Debates of June 17th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member. She said that the Conservatives were questioning the service of the defence minister. The Conservative member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who served in the military, got up and said that this is not about the service record of the minister when he was in the military.

It is about his service record here in the House of Commons as the Minister of Defence. From the CF-18 debacle to the Mark Norman debacle to the fact he did nothing about General Vance and the succession of people who have had to step down, he has taken no action. Leadership is about accountability. With all of the things the minister has failed on, is that not the reason he needs to step down?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to help the member understand the impact of the words of this motion and how it impacts the minister's respect. The motion states “that the Minister of National Defence has clearly lost the respect of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including those at the highest ranks” and then lists a number of reasons.

The member spoke about leadership and accountability. I would argue that leadership is about listening. We are here to serve Canadians, and the way we can serve Canadians, including those who serve in our armed forces, is to listen in a non-partisan way instead of playing these kinds of political games. The way we can serve them is to sit down, listen in a non-partisan way, understand what the issues are and put our heads together and actually find those solutions. I challenge the member to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have here an 18-page summary that describes the actions of the Minister of National Defence since he has been in office. My colleague may not care, but I still want to tell her that I think the minister seems like a very nice man. He seems like a good person who probably has a good military record. I have no doubt about that. I would even go have a beer with him. That is not the problem. He failed as a minister and he is still in that position.

How can my colleague, who is a woman, no less, accept the fact that this minister covered up so many allegations of sexual misconduct in the military?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member sexual misconduct and abuse of power in the Canadian Armed Forces is not something that came up with the Liberal government. It has been ongoing for decades and decades and decades, and it is about high time we listened to those women and stopped using them to score cheap political points in trying to defame a very honourable minister and the whole institution of the Canadian Armed Forces. Again, I implore the member from the Bloc, can we please put our heads together in a non-partisan way and find those solutions instead of debating these useless motions?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very upset about the serious sexual misconduct allegations that came out in 2015 and then again in 2018, where research found there was a serious problem in our military. I want to know why the Prime Minister never ever mentioned this issue as a priority in any of the minister's mandate letters. Can the member explain the reason for that?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2021 outlines $236 million dedicated to combatting and eradicating sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. If that is not taking the issue seriously, I would love to hear his opinions and ideas to ensure that both women and men are safe as they serve our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills for allowing me to share my time with her. I very much enjoyed listening to what she had to say. Unfortunately, her time ran out at the end. She was about to say something that never actually resurfaced in response to questions.

I would like to finish what the member was about to say, that the leader of the opposition voted against Motion No. 103, which dealt with Islamophobia in Canada. In fact, only two Conservatives, two brave Conservatives, voted in favour of that motion. I hate to put you on the spot, Mr. Speaker, but I believe you were one of them as was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Every other Conservative voted against that motion. We find ourselves in the situation we are in today even though members like the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills tried to sound the alarm a few years ago, and the Conservatives chose to ignore it.

In any event, we are certainly not here to talk about that today. We are here to talk about the motion tabled by the official opposition, a motion that, in my opinion, is politically motivated, a motion whose only purpose is to try to defame a decorated veteran, a member of our cabinet, an individual who has served our country, who has done great things for our country and then has gone on to serve in the House.

This is not a surprise. This type of personal attack has been the ongoing theme of the Conservatives over the last six years. We have seen this day in and day out. Rather than talk about policy or how the Minister of Finance can do something different or the Prime Minister should work on a different policy, it has always been “the Minister of Finance is this; the Prime Minister is that”. It has been personal attacks day in and day out. Unfortunately, what we are seeing here is nothing more than that. It is the same thing, once again, trying to attack the credibility of an individual, somebody who has served his country and continues to do so in another capacity now.

Why? In my opinion, this is all for political partisan gain, thinking that this might skew the current polling numbers. Rather than talk about the issues and encourage Canadians to vote for them because of their ideas, the ideas they can bring forward on behalf of Canadians, the Conservatives spend all their time focusing on how to make other people look bad, so they become the default choice, ruining careers in the process.

Looking at the heart of this motion and in listening to members from other sides of the House today speak to it, a number of different issues come up. The main and most important issue is the culture that exists in our military. I really wish the motion would have focused on that. It is clear there is a ton of work to do with respect to that culture within the military.

