Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 46 - Evidence - Meeting of June 17, 2019
OTTAWA, Monday, June 17, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:33 p.m. to examine and report on Canada’s national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities (consideration of a draft agenda — future business).
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Before we begin, I would ask the honourable senators to introduce themselves since we are in public.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul E. McIntyre from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
The Chair: I’m Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator Dagenais, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: The members of the committee are aware of the purpose of the meeting, but I will say that we are still dealing with the Vice-Admiral Norman case. With the steering committee, we agreed to meet with about 10 witnesses. Madam Chair pointed out that she may have 10 or 15 other witnesses.
Since June 20 is fast approaching, we had to consider the time we had to meet with those witnesses. Unfortunately, Senator Mercer is not here. I wouldn’t want to speak on his behalf, but he said that he absolutely wanted to hear from Vice-Admiral Norman before any other witnesses. There have been discussions, because Vice-Admiral Norman is not the only one who can testify in this case. However, I think he is more of a victim. I thought it was more important to call those who had made the decision to suspend him. I am referring to General Vance, Minister Sajjan, Minister Brison — who was indirectly involved in this decision — and other witnesses connected to the case, including Gerald Butts.
The discussions have, of course, dragged on and June 20 is approaching. The motion said that the report is supposed to be submitted on June 20. That being said, I asked the clerk what the procedures were for sitting after June 20.
With at least 20 to 25 witnesses, it would take at least two weeks of meetings, perhaps three days a week. The first week, we had to have the permission of the whips to sit. To sit for a second week, we had to have the approval of the Leader of the Opposition and, of course, the Leader of the Government. We held the meeting on Wednesday and, curiously, on Thursday, I bumped into the government leader, Senator Harder, between the Senate chamber and the library. I asked whether I could count on his consent for the committee to meet for a second week after the end of the session. With a big smile, he said no. I didn’t appreciate the smile, but the answer was clear.
From then on, I wondered whether it was worthwhile to continue, to spend money, to use the services of our clerk and analysts, when we know full well that we will not be going forward after June 20. It seemed impossible to me to be able to continue. As I have done since the beginning of this whole business, since I had made the decision to introduce the motion myself — it was not suggested to me — I decided to go the same route by withdrawing the motion.
Weekends can sometimes get people thinking. At that time, my leader and his chief of staff were fully aware of it, so it came as no surprise to anyone. However, I thought to myself: “Since I play hard, can we give the government leader another chance to reconsider his decision and extend the date to September 11?” It is a possibility because, sooner or later, we will have to come back to the chamber. At that point, I decided that, instead of stopping at June 20, it would be better to make him understand common sense and extend the date to September 11 to amend the motion.
That basically summarizes what happened. You’ve read about it in the media. Yes, they contacted me and I told them what I intended to do. You know, when you tell the truth, it’s never complicated. It’s complicated when you want to hide it. So I said to them: “This is what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it; I will meet my colleagues next Monday and we will discuss some things publicly.” I like things out in the open; it’s less complicated. When you hide things, it’s more difficult to explain.
The media contacted me and I thought it was important that we meet and make a decision together today. That does not mean that Senator Harder will change his mind, but, as I told one reporter, he holds the key. He’s free to do what he wants with it. Again, this is not about putting anyone on trial. It is about finding the truth about what happened in the Vice-Admiral Norman case. That’s what I had to tell you today and, going forward, we can discuss the report together at a later date, namely September 11, which seems a reasonable date to me. Clearly, all this will have to be done with the permission of the government leader.
[English]
Senator Griffin: In light of the comments received just now, it seems like it was a bigger package than we could do in the given time. Unless we get another amount of time, I don’t see how this could work. I know we’ll be back sometime during the summer for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free-trade agreement, so conceivably there could be some time then as well as an extension.
I’m in agreement with looking at September. I was going to suggest September 6, but I’m quite happy to go with September 11.
If you’re moving a motion, I’ll support your motion. If not, I’ll move a motion to that effect. The call is yours.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Griffin, regardless of whether it is the 6th or the 11th, I think what matters is that the deadline is extended, the date for the report is extended to give the committee a chance to meet with witnesses. You mentioned signing the agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States, for which we will have to come back to the chamber. I don’t think Parliament will be dissolved before September 6. I have no problem with September 6. If the government leader gives us permission to sit, I would be very comfortable with September 6.
Senator McIntyre: What day of the week is September 6? What about September 11?
