Debates of May 4th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in the Military

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to be really clear here. We are in the House today talking about what is happening to women across the country, but we are not focusing on the results they need to feel safe in the military. We are talking about firing a woman who actually does not have that much power. The power lies in the minister's hands and the Prime Minister's hands.

Could the member talk about why they chose this, instead of actually bringing forward something that would make a difference for women serving this country?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is quite simple. The chief of staff to the Prime Minister is one of the most powerful people in the country, and if Katie Telford did not share this information with the Prime Minister, then she deserves to be fired because she did not fulfill her own duties, or her responsibility, to the country and the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister did know, and he has been misleading Canadians about that from the start, then he should apologize, come clean and tell us the truth once and for all.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address this opposition day motion by discussing our efforts to prevent and address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and the department of National Defence.

I want to talk about the efforts that were highlighted during last week's announcement about a new independent external comprehensive review and a new organization dedicated to creating the conditions for enduring cultural reform throughout the armed forces.

We recognize that our past efforts have failed. Serious allegations against senior military officers have cast a pall over the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence as a whole. We recognize that our efforts have not fully resolved the problems identified by survivors or delivered the results they deserved.

We have a responsibility to ensure that our people work in an environment where they are treated with dignity and respect. It is a responsibility that we take very seriously. With that in mind, I would like to take a moment to address recent accusations concerning the Minister of National Defence and the allegations against the former chief of defence staff, General Vance.

When the minister met with the then Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman on March 1, 2018, at the very end of the meeting, Mr. Walbourne raised a non-specific allegation against General Vance. Mr. Walbourne did not go into details. Out of respect for the integrity and independence of the investigative process, the minister directed the ombudsman to share the allegations with the appropriate authorities. The matter was shared with the Privy Council Office, which is directly responsible for Governor in Council appointments, including the chief of defence staff.

The fair and unbiased investigation into allegations of wrongdoing is fundamental to our system of justice. It is fundamental to our concept of democracy. Such investigations must never be or even appear to be tainted by political influence. The actions that the minister took were the same as the previous Conservative government. They are the same actions, in fact, that the leader of the opposition took when he received rumours of sexual misconduct regarding General Vance prior to his appointment as chief of the defence staff.

Over the past months, we have heard harrowing accounts from others who have faced sexual misconduct in the line of duty, pointing to serious problems with our institutional culture, and we highlighted the need for comprehensive and lasting change. I have personally heard from many survivors, many of those impacted, and I want to thank them for coming forward and sharing their accounts. It is making a difference. We have listened, and we are taking action.

As the minister announced last Thursday, former justice of the Supreme Court, Madame Louise Arbour, has agreed to lead a new, independent, external, comprehensive review of our institutional policies and culture. This review will build on previous efforts to date, including the Deschamps report.

Through this review, Madame Arbour will provide crucial, tangible recommendations on how we can better protect our people and set the conditions for a lasting culture change. Most notably, we will look to her for guidance and recommendations on how we can set up an independent external reporting system outside of the chain of command for defence team members that meets the needs of those who have experienced sexual misconduct. We will also look to her to help us to ensure that our military justice system can properly respond to incidents and put survivors at the centre of it.

We will strengthen our existing structures on both the military and civilian sides, including the sexual misconduct response centre, to provide greater confidence to those who need support, and to help us review our evaluation and promotion system in the Canadian Armed Forces with a focus on how our organization selects and trains its leaders.

This leadership piece is very important. In fact, this is critical. As we have seen from media reports, the previous Conservative government decided to appoint General Vance as chief of the defence staff, even though he was under active investigation into sexual misconduct by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the current leader of the opposition was personally aware of rumours of sexual misconduct.

Just as the Conservatives were about to appoint their hand-picked choice to lead the Canadian Armed Forces, the commanding officer leading the investigation into General Vance said he was under pressure to drop the investigation. Pressure from whom? Who was behind this pressure? Did the Conservative government push the investigation to be closed, to clear the way for General Vance? These are important questions that I hope my colleagues will address, but I digress.