I do not know if this is the natural way that hierarchical organizations in the military are structured, coupled with the natural desire to keep things hush hush within the organization that has produced this culture, but from what we have seen, it is extremely toxic. Change needs to happen, so the people in the military, women and men, who are harassed are properly cared for, but, more important, that they feel comfortable to come forward to talk about it so they can get the care and protection they need.

I could not agree more with a lot of the comments I heard earlier today about the vice chief of the defence staff playing golf with General Vance. The fact that happened is a huge issue.

The suggestion is that this issue lies at the feet of the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence does not approve the personal activities of individuals. Within organizations, it is expected that individuals can make good, sound judgments and decisions based on what is right and what is wrong, and this individual made a wrong decision. What happened? That individual is no longer in that position. It is entirely appropriate for us to accept the fact that the person is no longer in his position and it sends a clear message down the line that anymore behaviour like that will have the same result.

There has been a lot of discussion today about General Vance specifically, how he came to be in this role and how the current government had been propping him up, encouraging him, giving him raises and on and on. I am not going to go through the details again about how the complaint came forward, how it was handled, what was specifically said, what information was not obtained and why the investigation did not move forward. We have heard all about that on a number of occasions.

What about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who was the minister of veterans affairs previously, was made aware of allegations against General Vance? He did the right thing, exactly the same thing the national defence minister did. He brought those allegations forward. They were brought to the PMO. Stephen Harper knew about the allegations. He was made aware of them through his chief of staff. Stephen Harper even met with General Vance. He sat down with him and asked if any of the rumours were true, to which the reply was no, that none of them were true. Then Stephen Harper still appointed him even when he knew about this.

I find it extremely rich when the Conservatives stand in the House time and time again and point to the manner in which the current Minister of National Defence handled this. We can compare this to what Stephen Harper did. Harper sat down with him, like two boys having a beer, and asked Vance if he had done anything. Hearing no, he appointed him. Why did Harper not start a process to find out more about it? Why did he not dig into it? Why did he not insist on some form of an investigation? Why did he not do that? All he did was meet with the person who was accused, that person said he did not do it, he took his word for it and appointed him. The hypocrisy of this is that they literally went through almost the exact process and then appointed the individual.

The motion today, similar to yesterday's motion, is extremely unfortunate. We voted on the motion today to bring a public servant before the bar of the House. The New Democrats voted in favour of that. The champions of the public service, who will have a front-row seat when it happens on Monday, voted in favour of it. They can explain to the public service why they thought it was the right thing to do, why it was the right course of action.

It is shameful that we are having this discussion today, as was the discussion on the motion yesterday. I certainly will not be supporting this motion. It is just another attempt at a political grab in the last hours of this Parliament, for the Conservatives to somehow grab onto some form of relevancy.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have had the opportunity to hear the member for Kingston and the Islands straighten this issue out. We thought it was the Minister of National Defence who, for years, ignored evidence of sexual harassment, but all along it was Harper's fault. Now we know.

Putting that aside, I appreciate everything the gentleman has to say to cover up for the horrible deeds and lack of deeds of the Minister of National Defence. I have to ask him about the departmental plan.

The departmental plan is not like the budget; it is not an aspirational thing. It is a legal document brought to the House to justify the three-year plan and for the department to justify the spending of resources. In that plan, signed by the Minister of National Defence, is a goal to have only 12% of the Canadian Armed Forces be harassed. That is a goal.

If the member opposite really believed in ending harassment in the armed forces, why is it not a zero-tolerance policy? Why is the goal set at 12%?

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

Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives would ask a question like that. The member knows clearly the way these documents are put together. Only that member, a Conservative member, would interpret that to mean there is an actual goal. The ludicrousness of the question itself just shows that the member does not even take the issue seriously.

Back to his original point, I did not blame Harper. He clearly did not listen to what I said. What I said was that the current minister followed the exact same process that apparently the current Leader of the Opposition took as veterans affairs minister with the former prime minister, but that somehow it was different this time.

I would argue that the only difference is that the Conservative Party is much more interested in political gain than anything else.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, that deserves a standing ovation. What a jaw-dropping performance. The Liberals have been in power for six years. We know for a fact there were cases of sexual misconduct in the military. They are the ones in power, yet it is everyone's fault but their own.