[English]
The Chair: September 6 is a Friday. September 11 is a Wednesday.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: September 6 is impossible for me because that is our village festival. This is an annual event in my community that has been going on for 50 years. September 6 does not work for me. September 11 would be better.
[English]
The Chair: I think we’re just talking about the date of the report.
Senator Griffin: Yes, the committee would submit its report by amending the original date of June 20 to September 11, 2019.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I just have a few questions to make sure I understand. We are talking about the date we submit the report. Earlier, you said that, in order to sit one more week after June 20, assuming we adjourn for the summer on June 20, we needed the whips on both sides to agree. So you did not have Senator Harder’s agreement, and I guess you did not have the whips’ agreement for the first week either. That’s my conclusion.
Senator Dagenais: Actually, I had the agreement of the Conservative whip, but not of the government whip. I asked him first, then I went to Senator Harder, because I knew it would take two weeks, and the answer was also no.
Senator Pratte: So what you’re proposing is to extend the date for the report. As I understand it, this gives us the authority to table a report in September, just before the election. I’m not sure that’s really desirable. Does that give us permission to sit during the summer?
Senator Dagenais: We will need the authorization in the same way. What I want to give Mr. Harder is an opportunity. I wouldn’t say give him a chance, but I know the media mentioned that it was somewhat because of him that we weren’t sitting — clearly, it’s because of him, he doesn’t want us to — but I think we have to give him a second chance and say, “Listen, Mr. Harder....” In addition, this gives us time to call witnesses. By June 20.... We have a very good clerk, but at some point, we mustn’t push the machine too hard either, it’s impossible. We need to have time to contact the witnesses. Afterwards, we will have time to organize ourselves and hold serious meetings. I think that when we have 25 witnesses — and you know it as well as I do, Senator Pratte, since you sit on the Committee on National Defence — with four panels a day, I imagine that, in six or seven days at the most, we would be finished. However, it takes time to contact and invite witnesses. By the way, the clerk has done an excellent job; to date, contacts have been made with people. As usual, this is done by phone, email and then by formal invitation. Postponing the date to September 11 would give us more time to do a more professional job, or at least a more exhaustive one.
Senator Pratte: The outcome would still be having the report tabled about a month before the election; I’m not sure that’s very desirable.
Senator Dagenais: Look, Senator Pratte, if we finish earlier, I don’t think anything can stop us from tabling our report beforehand. We give ourselves a date and some flexibility, but we agree that we can sit in June or July. We’re not talking about a month. As soon as the meetings are completed, the report is submitted. At least, we are giving ourselves some leeway, so to speak.
[English]
Senator Gold: I hesitate to say what I’m about to say. Until we began the meeting today, I was pleased that our colleague Senator Dagenais had announced in the media that he was withdrawing the motion. I thought at the time — and you know from my vote — that this was a very political and partisan initiative. That aspect of it was reinforced by what I read in the letter which was circulated to us. I won’t repeat it.
The idea that somehow we would continue this over the summer and release a report right before an election just reinforces in my mind the fact that this is really not the appropriate use of our Senate time. The votes may be here if a motion is made, but I just want to go on record as saying that I don’t think this is an appropriate exercise for us. In some sense it’s out of our hands. If Senator Harder, the Government Representative, doesn’t give consent then so be it, but it’s a matter of principle. This is a completely partisan initiative. It’s just something that I think is not appropriate for the Senate. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to colleagues for the thoughtful discussion that we’re having.
As an independent senator, I don’t necessarily see this as partisan, per se. I articulated this at the previous discussion that we had and I just want to lay it out again.
I would ask, if I may, Senator Dagenais or his colleagues, have we received an answer from Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and/or his legal representative? Have they indicated that this is, indeed, something that he would welcome?
I feel very concerned about forging ahead with something that puts a very significant burden on someone who has already carried years of a burden, and I don’t think that’s the intent of this. That’s the nature of my question.
The Chair: It was publicly reported in the press that we may get a response later today, but I can’t speak any further on it.
Senator McPhedran: We don’t have it as of yet? I mean, it is fairly late in the day.
The Chair: No, we don’t.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Personally, I don’t think it’s a partisan issue. Let me remind you of some events that are largely related to Bill C-58, which was passed.
In that bill, I proposed three important amendments, some of which related to the Prime Minister’s commitment to transparency. I am particularly thinking of an amendment on the disclosure of expenses relating to relocations, which you rejected. I am thinking of the amendments relating to severance benefits, which you rejected, and also the amendment relating to the use of code names in the military, which you accepted, and I thank you for that.
