Debates of May 4th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in the Military

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just asked Madame Arbour to make recommendations on the recommendations made by Madame Deschamps. My colleague also said that her government is taking this seriously. Is this really what she considers taking things seriously?

An analyst and journalist compared the two news releases about Madame Arbour and Madame Deschamps and said that they were essentially the same.

I repeat: Does my colleague really think the government is taking this seriously?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that our focus should be on how we can create a safer future for women and indeed for everyone who serves in our armed forces. There is much to be learned from the Deschamps report, and I look forward to Justice Arbour building on her work with her independent review of the Canadian Armed Forces, which will include the creation of an external reporting system that is independent from the chain of command and meets the needs of those impacted by sexual misconduct and violence.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Regina—Wascana, Natural Resources; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Canadian Heritage.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am on Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg territory and so grateful to my colleagues for their thoughtful debate today. They have focused on survivors and how to move forward. Also, I want to acknowledge that many Muslims working with us are fasting right now, so Ramadan kareem to them.

I will focus my remarks on what we have heard from survivors, on the work done to date and the work moving forward.

Let me thank survivors who have taken the time to talk to me and our colleagues, who have shared their accounts and who continue to guide us in this very important work. I think all of us agree that we want them to be safe. They have chosen these difficult jobs, which require many sacrifices. Those who are charged with keeping us safe deserve to be safe with their colleagues and in their workplaces. We want their parents, their spouses and their children to know that when they go to work they will be safe with their colleagues, when they come home they feel like their service and contributions matter and when they come forward there is a place for them that is independent from the chain of command and treats them with respect and dignity.

From the moment we formed government, we have taken serious action to address and prevent gender-based violence in all of its forms in institutions like Parliament, in homes and in communities across the country. However, we must do more and faster.

We are the first government to put forward a serious federal plan to address and prevent gender-based violence. We are the first government to make women's health, women's safety and women's labour force participation anchors of our economic growth strategy. We have the humility to acknowledge that gender-based violence is complex and that we cannot eradicate it on our own. We have a track record that allows us to work with necessary partners, organizations, survivors and experts like Madam Arbour to do better, faster.

One thing that survivors I have spoken to have taught me is that 50 years ago, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada tabled a report that included a few recommendations for the CAF, the Canadian Armed Forces. Those recommendations asked us to open all trades to women in the CAF, to stop prohibiting married women from enlisting, to stop releasing women from the forces when they have kids and to pay women and men equally in the forces. Survivors reminded me that it was not until 1989 that almost all occupations were open to women, and that it was not until 2001 that the submarine service was open to women. Survivors have taught me and all of us that gender-based violence and sexual misconduct are a symptom of a much bigger issue and that, rather than expect women, gender-diverse folks and racialized folks to assimilate into the armed forces, much more needs to be done to integrate women, gender-diverse folks and BIPOCs into the armed forces so that they feel safe and welcomed.

We want to ensure meaningful change. The survivors who have come forward with courage have asked us for meaningful change. I can appreciate that they are skeptical. For too long, too many governments have let them down. Every government has. I can assure them that we hear them, that their stories and accounts matter and that change is already happening.

The allegations and the accounts shared by survivors have been deeply troubling, often triggering other survivors and victims of sexual assault, including in the House. Their accounts have led to meaningful discussions on how to improve culture in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, and we hear them. While some progress has been made, it is clear that it has not been enough, that it has not been fast enough and that we must go further.

The underlying reasons for cultural issues that persisted in the armed force and defence were never truly understood. We take this work seriously and we are taking serious action. As we build on the foundation and the partnerships that we have formed since day one of coming into office, we will continue to keep survivors at the heart of this work.

The House of Commons is an important place for progress to be made. Concrete action has been taken, such as introducing a federal strategy to address and prevent gender-based violence that breaks down traditional silos and is saving and transforming lives.

We have introduced measures to develop a more comprehensive and equitable criminal justice system, including ensuring a clearer definition of consent; strengthening laws against gender-based violence and intimate partner violence; toughening bail eligibility for repeat offenders; introducing five days of paid leave for survivors of family violence so they can get the help they need; supporting legislation that ensures judges receive training on gender-based violence, counteracting centuries of common misconceptions, biases and myths about sexual assault.

We are working with indigenous partners, those in territories and provinces, to move forward, after 38 years of the federal-provincial table on the status of women meeting, with a national action plan on gender-based violence so no matter where they are, survivors can count on reliable supports.

This past year, we have helped close to one million women, children and gender-diverse folks during the pandemic to find safety and supports. Every year, programming through women and gender equality supports saves and transforms the lives of some six million Canadians.

Moving forward, survivors continue to deserve trauma-informed, culturally sensitive supports and a system that allows them to seek justice.

Budget 2021 includes $3 billion to address and prevent gender-based violence in all its forms. It includes $236 million to address and prevent sexual misconduct in the military. That fund is going to provide a professionally, co-facilitated peer support program. It is going to enhance supports to the sexual misconduct and response centre, which we have heard much about during the debate.

I will take this time to thank those who work as the SMRC as well as its founding members who have worked so hard. This is emotionally labourious work, and they ought to be saluted.