What an extraordinary production. Bravo. Congratulations, that was incredible. I could never put on such an amazing act. I do not know many in the House who could.

The government has had the Deschamps report for six years. Keeping in mind that this was written six years ago, it says:

...there is [a] culture...that is hostile to women and LGTBQ members, and conducive to more serious incidents of sexual harassment and assault. ...It is not enough to simply revise policies or to repeat the mantra of “zero tolerance”. Leaders must acknowledge that sexual misconduct is a real and serious problem for the organization, one that requires their own direct and sustained attention.

The government has had the report in its possession for six years, but it has not done a darn thing.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member was an actor in his former life, and there are few people who are more animated in the House than me, at least from my perspective, but I do applaud that. When someone from his position is complimentary toward me in my ability to represent my constituents in the House, I am certainly flattered by that.

However, his notion that this government, that the minister did nothing is absolutely false. The notion that no action has been taken on this file for the last six years is also completely false. I sat on the national defence committee for four years. We studied this issue.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has turned a blind eye to evidence of war crimes by Iraqi troops who Canadians were training as a part of Operation Impact. When the Canadian trainers were shown evidence of war crimes, including rape and murder, the Minister of National Defence refused to open up an inquiry.

How does the hon. member reconcile these reports, when the Minister of National Defence is failing to live up to the government's legal obligations to report war crimes?

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

If the member is so passionate about that particular item, why did he not amend the motion to include it? The motion does not include any of the references he made.

To his point, I have great faith in the minister's ability to report sexual misconduct when he sees it, which has been told to the House time and time again. If the member has factual information about the reporting process, what happened or what the minister did not do, I would love for him to come forward and tell us about the conversations that he claims to know something about.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

I hold in great respect the opportunity to participate in today's debate. The topic of this debate is something I hold close to my heart, as both my brother and father served our country. I witnessed first-hand the honour, integrity and respect they both held for the roles and their time in service.

My father served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Navy during World War II on HMCS Stormont in the Battle of the Atlantic. In his recollection of his experience in the navy, he stated, “True leaders lead by their actions, not by the words.” It was a virtue that he carried out throughout his entire life and was the foundation of what made him a noble leader who many respected and looked up to, me included.

My brother, who served as a pilot from 1981 to 1996, was a captain at the National Defence headquarters and also a man who led with a high degree of integrity, righteousness, honesty and the type of honourableness that gains trust from fellow comrades, as well as from citizens for whom my family had the privilege of serving.

Lastly, the riding I represent, Edmonton Centre, was previously held by the Hon. Laurie Hawn, who also served in the Canadian military with distinction. I have enormous respect for him.

I share these personal stories because they make up only a few of the individuals who have been recognized as contributors to Canada's reputation of having a noble, virtuous, principled and ethical armed forces. It is these folks who we owe great respect to, as they have upheld our entire country to a standard of righteousness, rectitude and reverence.

It is because of these noble individuals that we have been able to effortlessly create trust between the armed forces and the public, the very cohesion to create unification, wholeness and a sense of togetherness in this country. It is a cohesion that has been eroded for six straight years, and the defence minister has placed all Canadians at risk of ever trusting our armed forces again by covering up sexual misconduct allegations. This is alarming, troublesome and unacceptable. More than that, it is offensive and completely dismissive of all the individuals who have come before the minister and those who are currently serving and doing so with a high regard for themselves, their actions and the Canadians they serve. As I stand here today, I cannot help but think about the women in my life and all the women residing in Canada who have witnessed the government shamefully continue to turn a blind eye to this and neglect the previous claim of being a feminist government that empowers women.

This is not about the minister's military service. We acknowledge that he served with incredible distinction. This is about what is happening today. It is about the impacts these actions and the lack of responsibility have on all Canadians today, and will have moving forward if appropriate measures are not taken. This is about ensuring that we as a country feel immense pride in our institution that continues to serve, that all men and women feel it is a safe place where sexual allegations are taken seriously and that any further incidents of sexual misconduct will be condemned and justice will be served. This is about creating certainty for the men and women currently serving and those who are contemplating joining our armed forces so that if they ever encounter this type of harassment, their government will not turn a blind eye, like this one has continued to do for many years.

