Status of Women Committee on March 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Madame Larouche, do you need the group to repeat what they have previously said?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

No, that won't be necessary.

I was waiting for the clerk's answer. However, I did not quite catch it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Now we go to Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm very happy to be back here today. I was at the last meeting, which was in camera. We had some good conversations and we voted on a motion.

Before us now is essentially the same motion, but with a prescriptive and very defined list. However, I have noticed that the motion contains some errors. I am not an expert on the titles used in the Canadian Forces, but I'm noticing some errors.

This is understandable because it is difficult to make a list without the help of the clerk and the analysts. They work very hard to find the appropriate witnesses and the appropriate people to appear before the committee. My understanding is that everyone wants to conduct an in-depth study with a feminist and survivor-centred perspective. I think that is what is missing from the discussions elsewhere. Survivors have not had a voice until now. There is a reason why Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor left the military. We know that this is an extremely serious issue. Now is the time to change the culture in any organization. I know that some people here have had these experiences in large organizations. Things don't happen overnight.

I don't think it's a good idea to ask people to testify publicly in a study like this. I don't understand why we would agree to be the vehicle that puts people in the spotlight when it should be their choice. Isn't that the principle behind any study or investigation of sensitive issues?

As everyone knows, we conducted a public study on MindGeek and Pornhub. In that study by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I heard things that I had never heard before and that I didn't even think were possible. We were very sensitive with the invitations. For House committees, the usual practice is to invite people to testify. Some people want to contribute to the discussion. However, when it comes to a topic like this, they should have the choice of whether to testify publicly or not.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics gave witnesses the choice of testifying publicly, with or without counsel, or in camera. In the end, the meeting was held in public. We had good discussions. Before the meeting, we received training on how to ask our questions. I think it went well and was very well received. Some changes can be made based on those appearances. That's why we're here, right? We are here to look at the problem, to identify the factors and to make recommendations. I think it has to be survivor-centred.

In my opinion, this is the contribution our committee can make. We can do something really important. So we must not limit our list. Research must be done, and some people will want to testify.

Ms. Mathyssen was very clear that the study must focus on the feminist perspective.

It's important to walk the talk, don't you agree, Ms. Larouche?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That's right, it's important to walk the talk.

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

There you go.

I'm looking forward to hearing what Ms. Larouche has to say on this matter. We have a lot of discussions on this topic in Quebec, and it is very important to our constituents.

We cannot appear to be targeting individuals or ordinary Canadians. We will hear some very personal things. As Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor said in a news report, she was part of the problem. So there's a lot to get out and we have to do so in a very thoughtful way, in order to make recommendations, which I know are very much needed. Now that the Canadian Armed Forces are changing, it is time to make the changes concrete. This is what will lead to a change in culture. That's all I have to say.

Madam Chair, as I said, I am very pleased to be here with you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Larouche, it's your turn.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Next is Ms. Alleslev.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of our colleagues for taking this topic so incredibly seriously.

We have all been overwhelmed by the extent to which we see that perhaps the efforts to address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces have not been successful. This is something the military has been working on for almost 30 years, yet if we look at the things that have been brought forward in the media, we can understand that whatever it is, it has not worked in the way that we need it to work.

Parliamentarians have a critical role in ensuring that our institutions, our structures and the things we value work the way they're supposed to. The military is a critical element of our defence and security. The armed forces protect and defend our Canadian values, but they must also embody them. As parliamentarians, we need to understand why perhaps they are not, to the extent that we expect.

This study essentially has been 30 years in the making. What has been done over the last 30 years has clearly not achieved the standards, goals and values that we expect of our military and that we expect of our citizens.

This motion today is obviously critically important. There are two elements.

First, we're talking about the “who”. Those we want as witnesses, as we've outlined in this motion, are, with the exception of, I think, only two, all current serving members in the Canadian Forces. As members of the serving Canadian Forces, in the normal course of their duties, they have a responsibility to come and to educate, inform and report to a House of Commons committee and members of Parliament. I don't think there's any argument that doesn't support naming them in the motion and having them come forward.

