Status of Women Committee on May 4th, 2021

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

To tell you the truth, after Mr. Serré's speech, I am not sure if we are discussing the amendment that I wanted to move or the motion.

In my view, our goal at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is to hear from people who have lived through an experience and to focus our attention on the survivors. The chaplain, who has heard personal accounts from survivors and provided support to them, could testify.

The witnesses listed in the motion would testify for one and a half meetings. If we add a two-hour meeting to meet with Mr. Chapdelaine, he could share his experience with us. I think it would be a good discussion. Then we could prepare our final report and close out this study.

We should also remember that even if witnesses are added, there is nothing to prevent us from beginning the drafting of the committee report. That is still the goal. We want the report tabled and action proposed before the end of the session. We are in agreement on that.

How could we both add a meeting with Mr. Chapdelaine, which would conclude the discussions, and begin to write the report based on the testimony we have already heard?

So I'm moving this amendment, just so we can proceed in that manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes, you're right, and we are discussing your amendment right now.

What I would say—and perhaps the analysts can confirm it for me—is that I believe the defence report has already been sent off to translation. With any of these extra meetings that we have, if there's testimony that we want to include in the report, we would have to identify, when we do the first review of the draft, what those things are so that they could be put in.

Is that true, Clare or Dominique?

[Dominique Montpetit, Committee Researcher]

I can go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

The report is already with translation. However, if the committee adds meetings, we could do as you said and either add information after the first review, or Clare and I could go through testimony received, say in May, at the extra meetings, and add in some information to the first draft. We would have to confirm the deadlines with translation and publication for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Ms. Hutchings.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Chair, we had Ms. Sahota's motion, and she confirmed that she was looking for one and half meetings or meeting time. Then Madame Larouche put in.... Do we vote on each amendment?

Can you just give me where we are in this? It seems like we are juggling a pile of things. We agreed on a pile of it. I just don't think we know what order this is all coming down in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

From a procedural point of view, right now we are discussing the amendment to add another panel, with Guy Chapdelaine of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is what we will currently vote on. If we say yes to that, it's one panel of an hour.

From there, we would then vote on the amended motion, which would mean we have two full days: one and half for the Conservatives, and one panel—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to make it clear that this is a two-hour meeting that I would like to have with Mr. Chapdelaine, for the reasons that I have stated. Because he certainly has a lot to tell us, ideally it would be a two-hour meeting, but I am willing to compromise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That makes it two and half.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes, it's two and a half.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Okay. Thank you for clarifying, because I got that wrong.

We're talking about two and half meetings, because she is adding a full meeting for the chaplain.

Ms. Hutchings.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

To be clear, she wants the one witness for two hours?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's correct.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Should we not get into other witnesses' names being suggested then? We've gone from adding a day and half to other witnesses coming forth now. We always take written submissions.

The other thing I would like a point of clarification on is whether the clergy is allowed to share conversations that they've had in confidence. I would like the clerk to give us her opinion on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

The clerk has no opinion on that.

I see that Mr. Angus is unable to get into the hand-raising order, so I'm going to recognize him.

I'm sorry about that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We dealt with some of these issues in our Pornhub study, and I think things went very off the rails. We have to be very careful in the kinds of questions we are asking. I am concerned about asking a chaplain to speak for two hours, because there are privacy issues. I think it would put them in a difficult situation. I think if the chaplain were to speak on broad issues, on overall themes, perhaps...but to have someone come for two hours and be asked....

I've just seen it in other committees. If people want to score political points or they want to target, they start asking questions and it puts the witness in a much more difficult light. I would urge a little bit of caution from my colleagues around how we proceed on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

To Ms. Hutchings point, with the motion and the amendment before us, there is no additional opportunity for people to bring other witnesses. If that was something you desired, once we vote on the amendment, another amendment could be made of that nature, which we would then have to vote on before we voted on the full motion.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I just want to mention that the chaplain general has already spoken about this topic on a program. There are things he wants to say and can say. I invite us to hear him, to get the perspective of someone who has listened to and supported victims. Obviously, it will be within the limits of what he can say. Now, as he has already spoken about this in the media, that is why I am offering his name today.

If a two-hour appearance seems excessive to the committee, I am willing to compromise. The motion proposed that we hear witnesses for three hours in total. If necessary, we could reserve the last hour of the second meeting for the chaplain. I am prepared to make that compromise. In any event, I think that, in order to close the file, it would be interesting to hear this witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

The clerk has asked what his name and title are. If you could confirm that for her, that would be great.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

This is Mr. Guy Chapdelaine, the chaplain general of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to agree with Mr. Angus, my honourable neighbour.

We have to be careful. Obviously, it's about the victims here, and it's a small community. Adding two hours.... Yes, maybe he's spoken publicly on certain issues, but perhaps we could incorporate it within the.... I know that we are going to vote on the amendment, but maybe we could incorporate it within the original Conservative motion and the two hours or so. He could be one of the panellists who come in, but just focusing on him entirely could possibly be problematic. Including him within the list of witnesses for our two days of study may be more appropriate.

I would like to clarify that please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Sure.

From a procedural perspective, Madam Larouche cannot adjust her own amendment. She would need unanimous consent to adjust it. We'll get to that after we allow her to comment.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I understand. At this point, I'm talking about an hour. I would agree that the witness should be added to the other proposed witnesses and appear during the second hour of the second meeting. Given that we're already planning to hear witnesses for a meeting and a half, and given that we have two-hour meetings, Mr. Chapdelaine's testimony would complement the second meeting. I think that would be a good compromise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there unanimous consent to allow Madam Larouche to amend her amendment to just one hour?

Is there any disagreement there?

Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Can I clarify something?

Are we looking at an hour alone, or are we looking at incorporating him within the panels? If we have two panels, it's an hour each. Normally, we have two or three witnesses per panel.

I just want to clarify that, if possible, Madam Chair.