I mentioned Madame Arbour earlier. Her work will provide crucial, tangible recommendations on how we can better protect our people and set the conditions for lasting culture change. She will carry out this work transparently and independently from the chain of command, with input from appropriate stakeholders inside and outside of the defence team. She will assess our progress in applying the recommendations of the Deschamps report and help us build on those efforts. Throughout the process, she will be able to provide any interim recommendations, which we will act upon as they come in.

In addition to the review by Madame Arbour, we have launched a new organization within the defence team, tasked with setting the conditions for cultural transformation across the institution. That is beginning right now. We know that there are problematic aspects of military culture that can foster sexual misconduct and other harmful behaviours. These are values, beliefs and behaviours that prioritize toughness and aggression over emotional intelligence and cooperation.

These parts of our culture are completely unacceptable. They make us less effective and reliable as an organization. They erode the confidence people have in our institution and, most importantly, they harm those who have chosen to wear the uniform and devoted their lives to keeping us safe.

Under the leadership of Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, serving as the chief of professional conduct and culture, this new organization will examine how we can address these toxic parts of our military culture, informed by best practices, as well as experts, advocates and those with lived experience, inside and outside of our military. This organization will unify, integrate and coordinate our existing efforts, including ensuring the interim steps Madame Arbour recommends are addressed immediately and fully. Ultimately, they will provide concrete steps that we can take to prevent sexual misconduct and other harmful behaviours from happening in the first place.

The work that this new organization has been tasked with, and Madame Arbour’s efforts, both take into account the fact that sexual misconduct does not happen in a bubble, nor is it the only harmful behaviour that can leave lasting trauma. To create lasting change, we have to look at the full spectrum of the problem.

We have to examine systemic challenges such as abuses of power, discrimination, biases and negative stereotypes, and address each of them appropriately. We have to shed ourselves of the outdated and toxic notions of what it means to be a warrior, an attitude that can foster these harmful behaviours and values. We have to transform the culture of our military from top to bottom, and we must have the right reporting and investigative structures in place to handle incidents when they occur.

We are deeply committed to building a culture of inclusion across the defence team. With these new initiatives, we are taking active steps to prevent sexual misconduct and other harmful behaviours by looking at our existing structures, and the values and behaviours of our institution.

We are ensuring that every member of our team is treated with dignity and respect at all times. At the same time, we also know that we need to do more to support people when they have been harmed. That is why, through budget 2021, our government is providing over $236 million in funding to expand our support systems to ensure the independence of sexual misconduct allegations and to improve our capacity to handle harassment and gender-based violence through the military justice system. As part of this, we are expanding the reach of our sexual misconduct response centres across the country. This is an important step to ensure that members and veterans who have been affected by military sexual trauma can access the resources and the supports they need.

We have heard from people affected by military sexual trauma and we know that they face different challenges than survivors of other forms of conflict-based trauma. That is why the work that our sexual misconduct response centres do is so important. They have been a key resource for those in our organization affected by sexual misconduct since 2015. They offer 24/7 confidential support and counselling services to anyone who reaches out and, crucially, their work is carried out independently from the military chain of command.

Dr. Denise Preston and her team help members navigate the various support services available to them, both inside and outside the department. They can help members access the right mechanisms to report incidents of sexual misconduct, including a military liaison team made up of a Military Police liaison officer, a special military adviser and a military liaison officer. This team is dedicated to the work of the SMRC and they are experts in their field. They can give members advice about how to make a complaint or about what is involved in an investigative process and they can facilitate reporting if the member chooses to do so.

The SMRC can also assign a dedicated counsellor to support members through the process, including advocating for them, accompanying them to appointments and assisting with workplace accommodations. However, this is just one piece of the work they do.

The SMRC is also working with affected members to develop new programs and create a national survivor-supported strategy and it provides crucial, expert guidance and recommendations that shape the policies and programs we have in place across the defence team.

To support its efforts, budget 2021 also provides funding to develop a new peer-to-peer support program. In the coming weeks and months, we will work with Veterans Affairs Canada, professionals, mental health professionals and those with lived experience to launch this program. It will include both online and in-person support informed by best practices and available to any Canadian Armed Forces member or veteran who has been harmed.