This involves all of us. All of Canada's reputation is on the line. Anyone who genuinely and sincerely cares about the credibility, stature and honour of this country and our institutions would nobly resign and refuse to be selfish by remaining in a role that is no longer held in trust by the people it is meant to serve.

If the Prime Minister continues to make the choice not to act like a leader in this serious situation and leaves this to the defence minister, who has serious allegations against him, the result will be a continued erosion of the relationship between institutions, government and public. The lack of action speaks tremendous volumes about this Prime Minister's leadership and where he stands on equity for all persons.

This is not about partisanship and it is certainly not about politics. It is about ethics, morals and the willingness to do the right thing and protect the citizens who serve and the citizens who look to their government and their institutions for protection. How can we expect our honourable armed forces to keep us safe if CAF members themselves do not feel safe in the armed forces?

It is astounding that months after we called for action and years after sexual allegations were released, the Prime Minister decided to protect his own chief of staff rather than the thousands of men and women who serve this country. That is an insult to all of us. The Prime Minister has blatantly shown us where his true values lie, and it is certainly not with our armed forces and the people who graciously and righteously choose to be of service.

We will not back down from holding leaders and all persons in government to the highest standard of honesty and integrity. The minister and the Liberals refused to be accountable for their failure on the sexual misconduct allegations made against General Vance three years ago, but they have had the opportunity in the last couple of months and weeks to clean up their actions, recover their reputation and just ask the defence minister to step down. However, instead of the Liberals spending the past few weeks figuring out how they could make this situation better and lead with more dignity and integrity, we found out that the military's second in command, the vice chief of the defence staff, and the commander of the navy went golfing with Canada's former chief of the defence staff, the retired Jonathan Vance, who remains under military police investigation for the alleged inappropriate behaviour we speak of. This is problematic given that the vice chief has oversight of the police force investigating Vance.

It is blatantly obvious that the standard of conduct that is being held by the government is shameful and embarrassing, and the minister's leadership, or lack thereof, is downright deceitful. Over two months ago, Canada's Conservatives not only continued to speak out about the government's wrongful dismissal of the allegation, but also acknowledged that no amount of words would ever recovery a situation like this one involving the defence minister, as so much trust has been broken.

This is not something that can be combed over with an apology or long words on the history of the minister's military service, regardless of how distinguished it is. This requires taking action and responding to the current impacts that the lack of measures has had and will continue to have. Change and reinstatement of a noble government and a noble armed forces can only come through action, the very thing missing from the minister.

This is not a partisan issue. This is certainly not a personal issue against the Minister of National Defence. This is a countrywide issue affecting all of us. How could trust be instilled by the same person and persons who lost it and by the ones who are to blame for placing the collectiveness between government, the armed forces and the broader public in discord? The faith in a just and equitable government has diminished and will continue to do so until we see notable activity.

This is why the Conservatives have laid out an accountable, actionable plan that will be implemented to tackle the issue of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. The plan will recover the trust that has been broken and reinstate the integrity lost. This plan will include an inclusive service-wide independent investigation into the sexual misconduct in the military. It involves suspending all general and flag officer promotions and salary increases while an investigation into sexual misconduct of the military is taking place. Furthermore, it will involve the introduction of policies to ensure that future complaints are made to an external independent body outside the chain of command.

Canada's Conservatives will continue to stand up for women and men in uniform and demand the Liberals end their cover-up of sexual misconduct. We cannot allow our daughters, sisters and mothers to work in unsafe environments. No one should be subjected to sexual harassment when they show up to serve our country.

I stand here to ensure that any woman or man can serve their country with honour and without compromise. I stand here on behalf of my brother and father, who served and contributed to the uncorrupted and therefore reputable armed forces. I stand here for the thousands of Canadians who so selflessly served in our armed forces and continue to serve. I stand here on behalf of the Conservative Party, but also for every single Canadian who is questioning the character that makes up the government and the morals it leads with. If the government truly believed in leading with the highest degree of integrity, ethics and equity and believed in justice for all, then the decision to censure the minister would occur without hesitation.