The budget includes $70 million to research women's health and to support access to sexual and reproductive health; $160 million to support the mental health of Canadians; a serious investment in early learning and child care; and, of course, $600 million to move forward with a national action plan.

As for the armed forces, they will dig deep to root out the harmful attitudes and beliefs that have corrupted their culture and enabled misconduct. They will eliminate discrimination, biases, harmful stereotypes and systemic barriers to create a truly diverse and inclusive workforce and culture. Most important, they will listen and learn from their people, past and present, as they work to rebuild trust, and we will be there working with them and moving them forward, ensuring survivors remain at the heart of this work.

As the Minister of National Defence said last week to every member in the armed forces and to every person in the Department of National Defence who has been affected by sexual harassment and violence, we are truly sorry. We regret the pain that this has caused them and their families, and we regret the talent and the contributions that their country has missed out on. We know the current reporting systems do not meet their needs, and that they do not feel able to report misconduct out of fear of reprisal or retribution. We know that culture change is key. We have heard them when they have said sexual misconduct is a symptom of the problem, not the root of it, and that we need to have a more holistic approach to this work.

We know that the work ahead is difficult, but we also know that the institution we are talking about is strong enough for this change. Clearly, every member of the House is ready, willing and able to support the institution in this important cultural change.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member works very hard when it comes to violence against women and sexual harassment. However, I am really concerned that the higher ups, the people in the PMO and the defence minister, did not recognize there was such a problem.

I am looking at this and I am concerned. The minister and I have both looked at everything on the status of women and we know that it is report after report. Today, we are talking about the government providing another report in response. Will another report do the job?

Second. obviously the Prime Minister and the defence minister are reaching out to the minister on this issue. Did she ask about what they would do better and about a follow up? How did the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence talk to the her about this and how did they approach what has just happened in the Canadian Armed Forces under their watch?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her passion and commitment to advancing women and gender equality.

The work Madame Arbour is doing, as the member has heard from Madame Deschamps, will build on the report that was presented. This phase of the response is not about whether changes need to be made, it is about how to make them.

In addition to the report, we are also very much looking forward to Lieutenant-General Carignan doing her important work to have a one-stop shop that addresses equity and gender-based violence within the military system. It is important. For example, we know there is data, but it is all over the place and it is difficult to access. That is one example of the challenges we are trying to solve. Both Madame Arbour's report and the work Lieutenant-General Carignan will do will matter.

In addition, the budget includes $236 million, which I really hope we are able to pass together, to support survivors.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very concerning issue. I am wondering about the Liberal record in the use of the previous Deschamps report. Andrew Leslie, who served in the military as lieutenant-general, served as the Liberal government whip and was in the Liberal cabinet during this time frame.

I would like to know from the member whether she or her government have reached out to Andrew Leslie to get his perspective. He was lieutenant-general for the land forces for a number of years, the chief government whip and a Liberal member of Parliament for Orleans.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my colleague that my time is spent listening to experts, listening to survivors who have the courage to come forward and connecting with colleagues in the House as well as defence and armed forces to ensure we get it right this time.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Deschamps presented a damning report in 2015, demonstrating that there is a sexist culture within the armed forces, which ignored cases of sexual misconduct.

This report contained 10 recommendations, and the main recommendation was to make the complaints system independent from the armed forces. Justice Deschamps testified in committee in February. She pointed out that, unfortunately, the centre is not independent from the armed forces.

I am trying to understand whether my colleague, who is the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, is comfortable being part of a government that wants a new report but is not even capable of implementing the main recommendation from a report that came out more than five years ago.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague can appreciate, the issues around gender-based violence are complex and deeply rooted in society. However, sexual misconduct and gender-based violence within institutions like military are even more complex. The work Madame Deschamps did years ago is important. It has allowed the government and the DND to make progress, but far more work needs to be done.

Madame Arbour's work will allow us to move forward. However, we will not wait for a report as she hears testimony. As we continue to hear from survivors, we will be sure to implement measures that improve the safety and well-being of all members in the DND and the armed forces.

Of course, we are also looking for any ideas this chamber may have. In addition to that independent review, what else can we do as parliamentarians to change the conversation about gender-based violence and workplace harassment, not just in the armed forces but in every workplace?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lakeland.

As the member of Parliament for Garrison Petawawa, located in the force-wielding riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, soldiers know I will always have their back.

It is a great disappointment to Canadians that once again the Prime Minister has chosen to waste the public’s valuable time. Our economy is about to burn. The raging pandemic is worsening. All the while, the Prime Minister insists the Conservative government-in-waiting deal with the problem of toxic masculinity.

This motion is to dismiss his hapless employee, Katie Telford. Another woman will be sacrificed, in this case, for her misplaced loyalty. The Prime Minister's toxic masculinity is out of control. It has been for a very long time.

The Prime Minister’s toxic masculinity problem is a Liberal brand problem. It must be degrading to be a female member of the Liberal Party and be forced to continually have to apologize and make excuses for the Prime Minister’s toxic masculinity.

