Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to speak to the replacing of the CFNIS with the provost marshal. The argument that was made by my honourable colleagues is that they wouldn't want to have to speak about ongoing investigations. These are professionals. They are experts in their field. They know from years of experience exactly what they can say and what they can't and what would compromise an investigation and what would not, and I think it is unfair of this committee to prejudge a senior officer in that regard, that he would be somehow compromised by coming to our committee.
We need to understand at a very tactical level the process, the rank structure and the way in which investigations are conducted—the way in which they are made aware of investigations, as well as all of the process and structure around investigations—but certainly not any of the details around any of the specific investigations. I have a high level of confidence that being the expert he is, he would be perfectly in a position to do that.
Replacing him with the provost marshal is not only unnecessary but also would not give us the information to the degree that we need to have that information, particularly in light of the Fifth Estate investigative report that came out recently about the challenges in terms of process that some of the investigators in the CFNIS are facing when investigating these kinds of allegations.
That is my proposal or comment on the replacing aspect.
With respect to the victims, we are doing them a significant injustice by not naming them. Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor, retired master corporal Raymond and Dawn McIlmoyle-Knott have all been incredibly courageous by communicating in public about the challenges they have faced. I have every level of confidence that were the clerk of the committee to invite them, if they didn't feel comfortable coming to our committee, they would be more than capable of declining our invitation.
Therefore, to put their names in this document does not in any way compromise them, their safety, or their security. It doesn't put them in any kind of difficult position. They have already chosen to show how incredibly strong and courageous they are by coming forward. We are simply saying that should they want to come, we want to outline that we would like to have them.
In the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor, she still is a currently serving member of the Canadian Forces and she has been very public. I believe that putting her name in this motion would ensure that we can send a message to her just how important her testimony is and how what she has to say and why she is doing so at this point are of such great value.
I am concerned about not having the ombudsman in there, so we need to make sure the ombudsman is in there. We also need to ensure that the committee is dedicating the four consecutive meetings to this study.
In terms of the original motion, I can't see that any of the arguments for why we should be changing it hold water, so it is my perspective that the current motion, as given to us by Ms. Mathyssen of the NDP, is exactly the motion we need to start this study.
Again, I thank her for the discussion and I thank Ms. Mathyssen for putting this very important and well thought-out motion forward.
Thank you.