I will conclude with my father's words, a man who served in the Royal Canadian Navy, from his recollection of his experience in the navy: “True leaders lead by their actions, not by their words.” I stand here and appallingly question the entire government's morals and lack of action and ask it this: If the government is so willing to let this terrible example of abuse of power slide, what else will it let slide?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing stories of his personal recollections of his father and others, like the former member for his riding.

I will ask for the member's opinion.

In 2012, the previous government axed nearly $5 billion from the budget that was available for defence. It had let $10 billion of approved funding go unspent since 2007, and this included nearly $7 billion in DND's capital budget. We heard from survivors in the Canadian Armed Forces about how much impact this kind of funding has on gender-appropriate equipment for soldiers who are serving our country.

How does the member feel about the fact that the party he represents made all of these cuts? How did this impact the Canadian Armed Forces and how—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, how do I feel about an issue as important as this today? Did the member actually hear my speech? This is about today. This is not about what happened before. This is about action that can be taken today.

We need leadership. We need the defence minister to show some leadership. If he wanted to do the right thing, he would resign.

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

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Minister of National Defence stated that the nature of the allegations against General Vance was unimportant and that what mattered was the steps taken. We quite agree. As a friend of mine would say, “Go for it, big guy.” No steps were taken though. The minister had everything he needed right there in front of him, right in the Deschamps report, for six years. The report is smart and substantive, and it contains plenty of meaningful, detailed measures.

Can my colleague comment on that?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, to add to my colleague's question, the last thing we need is more studies. We have a report, and we have suggestions on how we can fix the problems. It is time to execute on that, but it is not what we have seen from the Minister of National Defence. He has had ample opportunity to act on that report, but he has not done it. We should get on with it and get it done.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I think Canadians are most concerned about when they hear news of the Canadian Armed Forces these days are these allegations of sexual misconduct that just keep coming.

Over the last three years that I have been in the House, every time the Minister of National Defence has stood up, he has said that when he heard allegations, he reported them immediately to the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. He did the right thing.

I am wondering if the Conservative motion today has been framed in the wrong way and that perhaps the defence minister is right that it is the Prime Minister's Office that is at fault here.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, leadership starts at the top, so who is responsible? Ultimately, in the government, it is the Prime Minister of Canada who is responsible. He should do the right thing and make sure the minister resigns.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, sexual harassment is not a new phenomenon in the forces. It has been going for a very long time, and it did not start in 2015.

In the 10 years that Stephen Harper was rime minister, how many senior officers left the forces because of allegations of sexual misconduct?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is another classic example of the idea that it is Stephen Harper's fault. I find that appalling. Action has to be taken now, and it is this government that needs to take action.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion. For months, we have heard through the media allegations of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and the complicity of the Minister of National Defence. This prompted the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to launch a study into sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which we just concluded and the committee report was tabled today.

Many of the FEWO study witnesses spoke of the Canadian Armed Forces' challenges with repeated sexual misconduct incidents, with one witness noting, “I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in July of 2018. Since then, I feel like I've experienced a lifetime's worth of sexual assault and misconduct.”

Another witness who appeared before the committee gave a very interesting perspective on the double standard that the military justice system has toward women and men. The witness discussed how when they were deployed in Afghanistan an investigation had been conducted into a consensual relationship she had with a U.S. officer who was not in her unit but was of the same rank. She admitted that the relationship she had was against regulations and that she had pleaded guilty to the charges. She was fined, repatriated from theatre and posted out of her unit. She accepted this as her punishment.

However, as a result, she was called demeaning names and was told she was not worthy of leading soldiers. She said she was threatened with violence by commanding officers and would be repeatedly chastised by other officers. She was sent to work alone in an office managing a single Excel spreadsheet, and it quickly became clear to her that her career in the Canadian Armed Forces was over.

When she left the military, she had originally been given an offer to go into the reserves, but that was revoked upon her leaving, with the commanding officer telling her she was not the type of leader he wanted in his unit. She said that her biggest failure in life was how she was pushed out of the armoured corps, and that is something she continues to carry immense shame for.

However, this is precisely the type of leadership displayed by the former chief of the defence staff, who served as the longest-serving chief of the defence staff. This former CDS, General Vance, not only rolled out Operation Honour, but at the same time was having inappropriate relations with those under his command.