The member for Kanata—Carleton wore the uniform of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Does she and her female colleagues, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean, not realize that by defending the Prime Minister’s unacceptable misogynist behaviour, they are enabling his toxic masculinity? Do women in the Liberal Party not see the pattern of behaviour? Do these women really think the former female minister of justice, the former female minister of health, the Prime Minister’s own former female parliamentary secretary were all wrong in refusing to put up with the Prime Minister’s toxic masculinity? It all comes down to power.

Another female in the Liberal Party who thought she had power, Katie Telford, is being thrown under the bus by the Prime Minister. He has become the laughing stock of world leaders with his blackface and his Mr. dress-up cultural appropriation antics.

If Katie Telford, as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, cannot understand she should have resigned months ago, she must be fired by the Prime Minister. It is not as if she does not know the Prime Minister has a serious problem with toxic masculinity. Her job as chief of staff is to say no every time the Prime Minister has an ethical and moral lapse in judgment. Gerald Butts failed to do his job and fell on his sword. Now it is time for Katie Telford to do the same.

Toxic masculinity is a Liberal problem. On International Women’s Day I asked the Minister of National Defence a simple question. Who was the minister trying to protect, himself or the Prime Minister? That same question has now been answered by the Prime Minister’s female chief of staff, now that the story from the Prime Minister is that his chief of staff withheld important information from him.

It was the Prime Minister who shut down the investigation by the Standing Committee on National Defence into the appalling record of the government in defending gender equality for women serving their country in the military. Operation Honour, the Canadian Armed Forces mission to prevent and address sexual misconduct within its ranks, was doomed from the outset.

How could anyone in government take Operation Honour seriously? Soldiers dubbed it “Operation Hop On Her”. Why would anyone take it seriously, when the Prime Minister was not taking the concerns of sexual harassment of female soldiers seriously?

The same can be said about the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. She obviously does not take the concerns of sexual harassment of female soldiers seriously, if we believe the Prime Minister’s claim that his chief of staff could not be bothered to inform him of claims of sexual misconduct.

This is the same Prime Minister who, when confronted with the facts surrounding his groping of a young female reporter, claimed that she must have experienced it differently. That is the classic “blame the victim” trope.

The Prime Minister’s toxic masculinity is a festering sore that has infected the entire Liberal Party. Now the Prime Minister has directed female members of his caucus to look for someone or something else to blame.

According to the female member of parliament for Ottawa West—Nepean, it is the culture of toxic masculinity from the Canadian Armed Forces that is to blame. Blame the soldiers for the breakdown in leadership that stops at the top with the Prime Minister.

Not to be outdone to curry favour from the Prime Minister, the female member from the rural Newfoundland and Labrador riding of Long Range Mountains, even went further in trying to tie toxic masculinity in Canada's military to Canadians recruited from rural Canada. Her Liberal talking points somehow tied Canadians from rural Canada, who joined Canada’s Armed Forces as convenient scapegoats. She is from rural Canada, in this case Atlantic Canada, indicating the member’s experience is with her own constituents. As they say in Atlantic Canada, the fish rots from the head.

Liberal Female MPs, such as the ones for Pickering—Uxbridge and for Newfoundland and Labrador, should be ashamed when the name of the leader of the Liberal Party is used in the same paragraph as Harvey Weinstein's and Jeffrey Epstein's to make the point that Canada is going backward, not forward, when it comes to making progress in combatting sexual misconduct and violence against women in all its ugly faces.

Toxic masculinity is not a military problem; it is a Liberal Party problem.

The greatest disappointment in this entire discussion has been the deafening silence from the female Liberal caucus. Its members have quietly condoned the Prime Minister's behaviour with their silence. Not one female Liberal MP rose to defend the female reporter who was subjected to an unwanted sexual advance by the Prime Minister in her workplace: the Kokanee grope. Not one government MP rose to demand a coherent explanation of what the Prime Minister admitted to doing when he was shamed into providing an apology to the young female reporter who was the subject of his unwanted advance. Enabling bad behaviour guarantees it will continue, like blaming the victim. Silence is tacit approval.

The problem of toxic masculinity starts at the top with the Prime Minister. He has an outrageous record of making bad decisions when it comes to Canada’s military. This policy failure of the Prime Minister and his government, and his failure to deal with sexual harassment in the military, can be traced to his treatment of women. It is no different from the way the Prime Minister treats women in his own party, such as the former justice minister during the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

This is what a former female Ontario Liberal member and member of the Prime Minister’s caucus had to say:

In a feminist government, throwing [female members of Parliament] under the bus, I didn’t appreciate that, especially at a time when we’re saying that we believe in women. You believe in them when it's convenient and you leave them when it's not. So there were just a number of different instances that just didn’t sit right with me and the principles that I hold dear, and I wanted to make sure that I was able to look at myself in the mirror the next day.

How can female Liberal members of Parliament still look at themselves in the mirror every day knowing that, after Operation Honour was blown out of the water? It recorded 581 incidents of sexual assault and 221 cases of sexual harassment between April 1, 2016 and March 9, 2021. The Prime Minister thinks that having female members of his caucus mouth empty platitudes will fool women. He sure does not fool this “proud to be Conservative” female member of Parliament.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her surreal speech. There is a funny new word that I think might apply. We hear more and more about people being “woke”. This was like a woke debate on acid, but I will leave it at that.