Another part of the “who” is that at no time when I read this motion did I believe that it was intended to be an exclusive list of witnesses. Therefore, this sets out some very critical key people who need to come and be witnesses because of the role, responsibility and perspective that they bring, but this is not, as I understand it, an exclusive list. Certainly, on the national defence committee, we had motions to outline certain witnesses that needed to come forward, but over time we added to that list, and that very well may be a possibility that we need to pursue in such an important study.

The second element is the “how”. It clearly outlines in this motion that we need one witness on their own for a period of an hour because of the magnitude of what we need to hear from them and the topic that we need to address with them. This motion says who are the critical people that we need to start with—and it's well within their job description roles and responsibilities to appear, for the most part—and, second, we need them to come on their own for an hour because of the breadth and depth of what we need to discuss with them.

I think this motion is a critical starting point in terms of where we need this discussion to go. Then, afterwards, we will more than likely need to have other witnesses so that we can do justice to something that is so serious a topic.

I know we've discussed briefly the point that the national defence committee is also studying this. I would say to the Bloc's point that they are two very different studies.

On one hand we have women not able to equally serve beside men and a culture that is not embodying Canadian values. On the other there are individuals who have breached that trust at the highest level, and processes that have allowed that to happen, as well as the processes and structure that need to be in place, going forward, to change that culture. They are two very separate and distinct things.

We have a responsibility, as outlined in this motion, to review Operation Honour and the culture of equality for women, and why the processes and structures, essentially for 30 years, have attempted to do this and have not been successful. We need to do something different, but we need to understand what those processes were over that time, why they didn't work and what the missing elements are.

That's not what the defence committee is doing. This is a problem or a topic that is highly complex, has been going on for many years and has many aspects. The national defence committee, rightly, is looking at one of those aspects, and we need to be able to look at another aspect. That's why I believe this motion is so important.

To leverage what Anita clearly said, this is a moment in time at which we must say to men and women who choose to serve our country in uniform, as well as to all Canadians, that this is not who we are. This is not the type of behaviour we accept and this is the moment at which we must do things differently. Many men and women in uniform have reached out to me and said, “We are counting on you parliamentarians to be the difference and to show that this time it will be different.”

Again, thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak, and thank you to my colleagues for dealing with this serious motion today in such an honourable way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you, Ms. Alleslev, and thanks to you for your service.

Now we will move to Ms. Mathyssen.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't think I could outline the need for this study as well as Ms. Alleslev just has. She did so very eloquently and very well, and I agree with those points.

The one thing I want to mention in addition to what has already been mentioned is that once we get through this list of witnesses, we should look at what we have heard from the witnesses. If we feel there are pieces missing, that there are holes, then we should fix those and fill them. That's what we've done in other studies we've completed or are currently undertaking, such as the one on unpaid work and the one on the impact of COVID on rural women, and that's what we'll continue to do.

The committee is the master of its own destiny. It can choose to do that, but I think it's very important that we move ahead and that we pass this motion to move onward. Then, once we've heard this, we can continue the conversation.

I would also like to mention that a lot of the testimony and that gendered aspect is the reason we've put into the motion the consideration of the past study taken on by the status of women committee, which was “A Force for Change: Creating a Culture of Equality for Women in the Canadian Armed Forces”. We've heard a lot of those voices already. That is a key part of this motion, so that we take what we heard in 2019 and use that to inform this study, this continuation, because yes, it is in the media. As Ms. Alleslev said, we're not dealing with this properly. That study was so important. Those voices cannot be lost, so building from that is important. Moving forward today, it certainly is. Once we can get through that, if we see holes, we absolutely have the ability to fill them, but let's move on and get this motion passed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

I would agree that I've heard from all the parties, and they seem to be willing to have additional witnesses, and it is up to the will of the committee whether it decides to do that.

Let's go to Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much.

