it's very disconcerting to hear it put like that.

Let's talk about the witnesses who are in the motion. There is the Minister of National Defence. One could argue that he is a government witness, not an opposition witness. That's if we were even going to look at framing it in any kind of partisan terms, which I would highly propose not to do. Second, we're looking at the acting chief of the defence staff. He is the top military person—again, not a Liberal/opposition/government witness. There is the soon-to-be vice chief of the defence staff, who is the second in command to the chief of the defence staff. There is the head of the Canadian Forces national investigation service. There is the person who wrote the report from which Op Honour resulted.

These are critical witnesses. These are the logical place to start this kind of discussion. They are not opposition or government witnesses. They are the right foundation to get the information to provide us—all of us on committee—with a starting point.

We have every opportunity to call witnesses after that. In the interest of due diligence around a good study and in the interest of figuring out how many meetings we need to do, and to do justice to it, we need to get started. This motion gives us a good foundation to get started on this study. Then we have every opportunity to revisit additional witnesses based on the information we get from these witnesses, to do justice to this auspicious responsibility we have been given to do this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I agree wholeheartedly that we should not turn this issue into an overly partisan game. We want to protect women in the Canadian Armed Forces. We don't want to read any more articles like the one that came out yesterday about a senior female officer who had to resign from the forces because she was disgusted with the culture in the Canadian Forces. The story was about Eleanor Taylor. We know that, because we all read the article.

The committee needs to conduct further studies, but we will conduct them later. The important thing is that we address this issue as quickly as possible. We can deal with the issue at the same time as the Standing Committee on National Defence. As Ms. Alleslev said, the two committees will not be hearing the same witnesses, with the exception of Ms. Deschamps. They will hear from different witnesses, who will shed a different light on this issue.

I hope that, within the next hour, we will be able to come to an agreement so that the committee can proceed with the study. I would remind you that this is a study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women was supposed to do before the last election was called in 2019. So our committee had already attempted to address the issue of violence in the military.

I feel it's very important. We started out by voting to have four meetings, but now we are adding other witnesses. I'm afraid that will only water everything down. Let's start by hearing the witnesses on the list and having the four meetings. After that, we can agree to add witnesses.

Ms. Vandenbeld, the list you suggested certainly makes a lot of sense. In fact, when the time comes, I'll be happy to hear from the people on it, but we have to start somewhere. We have scheduled the meetings to start on March 23. Let's begin with the witnesses. Our committee can come to a consensus; it's what we do. The committee is consensus-based and serves first and foremost as an advocate for women and to advance the status of women.

For all these reasons, I believe we should use the next 20 minutes to agree on the motion, and then begin our study next week.

I want to thank everyone for their work on this committee, which plays such an essential role.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We are voting on the newest amendment, to add the witnesses Ms. Vandenbeld specified.

Madam Clerk, you may take the vote.

[The Clerk]

The result is five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I also vote no.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Excellent.

The clerk will then organize the meetings as per the motion. I wanted to let you all know that we are tabling our COVID-19 report in the House and intending to do a press release to let people know that it's available. I believe the clerk is going to send the wording on that, so you can have a look.

I will see you all at our next meeting, on the 23rd.

Do you have a comment, Mrs. Shanahan?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I just wanted to ask when we can submit witnesses to this study. Could the clerk give us some instructions on that?

[The Clerk]

You can begin sending them as you wish. Initially we had discussed a deadline, but we will proceed with the motion as adopted today and the timeline that's indicated in that motion.