My colleague seems to be particularly fond of the concept of toxic masculinity. I find that all the more unusual because she belongs to a party that constantly challenges women's right to have control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion, but let us leave that aside for now.

We know that the government dragged its feet or simply failed to act in the case of General Vance. We also know that the initial allegations against General Vance were made in 2015. The Conservatives decided to ignore those allegations. They are the ones who appointed General Vance.

Was the Harper government demonstrating toxic masculinity at that time?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he goes off on tangents and deflects. In 2015, the current leader of Her Majesty's official opposition heard a rumour and based on rumour alone took it to the Prime Minister's Office to have investigated. Here we have a minister who had the ombudsman for the military come with actual evidence of inappropriate sexual behaviour. What did he do? He said he did not want to see it. He swept it under the rug and then denied, deflected, delayed, until maybe it would go away, there would be an election and then we could all start over again. That is not going to happen this time.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about toxic masculinity and I want to follow up on the comments from my colleague from the Bloc from 2015. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Premier of Alberta, the then minister of national defence, Jason Kenney, were aware of the allegations and the investigation being conducted in 2015. That is not up for debate.

Does the member not worry that by attacking one of the only women involved in the Prime Minister's Office in this issue, that she is in fact punishing a woman while allowing that same toxic masculinity that we saw with Stephen Harper, that we saw with Jason Kenney, that we see with the current Prime Minister and the current Minister of National Defence, is she not allowing that toxic masculinity to continue?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the allegations about former members of the Conservative Party are irrelevant and unfounded completely. In terms of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, we are not punishing her, we have invited her to come before committee and explain herself. All these allegations are being made. We want her to be heard. We want her to have a voice. That is why we have invited her, so we can get to the truth.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague's opinion on the best way forward to hold the Prime Minister to account. Ultimately it was his chief of staff who failed to provide the information to him that this was a sexual misconduct allegation against the chief of the defence staff. Again, what we are debating today is why the chief of staff failed to bring that information forward to the Prime Minister.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, at committee we asked her to come forward to be able to defend herself. Did she really give the Prime Minister executive deniability by not telling him about the situation or is she being thrown under the bus? We want to give her a chance.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, “There is no room in the Canadian Armed Forces for sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, discrimination, harassment or any other conduct that prevents the institution from being a truly welcoming and inclusive organization.” That is how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence began her reply to an Order Paper question from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke detailing how the Canadian Armed Forces deal with sexual misconduct. I want to give kudos to my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her powerful and utter indictment that she just delivered.

It is becoming disturbingly clear that the Liberals have actually allowed room for sexual misconduct and harassment in the military despite all their rhetoric. Doubtlessly, they would be happy to take credit for how much progress has been made otherwise. Indeed, the defence minister, in particular, is not shy about taking credit, as he did when he stole valour and claimed to be the architect of Operation Medusa, but true to pattern, the Liberals are dodging, shutting down committees, keeping staff from being questioned and embroiled in yet another cover-up scandal.

Today it is Parliament's job to debate this cover-up by the Prime Minister's own chief of staff. She was informed of specific sexual harassment allegations against General Jonathan Vance three years ago, three years of another victim's voice being silenced. Committee testimony revealed that senior PMO staffer Elder Marques briefed the Prime Minister's chief of staff about an issue related to the former chief of the defence staff and that the military ombudsman and the Canadian Armed Forces had discussions with the Minister of National Defence. Mr. Marques does not work for the Prime Minister or the Liberals anymore, so he was not barred from testifying at committee like every other Liberal staffer has been. His testimony shines a light on how high up these discussions went and how many people knew, but turned a blind eye.

In March 2018, the Privy Council Office was informed of the allegations, but came to an “impasse” and no further action was taken. This did not clear General Vance; rather, it only stalled the investigation. Even so, a pay raise that bureaucrats say the minister was involved in was still given to him in May 2019. Allegations began being publicly reported in 2021.

Five hundred and eighty-one is the number of sexual assaults reported under Operation Honour between April 1, 2016 and March 9, 2021. Two hundred and twenty-one is the number of sexual harassments reported during that same time period. These numbers represent real men and women in uniform and they are just the ones that are known. How many more have not and will not come forward because they see how these allegations are handled, because they see those in the highest positions of authority avoiding their responsibility to protect them, like the Minister of National Defence?

The minister's inaction and evasiveness harm Canada's men and women in uniform. That is perhaps the most disturbing part. Operation Honour is referred to casually in the military as “operation hop on her” and, ironically, in the very worst way, was headed by General Vance. Many members of the military report that if they come forward with sexual assault allegations that are not proven, they are given two options: return to their unit or be honourably discharged. Effectively, they lose their jobs or go back with their abusers. Sadly, this kind of thing is not that unusual in predominantly closed institutions that rely on the discipline of a rigid power hierarchy.