I agree with everything that has been said about the tremendous importance of this particular committee putting a feminist lens here. That is something the committee did in the 2019 study. Building on that to get real recommendations so we really can change the culture of toxic masculinity and the culture that exists within the Canadian Armed Forces....

Also, this committee could do much to amplify the voices of women. The women in the Canadian Armed Forces, the advocates and the veterans know what needs to be done. I would very much encourage this committee to make sure those voices are heard in this study.

I noted that Ms. Alleslev said that most of the people on this list are currently serving. There are a number of names on this list of people who are not. In fact, it looks like there are some survivors on this list. I would just reiterate that we have to be very careful if we put the name of somebody there. We have names we'd like to add, but we're reluctant to do so today because, again, then that person is on the spot. If they don't come, they have to explain publicly why they didn't come, because it was made public that they were invited.

There are a couple of other things with some of the names. I noticed that Ms. Mathyssen corrected some of the titles in the verbal portion, but I would want to make sure that the actual motion that passes has everybody's precise title, just to make sure we don't end up with confusion about who is being invited.

I would like to propose an amendment. I would like to put an amendment to the motion. I can send this to the clerk also, but I'll just explain the rationale for it. I think that bringing the minister.... I agree, one hundred per cent. We've seen that this minister has come to committee every time he has been called. He went twice to the defence committee and, in fact, he's going to Canada-China on Thursday, so he very much looks forward to engaging with his fellow parliamentarians. Certainly, having the minister there is a good thing.

Then, on the acting chief of the defence staff, I think we need to make sure again that the title is correct and that we're talking about Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre. On the other person, I note that General Allen is not yet the vice-chief. Her current title is “military representative of Canada to NATO”, so I think that would need to be noted if the committee wishes to invite her. I think that's legitimate, since she will be the incoming vice-chief, but the title should be accurate.

Then, in looking at some of the others, there is the Canadian Forces national investigation service. Right now, they are the ones conducting the investigations. I would really be careful about having the people conducting the investigations coming to this committee. They in fact report to the provost marshal. The provost marshal could come to talk about what the processes are and what it is that the investigative service does. However, I would suggest that instead of saying “the Canadian Forces national investigation service”, we actually specify that we would have the Canadian Forces provost marshal, Simon Trudeau, come to the committee. That would be a particular name that we would add.

Certainly, retired Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps had a lot of very good things to say before the defence committee. I note that she wasn't getting the kinds of questions that she should have gotten, so I think there could be a lot more that she could contribute. Certainly, the 2015 report was phenomenally important in terms of the actions that we have taken as a government and the actions that need to continue to be taken. I think that's a legitimate person to have.

It's Just 700 doesn't specify a name of a person. I know that recently there was a turnover in the very courageous women who have run that peer support type of organization, so I would just recommend that it say “a representative of It's Just 700”. I know that Marie-Claude Gagnon, who has done phenomenal work, has just stepped aside and Christine Wood has taken her place. They should be able to decide between them who would be better placed or if there's somebody else who can speak on behalf of that organization.

The rest of them are individuals, and I would suggest that we not include the names of individuals, both because I know that there are other individuals members would like to invite and, more importantly, because we really don't want to put them on the spot.

I think the chair will make every effort to invite any individual private citizen who is put forward.

I noted earlier that the committee speculated that if somebody doesn't feel comfortable testifying publicly.... I know that when I was on this committee and we talked about violence against young women and girls, having testimony in camera was always an option for people who may not have felt comfortable in public. However, by the same token, I think it would be very damaging and a bad precedent to have individual private citizens named publicly in a motion, and then have them have to explain later to the media or to others why they did or didn't accept that invitation.

I would propose to take those names out, and then for “that the committee dedicate”, you could say “minimum four consecutive” or just “four consecutive meetings”. The rest of it, I think, is okay.

I have that in French and English. I could submit that to the clerk, since it's a bit.... You don't all have to scribble to try to get those names. I will submit that.