Finally, this funding also ensures that we will continue our efforts to implement the declaration of victims rights in our military justice system.

We have worked extensively with victims groups and we will soon launch an online questionnaire to solicit anonymous feedback from DND employees and Canadian Armed Forces members. Through these efforts, we will make the changes needed to modernize our military justice system in line with the commitments we put forth in Bill C-77. We are dedicated to building a military justice system that takes a victim-centric approach and truly gives victims and survivors a voice. We have already made some important progress implementing Bill C-77 and we will keep doing this critical work.

We want to ensure that we have the best support available when people have been harmed. Through the funding provided in budget 2021, we are doing just that. We know that gaps in our institutional policies led us to fail our fellow team members. We have not lived up to our responsibility to protect our people. We have seen that the values we proclaim to hold dear do not always match people’s lived experiences.

Every defence team member, every Canadian, deserves to work in an environment free from harassment and discrimination, an environment where they are treated with dignity and respect, an environment where they are valued for their skills. However, the past weeks and months have shown us we still have a lot of work to do to make this environment a reality.

For those who have been harmed, I am very truly sorry. We have listened; we are still listening. Our efforts must deal with the issues at the root of the problem. We cannot just treat sexual misconduct on a case-by-case basis. We have also learned that culture change on this scale cannot simply be ordered. It requires active effort from all of us and a strong understanding of the parts of our culture that have caused harm. Our efforts must be comprehensive. They must be lasting. They must address the systemic changes that keep us from moving forward.

I know that many people are skeptical of our efforts, and with good reason. Too much damage has been done. Too many people have been affected.

However, I promise that we will do whatever it takes to transform the culture within our Canadian Armed Forces and get to the root of sexual misconduct and other toxic behaviours.

I also want to make it clear that the measures the minister announced last week are just the first steps based on the conclusions of the independent external comprehensive review.

Under the leadership of the chief of professional conduct and culture, and following the recommendations of other experts dedicated to cultural transformation, we will continue to make progress.

We will do whatever it takes to restore confidence, and we will keep working to ensure a genuine culture of dignity and respect for all those serving in the forces.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was saying the right words, but the actions do not actually align. The Prime Minister many years ago suggested a minister should be fired simply over a $16-orange juice, but for over three years now, no one in the military has been held to account for very important allegations that were made.

The government said that it would redo a report that was already done. My question for the parliamentary secretary is this. What does she have to say about no one being held to account and about another study being done when the government has a very comprehensive document that should be used to make the changes required?

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

Madam Speaker, in fact, people are being held to account. We are seeing right now that there are ongoing military police investigations. We are very grateful to Madame Deschamps for the report. In fact, we have put in legislation and created a whole new institution, the SMRC, but it was not enough.

Even Madame Deschamps has said that Madame Arbour will build on the work she did. The terms of reference are very broad. Madame Deschamps laid out what the problem was and what needed to be done. What Madame Arbour is doing is the how. We heard the minister say that Madame Arbour's recommendations will be binding.

It is very important to note that we are not leaving it to the military and the department to do the implementation and interpret the recommendations. This time, Madame Arbour will go through the extremely important task of laying out of exactly what needs to be done, and it will be implemented.

I know the survivors are skeptical, but they will see we are building on the work we have already done. We are continuing to do that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, over the past few weeks I have been very saddened by the debates on this critical issue, for a variety reasons. Among these reasons, there is the seriousness of the subject itself and the fact that the military institution has been brought into total disrepute, even though it is a strong symbol for society in general. The crisis has contributed to a complete loss of confidence on the part of the military in their chain of command and on the part of the general public in the institution.

The Bloc Québécois will never form government. Therefore, it will never launch a war of accusations to find out who is guilty, whether it be the previous Conservative government, the present Liberal government or the next government to be elected. It is more important that we resolve this situation once and for all. Given the current context of a minority government, we will not have much time to debate.