However, it is mind-boggling that the minister failed to take any real action during the past six years since the Deschamps report and recommendations on sexual misconduct and under-reporting in the military in 2015, while simultaneously declaring themselves a feminist government and turning a blind eye to allegations brought directly to him by the military ombudsman. That is six years of failing to act and to proactively address this systemic challenge for the men and women he served with and who served under him. The Minister of National Defence is avoiding his own responsibility and is an active part of this Liberal cover-up. I cannot fathom why he would choose to ignore the evidence brought to him by the ombudsman and to silence voices of victims, but perhaps the fact that General Vance was the minister's superior during his own military service is insightful.

Regardless, when confronted with difficult situations, strong leaders take responsibility and take action. The ombudsman confirmed that the defence minister was strong in one way, strong in his refusal to see any evidence about the allegations against General Vance and strong in his efforts to keep the ombudsman away from his office after that. He cancelled seven meetings to avoid further discussions. Ombudsman Walbourne testified, “I did tell the minister what the allegation was. I reached into my pocket to show him the evidence I was holding, and he pushed back from the table and said, 'No.'”

When presented with evidence of sexual misconduct, evading and avoiding can never be the reaction. The defence minister failed in his duty and has broken trust with men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces and with all Canadians more than once. It is reported that General Vance believes he is “untouchable”. I suggest the minister and all the people at the top have enabled that conclusion.

That seems to be systemic in this particular government. The Prime Minister first claimed his office knew nothing about the allegations, but the evidence shows his most powerful, privileged and likely closest confidante and staff member knew about it. She abdicated her duty and orchestrated a cover-up of the allegations.

She is also complicit in silencing voices of victims and survivors of sexual misconduct, and if she had nothing to hide, I think she would gladly step forward at committee and proactively share the steps the Prime Minister, the defence minister and the government are taking to strengthen the reporting, investigations and consequences for sexual misconduct in the military.

Instead, Liberals are interfering with committee scrutiny and have announced yet another review rather than acting on recommendations from the major report done shortly before they were elected in 2015.

Canadians have heard this song and dance too many times from the Liberal government. It is yet another example of passing the buck, dodging responsibilities and saying one thing and doing another.

The filibustering of witness discussions at the Standing Committee on National Defence clearly imitates the filibustering, delaying and dodging that was a hallmark of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, where the Prime Minister pressured the former attorney general, who is the member for Vancouver Granville, to interfere in an independent prosecution. When she refused and resisted months of relentless pressure, which he also denied, he fired her. It is much like the still-ongoing cover-up of the WE Charity scandal.

As recently as April 27, the Prime Minister said neither the defence minister nor his office knew the complaint against General Vance was one of sexual misconduct, but his own former staffer testified that he himself kept the chief of staff updated about the bureaucratic investigation into the claims and that the bureaucrats were informed the allegation was related to sexual harassment.

The Liberal chair of the defence committee unceremoniously cancelled the meeting to which the Prime Minister's chief of staff had been invited to clear all of this up. As recently as this past weekend, the defence minister studiously avoided answering directly whether he knew the allegation was sexual in nature. All of this stretches the bounds of believability of the Prime Minister's claim that no one really knew the details.

Of course it all makes sense in the context of hiding something. Canadians know well the lengths to which this particular government will go. With the Liberal government, where there is cover-up there is scandal. There are clearly networks of very powerful people at the very top who must be held accountable. As the Prime Minister once used to say, there is clearly a need for sunlight as the best disinfectant.

Quite obviously, the Liberals ought to actually walk their talk and work immediately to implement recommendations from the report they have sat on since 2015 instead of doing another review, despite the esteem of the former justice now in charge of it, because justice delayed is also justice denied. For victims of sexual harassment and abuse, that is only too true.

Operation HONOUR itself puts a fine point on it, in the Path to Dignity and Respect:

Whether real or perceived, organizational tolerance of sexual misconduct or a pervasive insufficient organizational response to incidents will contribute to a climate where sexual misconduct is ignored, minimized or excused and impacts the willingness of people to report incidents.

It is chilling that the top soldier in charge of Operation HONOUR was the very person who reportedly intimidated and threatened consequences against his target. Major Kellie Brennan said:

It's recorded...him directing me in what to say, what not to say, how to say it, what to exclude, to perjure myself and to lie.

She added:

I definitely feel that there will not be justice for me...if my speaking out can change everything for other women to come forward and change our policies, that's okay with me.

Such a debt of gratitude is owed to her and to all men and women who volunteer to enter into harm's way to protect all of us and serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. The loss of trust in leadership must be staggering and it must be severely damaging. The least that can be done is for the Prime Minister to take the first step in showing that people will be held to account by firing his chief of staff, but it cannot stop there. The defence minister is also complicit and also needs to be held accountable for his actions.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I have had some difficulty following today's debate at times. I am hearing statements about toxic masculinity that I absolutely disagree with coming from one side of the House, and I am utterly baffled by the level of patience and tolerance demonstrated by the Liberal women on the other side of the House who spoke today about the allegations of sexual misconduct.