That included one woman who, when she appeared before FEWO, mentioned how she had asked questions about who would have the ability to investigate actions against the chief of the defence staff and whether the CFNIS would be the appropriate body. The response the general gave her was that he was “untouchable” because he owned the CFNIS. It was deeply concerning to hear that someone would actually believe he was above the law and would be willing to create an unsafe work environment and felt he could not be investigated. To this day, this woman believes she is not going to get justice for herself, but that it was important for her to come forward so the issue could be dealt with, with the aim that other women in the military would be able to get justice. It is not hard to see why this witness would believe that.

Over this past weekend, we heard that while under investigation, General Vance went golfing with Vice-Admiral Baines and Lieutenant-General Rouleau, who himself held oversight authority for the military police. The abuse of authority and the flagrant disregard for women in the Canadian Armed Forces are completely disgusting.

Shortly after a witness appeared before our committee, a Facebook group of military police were making comments such as “If you sleep with a senior rank you get good postings and promotion to support the bastards but no parenting and support from the senior rank”. Another said, “Giggity”, while another said, “Her story is about as clear as a PMQ orgy party on pay day.” It is no wonder women do not feel safe in our Canadian Armed Forces.

What makes this worse is that all of this occurred under the watch of this minister, who, to this day, has yet to take any responsibility for his role in allowing for this toxic culture to exist.

When the minister appeared before committee, my colleague said to him, “[Y]ou're not owning up to the reality that you're not taking action to create a shift in the culture.... [T]he longer you continue to dodge responsibility this way or that—it's not going to change.... If you keep repeating the same points—I'm just sensing you're still not owning up to this”. The minister just kept repeating the same points. He did not take any responsibility for the actions of the General Vance investigations.

As was pointed out to our committee:

...General Vance had to be protected because he was seen as a rising star during his career and therefore a good move for the military. It wasn't in the interest of the Forces to cast him aside or investigate him due to an allegation of sexual misconduct or assault. You don't want to tarnish the career or cause the loss of a valuable co-worker who is your right-hand man, for example. So General Vance's superiors or peers certainly had an interest in hiding these things, because they liked his work, operationally speaking.

Canadians expect our ministers to represent all Canadians, work to defend all Canadians and support all Canadians. However, all the minister has done is protect and excuse the inexcusable, and he has sent a message to all those serving in uniform that as long as one is a man, a friend and high enough in rank, one can sexually assault someone and the minister will turn a blind eye on it. This is not my Canada.

A fundamental change within the Canadian Forces with regard to its toxic culture and sexual misconduct issues is needed to ensure the safety and success of its members. Our brave service members deserve better. Conservatives are committed to ensuring that change occurs in the Canadian Armed Forces and will continue to hold the government to account on its shortcomings on this file, including and especially the need to take responsibility for the ongoing leadership crisis and the harm it has caused.

As a woman, it broke my heart to listen to the witnesses come forward and tell their stories, and how they continue to live with the trauma of sexual misconduct and sexual assault months, years and decades later. We constantly heard from witnesses about how tiring and disrespectful it is to continue to just talk about this issue. These are conversations we have had for decades.

All of the survivors spoke of the urgency to bring about cultural change, but they and military academics highlighted the requirement of having the most senior leadership, including the minister, involved directly in this change.

What we have seen from the minister is an abdication of his responsibilities in bringing about this change. He testified at committee that even prior to being appointed minister he was aware of this issue. If he truly was aware of this issue and the significance of it, then why has he sat silently on the sidelines while women have suffered significantly under his watch? Why did he turn a blind eye when his buddy, the former chief of the defence staff, was placed under investigation? Why does the minister continue to refuse to bring about true cultural change instead of yet another report?

I guess it is true what they say about Liberals. There is not a problem in the world they cannot solve by just having another report written. The time for reports is over. Women need action now, and we can start by getting rid of this inefficient minister, who places friendship over the security of individuals.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to the member's intervention, I heard her talk about the need to protect somebody to advance his career because they thought he was a rising star. I was confused. Was she talking about Stephen Harper, because Stephen Harper is the one who actually appointed General Vance after hearing rumours about misconduct? Could the member indicate if she was actually talking about Stephen Harper when she made those comments?