My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, listed all the mechanisms that currently exist, as well as the various elements of the Deschamps Report, which proposed some fairly specific corrections that need to be swiftly implemented. I must also remind our colleagues—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I asked for a question. The member has been speaking for a while now. If he wants to ask a question, it is time to do so. If not, I will ask the parliamentary secretary to respond. The exchanges must not take more than one minute because many people do have questions to ask.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my question.

We are talking about the top ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. Perhaps it is time to make a decision instead of dithering and getting nowhere. My question—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I think Mr. Wernick said it best, when the former clerk of the Privy Council testified that everyone acted in good faith.

At this point, one of the key problems is that we do not have a process in place where people feel safe coming forward. Without having somebody willing to come forward, it is very hard to hold people accountable and to investigate. That is what we are addressing. That is what we are focused on right now. That is what Madame Arbour is addressing.

I will note that there are many different views about how an external reporting body should be structured. That is Madame Arbour's task. That is something well beyond what Madame Deschamps did. She said that we needed something outside. We are now looking at actually implementing it.

I would note that this is the first time in history that senior military officers are all agreeing to take this outside of the military, to have external accountability. This is a hugely significant change. It is a moment where, yes, absolutely, this should have been done much sooner, decades ago, but we are getting it done now.

I hope all members of the House will work together with us to ensure that we do right by these women and men in uniform.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned repeatedly, and we heard it repeatedly from the Minister of National Defence, that the minister did not want to be involved because he did not want to politically influence this case and the process.

Would the member not agree that by not acting, by ignoring the pleas of this women and shuffling it off to somebody else, saying it is somebody else's responsibility, is a form of political influence that negatively impacted women coming forward?

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I reject the premise of that question.

This was acted on within hours. We all know that as politicians we should not be the ones investigating and we should not be the ones who are taking the action. We have heard members of the House say that we should have told General Vance there was an allegation, which would have tipped him off, the last thing survivors want. Even well-intentioned, politicians should not be doing this.

In fact, the minister, within hours, ensured that it went to the correct place, which is the Privy Council Office. Within a day, it contacted Mr. Walbourne to see whether he could provide what we now know was an email. We did not have that. We did not have the name of the complainant. We did not even know that it was an email. We did not know the nature or the specifics of the allegations.

Again, I go to my previous comment. If people felt safe to come forward, we would have that information and we could do an investigation. That is the focus. That is what we are working on. I know the NDP joins us in wanting to establish that kind of process, so it is outside of the chain of command. That is the way—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very closely to what Conservatives have been saying today. I have heard the member for Portage—Lisgar, when introducing the motion, say it is based on something that the Prime Minister is saying that she does not even believe to be true. I have heard the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman say that this motion is about the PM showing his poker hand. I have heard the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo reference a former Conservative chief of staff who was asked to be fired over a $14 orange juice.

Is this payback? I do not understand. All of the information that has been brought forward by Conservatives today does not seem to address the issue as much as it is a narrative about attacking the Prime Minister. Can the parliamentary secretary comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said it very well. We really need to make sure that we end the toxic, partisan finger-pointing, and all parties get together and focus on what we can do to provide the right supports to survivors. We are not going to get it right every time. In Operation Honour, we did not get it right but we tried certain things. We keep on trying things. We put in legislation to change the justice system, such as Bill C-77. We have put in a whole new institution, which is the SMRC.

We have to build on the things that were done right and then make the changes survivors are asking for. We really need to be listening to survivors and I think that is being lost in this debate today. This is not about the politicians, the men, and who said what or who did what. This is about the people, men and women, who need us right now. They need Parliament to be focused on solutions, on fixing the problem and on doing right by them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind hon. members to limit their questions and comments to one minute.

There are many members who want to ask questions, so it is important for everyone to limit their time to one minute, to allow others to participate.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

After reading the Conservative motion, I cannot say we were surprised that such a motion was moved. For weeks now, we have been disappointed time and time again by the government's failure to act or properly contain this situation. Instead, the scandal continues to grow.

It all began when the Canadian Forces ombudsman approached the Minister of National Defence to inform him about an issue with his chief of the defence staff. The ombudsman indicated that he was in possession of emails and evidence demonstrating inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature by the chief of the defence staff.