Earlier, a senator said the following on social media:

Justice Arbour, whose reputation goes beyond the borders of our country, cannot agree to participate in this cynical travesty in which victims paid the price to protect the image of the Prime Minister and that of his defence minister.

Does my colleague want the Minister of National Defence to resign?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will not surprise my colleague to know that I have no faith or confidence in this particular Minister of National Defence, and he has frankly earned that lack of trust and loss of confidence, not just on the issue we are talking about today, but on others that I have noted.

I am also glad my colleague raised the issue about toxic masculinity, which my colleague for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke spoke about, and they were asking why she was bringing it up. I will tell members why she was bringing it up. In the response to her Order Paper question, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence talked about that. The government's reply said:

National Defence understands that a culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces is required, to remove a culture of toxic masculinity and to create an environment where everyone is respected, valued, and can feel safe to contribute to the best of their ability.

I think she quite rightfully and truthfully showed toxic masculinity in the leadership roles of the current Liberal government. What she is saying is not to blame the men and women serving in the military and the culture within the military, but to hold the people whom Canadians elected and trusted to do their jobs, such as the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, to account.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, six years ago, former justice Marie Deschamps produced a report. The government has done absolutely nothing since then. It just appointed another justice, Louise Arbour, to analyze the situation again even though we already know the findings in the first report.

Does my colleague think that the new report will contribute new insight that will change decisions and enable the armed forces to do things differently?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to the question of what a new review might find or what a new report might contain. As my colleague pointed out, this work has already been done and recommendations have already been made to take concrete action to address the issue of under-reporting and then a lack of consequences for sexual misconduct. That is the right thing to do for all the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and for the women and men who are victims of sexual misconduct.

My real concern, which ought to concern every Canadian, is why the heck have the Liberals not actually taken action based on the recommendations in that report published shortly before they were elected in 2015? How have the Liberals sat on that for the last six years while calling themselves feminists? Evidence has been brought directly to them against the top soldier to which they turned a blind eye, and now they are continuing to perpetuate a cover-up.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We were just talking about this yesterday in committee. I do not think that writing report after report will get us anywhere.

Justice Deschamps already gave the government her recommendations. I think my colleague will agree that the government is obviously hiding behind this next report instead of taking action with respect to General Vance.

Does she think the government should be taking action instead? If people need to be fired, so be it, but I think there are other things that can be done. I would like her to comment on that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, similar to my answer to our colleague previously, I certainly agree with the member that it is high time for action to be taken. There are a couple of things needed. There needs to be immediate transparency and accountability for the subject of the issue that we are talking about, which is why we are calling for the Prime Minister to take action to fire his chief of staff. The Liberals also need to allow everybody else who might have knowledge about this particular issue to testify at committee and be transparent. To the larger issue, I completely agree. I do not know why there has been a delay on acting on the concrete recommendations that were already provided.

I did want to say to this particular colleague that I very much enjoy working with her on the public safety committee. She is an incredible MP. She is extremely gifted and very strong. I know we constantly share our frustration at governments and committees simply creating report after report. We like to see action and we call for action. I certainly know my constituents in Lakeland do too.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will heave a big sigh because it is with great exasperation that I rise today to speak to the allegations of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which studied this important issue, I heard some troubling and disturbing testimonies from survivors. They asked the current government to take action to restore confidence in this institution.

We know that the Prime Minister's chief of staff was informed of a specific allegation of sexual harassment against General Jonathan Vance three years ago. We know that the Prime Minister says that this allegation of sexual harassment was never brought to his attention, but the facts lead us to believe otherwise. We also know that the Prime Minister said that people in a position of authority have a duty to act upon allegations. However, I will repeat what my colleagues have already stated today: the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion, for the simple reason that it is not up to the House of Commons to manage the Prime Minister's Office.

Making an employee take the blame for the Minister of National Defence's and the Prime Minister's failure to take action would set a dangerous precedent for ministerial responsibilities. The Liberal government knew that there were allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Vance, but it deliberately turned a blind eye. Why try to blame an employee who is just following her boss's orders? The Conservatives' motion is puzzling.

I now want to talk about the Conservatives' actions in the past and what we know about what has happened in the last few years under the Liberal government. I will then conclude by talking about some points relating to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

The Conservative Party is in no position to be giving lectures. The current leader of the Conservative Party was informed of the allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance, but that did not stop the Conservatives from appointing him as chief of defence staff, even though they were all aware.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the current leader of the official opposition are responsible and accountable for the sexual misconduct scandals involving the senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is enough to want to simply bury your head in the sand. The Prime Minister did not include implementing Justice Deschamps's report in the mandate letters to the current Minister of National Defence on three occasions, in 2015, 2019 and 2021. In baseball, after three strikes, you are out.

Everyone in his office knew about the allegations against General Vance, but the Prime Minister claims he knew nothing. His own minister did little or nothing—he was wilfully blind—and the Prime Minister never reprimanded him. On the other hand, the Prime Minister was quick to expel two of his MPs before they became ministers, expelling them without hesitation when there were allegations of sexual misconduct against them. Why the double standard?