I also would strongly encourage the members of this committee to use this forum and this opportunity to give voice to women. We are at a moment of real change. I want people 10 years from now to look back on this really difficult time. We know people are coming forward with stories, sometimes from many years ago, and it is extremely triggering. It's extremely hard and requires courage for people to come forward, but the fact that they're coming forward now means we can look back on this as the real catalyst. We can say, “This was when things really started to change.” This committee has a tremendous role to play in making sure that happens.

I will submit that amendment to the clerk right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Could you read it out as well?

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

All right.

I have “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108”, etc., and that goes right to the part where it says, “following witnesses”. That part has not changed.

It would be as follows:

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]

Very good.

We will go to Ms. Dhillon.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all our colleagues for speaking about this very important issue.

I would like to begin by saying that I agree with my colleagues Mrs. Shanahan and Ms. Larouche.

They did a very good job of explaining that we need to look at things from a feminist perspective, because we are on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. If we want to conduct this study, it is very important to give survivors the choice to appear before the committee. These survivors never had a choice when they were sexually harassed or assaulted in the past. It is never a choice.

For once, they can be empowered to come and talk. Women are increasingly coming out of the shadows to speak openly. It may take five years, two years, or even 30 or 40 years. That means that they are living with this trauma every day. We need to think about that. The purpose of our committee is to give women the opportunity to come forward. It's an open space where they can come and talk and feel safe.

As Mrs. Shanahan and Ms. Larouche said, if we are going to do this study, it is important to do so from a feminist perspective. It's not an investigation. Our committee's role is not to conduct investigations. Our role really is to empower women. We talked about toxic masculinity. This culture exists and there is no denying it. Every time we see it, it's disheartening. Sometimes it shocks me. It shocks everyone.

Furthermore, as my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld said, we should not mention the names of the people and we should give these women the choice to come and testify, because if we force them to do so, it is intimidating for them. We can't push survivors to come and testify. We have to send them an invitation, give them a choice. We have to welcome them with open arms and be there for them. That is our role as members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Of course, investigations are important, but we must give them the chance to speak, for once in their lives, in order to learn what happened and hear their experiences. They then may feel that a weight has been lifted off their shoulders after speaking out. It's a way to alleviate their trauma, if ever so slightly. It is crucial that we proceed in this way as a committee. Some things are reported in the media and the opposition members want to do a lot of things. We have roles to play, as parliamentarians, as government or as opposition members.

As Ms. Alleslev said, this culture has been around for 30 years and we've been trying to change it, and not much has changed. It might be a good idea to listen to the survivors to see what they think. It's important to do so in order to change things. We have been trying to change things in the Canadian Armed Forces for 30 years and nothing is changing. Maybe we should listen to the survivors.

Ms. Mathyssen said something very interesting at our last study. She said that the effects of the pandemic on women were studied by listening to their own stories. So I think it's important to hear their ideas to make things better. If nothing has worked in the last 30 years, we should hear their ideas about what can be done to make the changes work to protect survivors.

I see today that we are all women, but Mr. Serré is still here and we need men like him with us. We agree that the role of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is to ensure that victims and survivors who come before us feel welcome, protected and safe. They need to feel that we are able to listen to them and that we can make these recommendations to Parliament as quickly as possible in order to implement the desired changes.

We can all work together to achieve this goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Just to be clear, we are discussing the amendment by Ms. Vandenbeld.

Next on the list is Madame Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes, and in response to your questions, we can name people in motions. That is normally done.

The changes that are proposed—correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Vandenbeld—are to correct the title for General Allen as the military aide to NATO, to add Simon Trudeau, to add Marie Deschamps, to take away the national investigation services, to modify the language around “It's Just 700” to say that it's a representative, to not include the names of survivors and to suggest a minimum of four consecutive meetings.

Did I get it right, Ms. Vandenbeld?

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

I can read the amendment in French, if you prefer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes, that's a good idea.

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

I sent the amendment to the clerk.

Did you receive it, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Yes. It has been distributed.