We have reached 33 per cent for the transparency rate. The Senate passed this amendment because we thought it was important to ensure transparency with respect to Bill C-58, but Prime Minister Trudeau and his government rejected it.
In my opinion, there is a real problem with the Vice-Admiral Norman case, where an amendment is proposed that requires transparency to prohibit the use of code names by the armed forces and other departments. This means that, if the media ask for a document, they can no longer establish a link with people who have been involved in the case, because code names are being used.
I must say that this is the cleverest way of camouflaging information. This government has refused to adopt transparency as its approach. We want to analyze an event, an analysis that seems fundamental to me in terms of our democratic system. Somewhere, we are missing something. Somewhere, someone is hiding information, hiding the truth, and all we want is for the public to have a minimum of information and a minimum amount of truth. So, for me, there is nothing partisan about it.
[English]
Senator Richards: I kind of agree with Senator Gold. If we are going to release the report in mid-September, that is really close to the election and it does smack of partisanship. I would rather have the witnesses and report done before that, as expediently as possible, if we’re going to do it. That’s my one thought on this.
I thought when we voted on this at our last meeting, I thought that it would be done by the time the Senate rose. I’m a little leery of having it drag on into September in the midst of an election campaign.
The Chair: I wonder, Senator Dagenais, if you would go back and read the motion. I think all honourable senators who wanted to speak have spoken. I just want to be clear on the motion and what you’re asking for.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Do you want me to read the motion again?
I don’t know if I have it with me; I don’t think so.
[English]
The Chair: Perhaps I can help. Is the motion to change the report date from June 20 to September 6?
Senator Griffin: I think the words “on or before” would be important, because if it’s done earlier, that seems to be all the better.
Senator McIntyre: September 6 is only the date of the filing of the report.
Senator Griffin: The last date.
The Chair: I just want to make sure for the record we’ve got the correct motion.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Let us all understand each other. My first intention was to withdraw my motion because I do not like wasting my time nor do I like wasting other people’s time.
Whichever date we postpone the report to, the work can be done beforehand. In my opinion, we will need a minimum of two weeks of meetings and, unless the witnesses are reluctant, I think that we could proceed using videoconference. You know as well as I do that we have seen whole issues settled in two or three days of meetings, and those issues were no less important.
We must be careful when we talk about being partisan. Perhaps the person preventing us from meeting is more partisan than I am, because preventing us from meeting is preventing us from doing our jobs. Even though it may be one of the rules of the game, it means putting the brakes on democracy.
We may talk about democracy and an independent Senate. However, when we ask to meet, we are told: “No, you have no right to meet. I made the decision because the rules let me.”
We also understand the reason for the refusal. We submitted the date of September 11 and we also talked about September 6. We are told that it’s too close to the election. Today, everything is too close to the election, and we are still in June. If you tell me that we will do it in July and will submit the report in mid-August, I have no problem with that.
You are going to tell me once again that we are getting close to the election. Do we have to work in terms of the election or do we have to work by realizing that we are missing something that Canadians have the right to know about? If we can’t do that because there is an election, or because there has just been an election, or because there may be an election, the Senate is no longer doing its job.
Moreover, we are non-elected parliamentarians and so we do not have to be elected in October. In my opinion, therefore, we should study the report. We should set aside the time to do so, and we should do so with no partisanship.
You will recall that, when I submitted my motion, I said that it was not a partisan issue, and it came from me personally. I told myself that, if Mr. Norman was not able to be heard in the House of Commons, we in the Senate could find a forum for him and give him an opportunity to be heard.
Stop talking to me about the election. It’s not an issue for me. The Senate is here to do a job. Clearly, it has to do that job before Parliament is dissolved. So if some colleagues are more comfortable with another date, let’s hear it.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Would August 1 be suitable?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We would certainly have the time to do it before August 1. If we get permission, we will call witnesses. It’s not a matter of spending the summer here. I understand that everyone wants to take a vacation.
If we do it quickly, we would need a maximum of two weeks. Let’s say we have 25 witnesses. At one hour per witness, we would hear four witnesses per day. After four days, that’s 16 witnesses and we would have a dozen left for the second week. At four days per week for two weeks, we would be finished. I feel that it would be very good to start as quickly as possible.
