Status of Women Committee on March 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Good morning. Welcome to meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

We are meeting in a hybrid format with the usual rules. In order to make sure we have an orderly meeting, I would ask that all comments be directed through the chair.

When you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly so that our interpreters can hear.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting today to consider a request received by the clerk and submitted by four members of the committee to discuss their request to undertake a study of allegations of sexual misconduct.

I will begin by asking Ms. Mathyssen to read the entire text of the motion.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say, before I read it, that I really appreciate that we have come together and that we're taking the time. This issue is of grave and growing concern. I know that this is a constituency week, but I truly appreciate the work that will be undertaken by this committee to look at this issue through the very specific gendered lens that the status of women committee provides.

I move:

That the motions adopted by the Committee on Thursday March 11, 2021 concerning a study of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces be rescinded and replaced with the following:

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 and Lieutenant-General Frances Allen, Canada's Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium; a one-hour panel dedicated to the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman and the Commander of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service; a one-hour panel dedicated to retired Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps; and invite the following witnesses, It's Just 700; Dawn McIlmoyle-Knott; retired Master Corporal Stéphanie Raymond; Lieutenant-Colonel Eleanor Taylor; that the committee dedicate four consecutive meetings to this study; and that the study begins the next scheduled sitting of the committee on Tuesday, March 23, 2021.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'll hear discussion on the motion.

Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

First of all, it's really nice to be back at the status of women committee. Early in my parliamentary career I was a member of this committee, and Ms. Gladu was the chair at the time. This committee does a lot of very good work, so I commend the members for taking this on. It is a very important and timely study. As you know, I'm also on the defence committee, and we also are in the middle of a study on this.

The one caution I would have in terms of naming witnesses outright—other than, for instance, the minister, since I think we can certainly name the minister—would be that on the defence committee there was someone the Liberal members had considered putting forward, and we found out that her mother had just died. If you put that name in public and then she has to explain publicly why she is not coming to committee.... I think we have to be very careful, certainly when we have the names of individuals. I know that the Liberal members have given me indication that they would like to add names. I understand that the committee may have a process regarding when the names are to be submitted for this study.

I would just venture that if possible—and we did the same thing in the defence committee—we could say that the minister should be invited, and then the other names could be submitted directly to the chair, since we know that the chair will make every effort possible to invite all the witnesses that all members submit. I would just propose that after it says “a panel dedicated to the Minister of Defence”, we just skip down to where it says “four consecutive meetings to this study”.

I think that traditionally this is how it's been done. Certainly, Madam Chair, I would imagine that these witnesses would be invited, just not individually named.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to reiterate my support for this important study. That is why we passed the motion at the last meeting, Madam Chair. I was very surprised by this new motion. I thought we had an agreement to submit our witness lists for March 19. Wasn't that the motion we passed? We have been preparing a list of witnesses who we were hoping to hear from, and this new motion does not contain anything about inviting additional witnesses. This is a very important study. We all agreed to that on the last motion. We want to hear from women and their perspectives. It will not be a good study if we limit our witnesses. All parties should be included.

I have a few procedural questions.

First, I would like to make sure that a copy of the motion is distributed in both official languages to the members. It was brought in French.

Second, I would like to ensure that the other motion we already passed, requesting that the government respond to the 2019 report, “A Force for Change”, remain in place, and that the feedback we hear from the government be taken into account.

Would you or the clerk be able to tell us what you think should be a next step for the study we already passed? If we call witnesses for Monday, will the clerk have enough time to get them headsets to make sure they are properly prepared?

I would ask you or the clerk if you can tell us what the next step is for the motion we've already passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

To clarify, this current motion that was read moves to rescind that motion that was already passed, so it would go away if this one is voted in.

With respect to getting it in both official languages, I will ask the clerk to comment on that.

To answer your question on the incorporation of the report, that is yes.

As to whether or not the clerk has enough time, Clerk, do you want to give a few comments on that?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Stephanie Bond]

The letter including the motion was distributed last week. However, I notice a slight change in a title and the addition of one witness, so I defer to the committee on whether they would like that circulated now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes, please.

Also, on Monday, we are tabling in the House the report you mentioned, so that will happen.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, do we not need unanimous consent to rescind the existing motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

No. According to the rules of the House, a committee may reopen discussion on an earlier decision if its intent is to revoke it. If the original resolution is in fact rescinded or discharged, the way is then clear for the committee to make a second decision on the same question. They have given me the page numbers in our big, thick, green book of procedure: pages 590-591 and 1064. No, that's the motion. I'm sorry. A motion to rescind is a debatable substantive motion requiring the appropriate notice, and needs only a majority vote to be adopted.

We'll go next to Ms. Shanahan.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I am sorry to interrupt you, Madam Chair. The sound level of the translation is the same as yours, so it is extremely difficult for me to follow the conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Could we have the interpreters fix that? She is hearing both English and French at the same level.

Is it better now?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

No, it is not better. The sound level of the translation is still the same as yours.

[The Clerk]

Is your microphone muted?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes, it is muted, Madam Clerk. The translation and the person speaking are at the same sound level, which makes it very difficult for me to follow the conversation.

Usually, the translation is louder than the sound of the person speaking, so we can understand what is being said. Right now, both sounds are at the same level.

[The Clerk]

Ms. Larouche, do you see the “interpretation” icon at the bottom of your screen?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes. I am on the French channel.

[The Clerk]

Do you see the “mute original audio” or “sourdine” icons? Do you see the “English” and “French” icons and a third button?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I just unmuted it because I wasn't hearing anything anymore.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Let's suspend for a moment while we address the technical difficulty.

Could the clerk answer the question of whether the witnesses can be called with that amount of time?

[The Clerk]

Yes. We certainly will try our best.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Was that you, Ms. Sidhu, again, on the point of order, or was it Mrs. Shanahan?

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

It was Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, I just wanted clarity if Madame Larouche understood what we said when we started the committee. Everyone is saying that it is not good if she's not listening to the French. Should we start again with what we said, because she needs to know what other members are saying?