The Prime Minister claims he knew nothing of the allegations against General Vance, but everyone in his office was aware and so was his minister. If his own minister and his own staffers are hiding such information from him, that is further proof of his incompetence in leading his team and of his flagrant lack of leadership.

The Minister of National Defence did nothing when the former Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, informed him of the situation during a private meeting on March 1, 2018. The Minister of National Defence flatly refused to see the evidence against General Vance. What is more, Mr. Walbourne described the meeting as “tense”.

When it came time to testify before the Standing Committee on National Defence, after the story against Mr. Vance came out in the media, the minister categorically refused to answer any questions, and he said he was surprised to learn about the allegations against General Vance in the media. After being accused of not even wanting to look at the file, according to former ombudsman Gary Walbourne, the minister returned to the Standing Committee on National Defence. This time he claimed that he did not learn about the allegations against General Vance because he did not want to interfere, which every witness, except for the Liberals, thought was baseless.

The Minister of National Defence even said that the nature of the allegations against General Vance was not important. This proves yet again that he is not taking the situation seriously. He has been the Minister of National Defence since 2015, but he has yet to implement all the measures in Justice Deschamps's report. One of the key recommendations in this document was to create an external mechanism Canadian Forces members could use to report misconduct.

Justice Deschamps made her recommendations six years ago, but the Liberals have not acted on them. Justice Deschamps commented in committee that she believes not much has been done and that very little has changed. The Liberal government chose to do nothing, just as it chose to do nothing about General Vance. Instead, it announced on Thursday, April 29, 2021, that it had given former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour the mandate to conduct an independent and comprehensive review of misconduct in the army.

I will first express my utmost respect for Madame Arbour's sterling reputation. She is renowned around the world. However, that does not at all excuse the government's behaviour or its inaction with respect to General Vance over the past three years.

In 2015, the Conservatives appointed General Vance as the head of the Canadian Armed Forces even though they had already heard the sexual misconduct allegations against him. The current Leader of the Opposition, then the veterans affairs minister, knew that there were sexual misconduct allegations regarding Vance. The military police conducted an investigation of Vance, but it was dropped on July 17, 2015, the day Vance became chief of the defence staff and, therefore, boss of the military police.

The Conservatives did not even wait to get the findings of the investigation, and they did even less due diligence in appointing Vance as head of the Canadian Armed Forces, knowing that the new chief of defence staff would be responsible for implementing Justice Dechamps's recommendations.

I now want to talk about some facts related to this situation. On March 27, 2015, former justice Marie Deschamps released a damning report, finding that there was widespread sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and a sexist culture that turned a blind eye to misconduct.

This report had been commissioned in the wake of accusations against Warrant Officer André Gagnon, who sexually assaulted a subordinate, Corporal Stéphanie Raymond, in December 2011. Corporal Raymond filed a complaint against Warrant Officer Gagnon in 2012, but her superiors in the chain of command turned against her and she was eventually dismissed for misconduct in 2013. She spoke about this when she testified before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Warrant Officer Gagnon was acquitted in 2014, but after Raymond successfully appealed that ruling, he finally pleaded guilty in 2021.

It was Corporal Raymond's case and the accusations she made against the Canadian Armed Forces that led to Justice Marie Deschamps' report. When she testified before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Corporal Raymond confirmed the difficulties she had after she filed her complaint, the intimidation she was subjected to as well as the reprisals against her that pushed her to resign. It was not a trifling matter.

The Deschamps report contained 10 recommendations. The most important one was to make the complaints reporting system independent of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of Defence. When she testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence in February 2021 and before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Marie Deschamps stated that very little had been done since her report was released in 2015 and that not much had really changed. Only three of the 10 recommendations had been implemented in 2019, which we cannot really say is a good batting average.

Elder Marques, a former adviser to the Prime Minister whose testimony the Liberals tried to block by filibustering, finally appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence. He confirmed that the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, was aware of the allegations against Vance and that she or one of her assistants had spoken to him about it, without providing details on the nature of the allegations and simply mentioning misconduct.

However, Marques assumed everyone had figured out that it was a sexual misconduct complaint. Two of the Prime Minister's close advisers, and probably more, were aware of it, but Marques said that he did not remember discussing the issue with the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister denies having been made aware of the sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance. He says Gary Walbourne never sent the documents that were requested to his office and that he did not know there were #MeToo allegations. However, he did not clearly deny knowing or that there were allegations of an unknown nature against Vance. He always made it clear that he did not know they were allegations of sexual misconduct, which could be his way out if emails or testimony confirmed what he knew.

The Liberals' defence makes no sense. Anybody who had taken the time to listen to Walbourne would have understood why the victim did not want to file an official complaint. Vance would have found out about it and could have destroyed her career. What the victim needed at the time was leadership, but the Liberals failed to provide it.

I also want to point out that, in 2019, the defence minister was consulted about a $50,000 increase to Vance's annual salary, retroactive to April 1, 2018. The Prime Minister allegedly signed off on that pay raise. Why would the Prime Minister authorize a raise for General Vance long after the PMO was made aware of the allegations against the general? That is unacceptable.

On January 14, 2021, General Vance retired. In February 2021, Global News reported on cases of misconduct by Vance, including his relationship with a subordinate and the obscene emails he exchanged with a much younger service woman in 2012.