We could perhaps do it in the last week of June and the first week of July. As for the report, it will not be very long, but we still have to hear from the witnesses. In my opinion, August 1 would be less tight than June 20.
[English]
Senator Richards: I think Senator Griffin has a good suggestion. If we did it earlier, I would be more comfortable with it. I still think it’s probably a necessary thing that we do. I felt that when we voted on it the last time. I would like it to be earlier. If the report comes out in August, that’s a lot better than mid-September.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor for August 1; am I correct?
Senator Griffin: That’s a Thursday. On or before August 1.
The Chair: Okay. Are we all in agreement, senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator McPhedran: Forgive me, but I want to make sure it’s understood that what we’re voting on is tentative. Even if everybody on this committee wants to come back at various times in the summer, we actually don’t have the authority to do that. The authority lies outside this committee. This vote is tentative in the event that somehow we get the external permission that we need. Is that the nature of this vote?
The Chair: That’s correct. Can I have that confirmed by the clerk?
Can you repeat your question? I want to make sure I’m not misleading anyone.
Senator McPhedran: My question was to be sure that what we’re voting on is almost theoretical, and certainly tentative, because the authority needed for us to go ahead with this study in the summer is beyond the authority of this committee.
The Chair: That’s correct.
Senator McPhedran: It’s external to this committee.
The Chair: That’s correct.
Senator McPhedran: At maximum this motion is a statement of preference, intent, but in no way are we capable, as a committee, of making that possible.
Senator McIntyre: In other words, the vote is subject to approval.
The Chair: The motion on the floor is that we extend the date of the report to August 1. The caveat, as you’ve indicated, is that in order to hear witnesses, we would require the approval of the government leader, the whip or the Senate.
We will do a roll call vote, then.
Senator McPhedran: I have another question. This is a question to Senator Dagenais and other colleagues who have made this proposal. I think it has a direct impact on the vote of this particular motion.
Is it your intention, Senator Dagenais, to seek the approval of the entire Senate in order for us to proceed if we were to vote in favour of this?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator, the issue has been dealt with by the committee and I would like to keep it in the committee. I believe that it is up to the committee on national defence, where the first motion was submitted, to request that the date for the report to be submitted be pushed back. I do not intend to submit the motion to the Senate, because this issue comes under the authority of the committee on national defence. I asked about that and we will keep the issue with the committee on national defence.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I don’t really understand the answer. When I was asking about this being tentative and about needing permission from authorities external to this committee, I was getting what looked like “yes” nods from you — affirmative; but what I’ve just heard from you is you believe that the authority rests within this committee?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We decided to postpone the date on which the report is submitted, and everything depends on the reply from the government leader. If he does not allow us to sit, we will be no further forward. At least we are giving ourselves a second chance to deal with the government leader and to ask him to let us hear from witnesses. If we don’t do that, we will be wasting time. If he refuses, so be it.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: A further question for clarification: If I understand correctly, from what the clerk just advised, more than one external authority could give us a green light. One is the Leader of the Government and the whip of your Conservative caucus, but the other is to take this question to the Senate and request the permission of the entire Senate for this committee to proceed. Am I correct in understanding that?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: No. Actually, as the clerk explained it to me, when we want to sit after the end of the session, the two whips have to give their approval for the first week. If we plan on sitting for a second week, we have to have approval from the leader of the opposition, Senator Smith, and the Leader of the Government, Senator Harder. The Senate does not decide. The leaders give the permission to sit.
As we are planning to sit in July, we do not have to ask the whips, but the opposition and government leaders. It is they who give the committee permission to sit, not the Senate.
[English]
The Chair: Perhaps I can ask the clerk to clarify in terms of his understanding.
Mark Palmer, Clerk of the Committee: For permission to sit in the summer, it’s either/or. Either you need permission from the Senate as a whole or the leaders. It’s either/or.
[Translation]
Permission can come from the Senate, or from the government and opposition leaders.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Colleagues, I apologize for being late. I was at a doctor’s appointment ordered by the Senate so that I can travel. I had to book a dozen and one shots so I can go to Uganda.
I assume we have not heard a positive answer from the admiral.
The Chair: We expect to hear something further today, but we have not heard that yet that I’m aware of.
Senator Mercer: Back to the clerk’s interpretation of the Rules, if we go to the whips, and one of the two whips says no, then the only other option is for Senator Dagenais to take it to the floor of the chamber. Does he need a simple majority, or does he need someone not to say “no”?
