Status of Women Committee on May 4th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Larouche, would you like us to meet with the witness alone for an hour or meet with him at the same time as the other witnesses?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I propose we add one hour of appearances, so as to complete the two hours of the meeting. That is the compromise I would be willing to make. We could add an hour with Mr. Chapdelaine. That would give us two full meetings to hear witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Dhillon.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't think the chaplain should have more time than the other witnesses. He should be a panellist like everybody else. I find it very disturbing to have the chaplain come in for even an hour.

As Mr. Serré and Mr. Angus have already mentioned, there are confidentiality issues. It's already very hard for women to come forward. Imagine the betrayal of trust they're going to feel when the chaplain arrives and starts giving examples. The more time he stays, the more he is going to slip up; it's human to err.

These victims came forward in moments of desperation, and they didn't have anywhere else to turn. To have this confidence betrayed.... Whether he went and spoke somewhere else, it doesn't matter. We have a certain responsibility at FEWO, the status of women committee. We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of issues, but I don't believe that it includes violating the trust that these women put in the chaplain. Frankly, I am very disturbed on a very personal level by this motion's being put forward.

I've practised law. I'm a lawyer. Confidentiality is sacred between you and a person when they come to you, especially in this context. I think that we need to think very carefully about what we're doing.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Clearly, there is not unanimous consent to have the chaplain for one hour by himself.

I think the member made a good point. You've seen in the press concern about—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair...

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excuse me. I need to finish my point here.

We've seen in the press that people are concerned that we make sure we treat witnesses with sensitivity, because this is a very traumatic issue. We will return to that discussion later in terms of whether we want to change our protocols to address a more trauma-informed approach.

Right now, we're still talking about the amendment, and I just want to clarify that there isn't unanimous consent to have the chaplain for one hour by himself, so I will go back to Madame Larouche to see if she has another idea.

Madam Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I wanted to say that the committee members need not be confused by my suggestion. The chaplain knows the procedures of the military. Obviously, we don't want him to reveal the victims' secrets. In any case, he won't. You can't underestimate the chaplain. He knows what he can say and what he can do. He has spoken publicly before.

The main thing I want to do is take advantage of his expertise, because he is aware of the army's procedures. In this committee, we are trying to clarify what has not worked and what still does not work, to give victims confidence. For example, we have seen that the issue of procedures has caused problems for many people. So I would like him to come and talk to us about what he knows about procedures, especially. The goal is to help victims and abusers regain their confidence and be able to testify. I want him to come and share with us his experience as a chaplain, plain and simple.

It's not so that he can come and reveal secrets from witnesses, of course, but so that he can tell us about what he knows, especially about the procedures. This is a very important issue. That's what's at the heart of the issue right now. As we have seen, many victims have testified about a problem with procedures. It is from that perspective that I would like the chaplain to come and testify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to sort of go between Madame Larouche and my next-door neighbour, Mr. Serré. The fence that we share is probably only about 600 kilometres long, and he doesn't cut the grass on his side of the fence. I'm just pointing that out.

One of the things I think we're getting into here is that a camel is a racehorse that was designed by a committee. We should always remember that. We keep adding things on and then trying to move them around. I think Madame Larouche has given a very good reason why the chaplain should be here. I think that this probably is something that would very much add to our study.

My concern is with having him alone, because I worry that doing that sort of elevates one voice over others. If he were on a panel or we could work it out so we would have a panel for two hours of witnesses so that there would be a broader base of voices, I think that would be a better way to address what we're trying to get to, which, I think, is to hear from the people who know and have them inform us in the best light.

I think this chaplain could probably do a very good job. I'm just worried about having him as a stand-alone witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Then it's possible, Madame Larouche, that if you wanted to adjust your amendment or ask for unanimous consent to allow him to come for one hour or two hours with the other witnesses, there would be acceptance for that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, in that case, I'm willing to put him on the third panel so that we can keep it to a session and a half, so a total of three hours. Let him testify at some point, but I want to make sure his name is on the list of witnesses. He has important testimony to offer with respect to the procedures, plain and simple.

Some people have said that this option would not cause them any discomfort, so let's just incorporate him into the witnesses we already have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there unanimous consent of the committee to allow Madame Larouche to adjust her amendment to say that Guy Chapdelaine, the chaplain general of the Canadian Armed Forces, would join the third panel with the other witnesses?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to understand the original motion and now the changes by Madame Larouche. We all agree that Monsieur Chapdelaine should be like any other panellist, but do we need to have this motion separated? All the parties are entitled to bring in witnesses, submit witnesses. Are we not going to do that, or are we just going to list the witnesses in the motion?

Just help me clarify. Is it the procedure we normally go through, whereby each party provides witnesses, or is it baked into the motion? I'm not sure what we're voting on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Because the motion and the amendment both specified exactly which witnesses, it is not open to other witnesses at this stage. That's not to say that another amendment or motion could not be made, but at this stage we're talking about Madame Larouche's amendment. She had to have unanimous consent to change her amendment to say that he would come in the third panel along with the other witnesses. It was my impression that there was unanimous consent for that.

That was the question I was asking when you wanted the clarification. If it's okay with you, I would ask again if there is unanimous consent to support Madame Larouche's amended amendment that would say that the chaplain would come for the third hour of the panel.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we return to the original motion, which was that we would have one and a half of our days, which is three hours, of additional study on defence and that we would call specific witnesses.

Were there specific witnesses on the list? Yes, there were. I forget who they were, though.

Ms. Sahota, could you remind me?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

I will read the motion again. It was:

That the committee extend its current study into sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces; that the committee invite Zita Astravas for one hour, Lieutenant-General Carignan and Leah West to appear together for one hour, and the Provost Marshal for one hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Right, and the motion is now amended so that the chaplain would be added to the third panel.

That is the motion we are now discussing. If there is more discussion on it, we will take it. Otherwise we will vote on it.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to do a amendment to Ms. Sahota's motion. I think it's unnecessary to call witnesses who have already been called, so I would like to remove the named witnesses. If we are extending the study, all parties should be able to submit names.

The clerk can schedule anyone who is available based on their availability. Anyone who is not available can submit a written submission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Your amendment is that additional witnesses could be called to extend the study, or are you recommending a time frame of how many more days to add?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I think the meeting should be as Ms. Sahota said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Okay, so in the same time frame the amendment is “and other parties would be able to submit witnesses as well.”

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

No. They always can submit their written submissions because we have to make the reports too, Madam Chair. We have three reports to finish and possibly another study. We have to remember our role is to make recommendations so that the government is better able to prevent and respond to assault.

We owe it to these women to complete a report and get our report out as soon as possible.

I would like to remove the list of witnesses and the parties can submit theirs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Your amendment is to remove the list of witnesses from the motion and allow all parties to submit witnesses.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we're discussing that amendment.

Ms. Sahota.