The woman who was in a relationship with Vance has publicly stated that he threatened her multiple times. General Vance thought he was untouchable. He said that he controlled the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. I also heard that from the victims who testified before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

The Standing Committee on National Defence chose to once again look into the allegations against Vance, but when the Minister of National Defence was initially called to testify, he said that he had learned about the allegations against Vance from the media, and he systematically refused to answer any questions on the pretext that the case was before the courts.

The testimony of Gary Walbourne, who confirmed that he had informed the Minister of Defence and that the minister had refused to even look at the file, was a huge black eye for the government. Other witnesses told the committee that the minister could have taken action and had several tools that he could have used to call for an investigation into Vance. The Minister of Defence came back to committee in March, and this time he agreed to talk in order to defend his handling of the file. He admitted that he had refused to look at Walbourne's file, but he claimed it was because he did not want to do the investigating himself, even though no one was asking him to.

The Liberals did not hesitate to filibuster in an attempt to prevent Liberal staffers Zita Astravas and Elder Marques from being invited to appear before the committee. I know this because I was filling in for another member of the Standing Committee on National Defence that day. I thought it was truly a sad day for democracy. Thanks to Elder Marques' testimony, we know that everyone around the Prime Minister was aware, but the Liberals continue their denials. When other staffers were summoned by the House, the Liberals chose to send the Minister of Defence instead, saying they would not let their staffers testify.

Again, both parties chose to do nothing. Even though the Conservatives had already heard rumours of allegations against General Vance, they still appointed him chief of the defence staff when the CAF had just been severely criticized for their management of sexual misconduct and the widespread sexist culture.

In the absence of evidence, the fact remains that there were already many rumours and allegations against General Vance. Why, then, did the Conservatives not appoint someone above reproach to make major reforms in the forces to combat sexual misconduct?

The Liberals chose to ignore the issue. The Minister of Defence flatly refused to meet with the former ombudsman 12 times and would not even look at the evidence, claiming that he did not want to interfere in the investigation. The Prime Minister's entourage knows that he knew there were allegations against General Vance, but even if the Prime Minister did not have all the details, everyone around him suspected that the allegations involved, as I was saying, a case of sexual misconduct. There were emails that mentioned sexual misconduct directly. The minister even said that the nature of the accusations against Vance did not matter and that what matters are the actions.

The Liberals did absolutely nothing on this file. They did not even implement Justice Deschamps' main recommendations, including a complaints process that would be completely independent of the military to receive all sexual misconduct complaints. The facts speak for themselves. There are now four generals with misconduct complaints against them. In short, if the Liberals did nothing, it is not Katie Telford's fault; rather, the entire cabinet is to blame, led by the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister.

As a final point, one of the things we learned at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is that officers regularly attempt to interfere after allegations are made and that military prosecutors often end up negotiating inadequate settlements with victims. Many survivors developed a distrust of the military's internal justice system and wished that allegations of sexual crimes were not handled by the Canadian Forces' own police, prosecutors and judges.

The military justice system seems ill-equipped to deal with this type of crime and was not designed to deal with this type of offence. Corporal Raymond finally won her case by going before the civilian courts after several years of hard fighting.

We also noted at committee that, when faced with hundreds of allegations of assault and harassment, General Vance launched Operation Honour in 2015, which promised to ensure that victims of sexual misconduct would feel safe coming forward. However, Operation Honour did not live up to its promises. According to an investigation by The Fifth Estate, in the four years following its inception, the military conviction rate for sexual assault was 14%, well below the 42% conviction rate in Canadian civilian courts. Many of the cases in the military courts often ended in inadequate settlements between the prosecution and the defence.

Beyond that, an entire culture must change. The committee also heard from Julie Lalonde, who spoke about the difficulties she experienced when she tried to deliver her training to the cadets at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston. When she tried to teach them about harassment issues, the comments she heard were degrading, chauvinist and sexist.

A retired lieutenant-colonel came to testify about the reprisal he experienced when he tried to help an employee who asked him to report that she was facing harassment and human rights violations by a senior manager.

Several survivors also testified about the lack of acknowledgement of the trauma they had experienced. We now recognize the consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from overseas missions, but victims of sexual assault and misconduct do not get the same recognition. The consequences are felt not only by the survivors, but by everyone around them.

Speaking of overseas missions, there have been articles showing that in addition to addressing the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces, we must also probe the culture surrounding what happens during foreign missions. It could even be a matter of national security.

According to Ms. Raymond, who testified before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, from what she heard, if cases of assault are happening here, internally, then they must also be happening on overseas missions.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women had already undertaken a study, but it had to be halted when the 2019 election was called.

In closing, we absolutely need to put an end to the code of silence surrounding the environment of abuse of power and harassment. We need to put an end to the complicit silence within the Canadian Armed Forces. Let us stop looking for scapegoats. Let us complete the studies being carried out by the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, because we really need to stop discouraging women and those who want to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to stop putting off taking action by requesting yet another report.

We need practical solutions to help survivors, so let us take action.