Rather than looking into the matter, taking it seriously and examining the evidence, the defence minister decided that he did not want to know anything about it. He therefore chose to turn a blind eye and look the other way. That is when the problem began. Usually, when someone presents evidence and disturbing facts to the authorities, they expect everything to go well and they hope the authorities will take the necessary steps to fix the problem.

What were the consequences? The Minister of National Defence refused to hold any more meetings with the then ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, until the end of his term, so when he left office. The minister looked the other way and did everything in his power to avoid having to deal with the situation. For three years, the minister allowed General Vance to remain at his post despite the allegations that had been brought to his attention. Worse yet, he even gave General Vance a raise.

When the story was reported in the media and everyone started to realize what happened, the minister said that the ombudsman had not talked to the right person. He started blaming the ombudsman. It seems that the ombudsman should not have gone to the minister to talk to him about his chief of the defence staff.

The ombudsman, however, told us that the only person he could go see was the Minister of Defence. That was then confirmed by the next ombudsman, who said that he would have done exactly the same thing in his predecessor's shoes. The minister was in trouble. Then, the minister claimed that he was unaware of the sexual nature of the allegations.

The government was no better. The Prime Minister also claimed he was unaware. In the end it came out that some employees of the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office were in fact aware. Then the Prime minister reiterated that he was unaware, but we were right to say that his office was aware. Finally, the Prime Minister was unaware, but his office and the PCO were aware. The Prime Minister then clarified that he and his office were unaware of the sexual nature of the allegations. That was also later denied.

Unfortunately, it is all one big mess right now, since the government's story changes as the situation evolves. We keep learning more. Even if it turns out that more people were aware, the situation is still not resolved.

Allow me to give an overview of the situation. The Minister of National Defence was aware, because the ombudsman told him. However, the minister refused to look at the documents, take meaningful action or conduct an investigation. The chief of staff to the Minister of Defence was aware. The clerk of the Privy Council was aware. Elder Marques, an adviser to the Prime Minister, was aware. The Prime Minister's chief of staff was aware, and she was the one who apparently told Elder Marques, according to his testimony. All of these people were aware, but the Prime Minister was not.

It becomes harder and harder to believe the Liberals when this is what they are telling us, especially when they are doing everything they can to prevent people from testifying in committee.

The meeting that the Standing Committee on National Defence was supposed to hold this week was unilaterally cancelled by the committee chair. Before that, the government was filibustering to try to kill as much time as possible in committee so that the chief of staff would not be able to come testify and tell us what she knew.

Every time we invite a new witness, we learn that someone else was also aware of the situation. Perhaps we have gotten to the last step before finding out that the Prime Minister knew as well. Perhaps Ms. Telford would have had no choice but to tell us that the Prime Minister was aware or perjure herself. By all indications, that is where we were headed. It is getting harder and harder to believe that the Prime Minister was not aware when everyone else was. Their whole story is getting harder to believe.

Speaking of hard to believe, it is important that we come back to the Minister of National Defence. When we asked him why he did not act and look at the information being presented to him, he answered that he wanted to avoid political interference. In his view, reading the documentation and the evidence presented to him would have constituted political interference. That is his story.

However, when we heard from the current ombudsman and his predecessor, both said it absolutely would not have been political interference for him to read the information that was being brought to his attention. That is quite the opposite view. We also asked the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service whether reading the information would have been political interference, and we were told it would not.

After that, the minister stated that it was not up to him to conduct the investigation. Members will notice that the story changed slightly again. First, reading the documents was interference, but then ordering an investigation was also interference. He is therefore claiming that looking at documents constitutes investigating. This reasoning is a bit twisted, but that is the Liberals' reasoning at present.

Looking at documents is now considered the same as conducting an investigation. The mere possibility of looking at the documents and calling for an investigation is no longer even being considered. Interference is being confused with all kinds of terms, in all kinds of ways.

We presented all of these twisted Liberal stories to various committee witnesses, including the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, and, each time, we were told that it absolutely was not interference to look at documents or to call for an investigation. The only interference there could have been would have been if someone had interfered with the investigation in an attempt to undermine it.

By not doing his job, we could say the minister undermined the investigation and prevented the situation from being resolved so we could get to the bottom of this matter.

After attempting to blame everyone except themselves, the Liberals are now trying to use interference as an excuse for sitting on their hands and not dealing with the problem. The minister has done nothing, just as he did nothing with Justice Deschamps' report. That report was placed on his desk in 2015, six years ago, and the recommendations it contained have yet to be put in place.

The frustrating part is that, last week, the government tried to make everyone forget about all that by making a big show of announcing that it was appointing Justice Arbour to do more or less what Justice Deschamps did six years ago. Basically, it is going back to square one and sweeping all that under the rug. That is frustrating because it could have chosen to act on the recommendations in the Deschamps report now. Instead, it is kicking the can down the road and trying to convince people that it is doing something when the truth is that nothing is being done. Ultimately, the minister is refusing to admit that he is responsible for this situation.

One can sense the panic. The government would have us believe it is doing something revolutionary by doing the same thing that was done six years ago. In the end, all of that came to naught. After pretending they had no idea what was going on, the governing Liberals, like the minister, tried to blame everyone but themselves. Now that their backs are to the wall, they are blaming the system and are incapable of taking responsibility for failing to take action. That is deeply disappointing.

I am sure that, when Canadian Armed Forces members and civilians realize the government did nothing and tolerated people doing these things, with all the blame—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I apologize for interrupting the member, but his time is up. He still has time to respond to questions and comments though.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, a few minutes ago the parliamentary secretary made a very nice speech taking responsibility and admitting that the Liberals did things wrong. I found myself thinking that this was really a speech that the Minister of National Defence needed to give. Contrary to that, on Sunday when being interviewed by Mercedes Stephenson, the minister was asked five times whether he was advised by the ombudsman that this was a matter of inappropriate sexual behaviour, and he refused to answer.

Tell me, how can we solve a problem if the minister will not even admit that there is one?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question. We have asked the same question five times and still have not gotten an answer. In the past, the minister claimed that he was not aware of the allegations of sexual misconduct. Now, on television, he is no longer even answering the question. As a result, we are wary of the minister's answer, or rather his lack of answer.

It is disappointing because, as my colleague pointed out, this prevents us from getting to the bottom of this matter and discovering the truth. It dashes our hopes that a process will be implemented for the future. The government is trying to tell us that it will stop investigating and resolve the situation in the Canadian Armed Forces. However, the problem is that it will be very difficult to believe that credible action is being taken to resolve the problem unless and until we find out what is going on at the top.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I think he provided a complete picture of the situation.

The defence minister misled a parliamentary committee and then tried to cover it up. He then blamed someone else and said that it was not his fault. Now, he is hiding and being contradicted by the former ombudsman. When we asked him to take action, the only thing he did was to launch a new review of the practices of the Canadian army, when Justice Deschamps' recommendations have been around for six years. The government is once again putting things off.

Does my colleague not find that this motion misses the mark? It is not really the Prime Minister's chief of staff who should resign, but the Minister of National Defence himself.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point.

I would not go so far as to say that the official opposition motion is completely unnecessary, because it also asks whether the Prime Minister was aware. He claims he was not, but everyone around him was. His government is adamantly refusing to allow his chief of staff to appear before the committee, which is really frustrating.

At the end of the day, clearly, the one person who did not take the necessary action was the Minister of National Defence. He was the one to whom the situation was first reported, and he was the one who refused to act, to make the decisions that needed to be made and to look at the facts. He chose to put off taking action, and he did so with willful blindness. It is his department that is on fire, so the buck stops with him. The Prime Minister is not entirely blameless, however.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, which bring the government's inaction to light.

We must not forget the victims underlying this debate who are waiting for us to take action as parliamentarians. People continue to fall through the cracks because of this government's inaction. I imagine you have other examples of this inaction to share?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address the Chair and not the member directly.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères has time for a quick response.