The Chair: You are testing my understanding of the Rules, but I understand it is a majority.
Senator Mercer: A majority.
Quite frankly, I’m amazed that we’re at this point. We’re days from the end of this session; we’re almost days from the end of this Parliament, and we want to continue this?
However, it’s Senator Dagenais’ privilege to pursue this, and there will be those of us who will pursue the opposite effort. It makes no sense to me that after at least five attempts to contact the admiral’s lawyer and not having a firm answer one way or the other that we’re still pursuing this.
The other question, obviously, Senator Dagenais, if she comes back with a negative answer and says her client will not appear, am I to assume the issue is done?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Mercer, as I explained, Vice-Admiral Norman is not the only witness in this affair. You know as well as I do that we want to hear from other witnesses. Among the main witnesses are the Minister of Defence, General Vance, and Mr. Brison. Vice-Admiral Norman is not a key witness. He is just on the witness list, that’s all.
Let me repeat: The important thing is to question those who made the decision to suspend him. Vice-Admiral Norman did not suspend himself. Someone made the decision to suspend him. It will be helpful to ask those people the questions. If Vice-Admiral Norman, speaking through his lawyer, says that he is not inclined to testify for one reason or another, we could eventually send him a subpoena because the Senate or a Senate committee can do so. However, we are not at that point. We are proceeding respectfully. I emphasize the work that Madam Chair has done; she said that we have to respect Vice-Admiral Norman, and I completely agree. We can start with emails or telephone calls, or by sending a letter. If the worst comes to the worst, if he does not want to come and we insist on hearing from him, we could issue a subpoena and require him to appear before a Senate committee. However, I hope that it will not come to that.
You want to hear from some witnesses, as do we. The important thing is to hear from those who made the decision and to find out why they decided to suspend the vice-admiral. That’s what we want to know. We are looking to find out the truth. Vice-Admiral Norman will simply tell us that he was suspended.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Senator Dagenais, I accept the fact that you want to know who made the decision to suspend him.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You accept the fact, but you are cutting me off.
[English]
Senator Mercer: I want to know who didn’t bother to pick up the phone and call the PMO and say that the previous government had authorized the admiral to do what he did. If that’s the case, then those are the first people who should be asked. If you’re looking for a political embarrassment of the government, you wouldn’t find it if there’s someone in the Harper government who told the admiral to do what he did and he went and followed orders and did it. Then the Conservative opposition allowed this man, a Canadian hero, the second-most powerful man in the Canadian Armed Forces, to be suspended when they knew he had done nothing wrong. Shame on them.
The Chair: Senator Dagenais, did you want to finish?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: It was you who said that I wanted to embarrass the government, not me. It is not a question of embarrassing the government. If the government acted properly and made the right decision, why would it be embarrassed? Why don’t you want us to hear from Mr. Brison? Why don’t you want us to hear from the Minister of National Defence? Why don’t you want us to hear from General Vance? If the right decision was made and it was appropriate to do things in that way, no one will be embarrassed. A government is embarrassed when it makes bad decisions. When Vice-Admiral Norman was suspended, the current government was in power. We want to find out the reasons for the suspension. If the right decision was made, the matter will be clarified and everything will stop there. When things are done correctly and transparently, you know, no one is embarrassed.
[English]
The Chair: I’m going to close it off with Senator Griffin and Senator McPhedran, because I think we’re going around in circles.
Senator Griffin: I think so, too. I think we’re rehashing old stuff. The vote was starting. I think we should get back to that, please.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, any clarity?
Senator McPhedran: Yes. Given that the advice from the clerk, as I heard it, was quite substantially different from what I heard from Senator Dagenais, I would like permission to repeat my question to Senator Dagenais.
Does a single senator — for example, Senator Dagenais — have the authority to go to the entire Senate and ask permission for this committee to proceed with the study, or is that something that the committee has to decide to do through you as the chair?
The Chair: Any senator can do it.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much.
The Chair: Let’s go to the vote. The vote is on the extension of the report from June 20 to September 6 —
Senator Griffin: August 1.
The Chair: Sorry, August 1. Let me repeat that; I apologize.
The motion by Senator Dagenais is to extend the date of the report from June 20 to August 1, 2019.
Am I correct, Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: Yes.
Mark Palmer, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Boniface?
Senator Boniface: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Griffin?
Senator Griffin: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Mercer?
Senator Mercer: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Ngo?
Senator Ngo: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Richards?
Senator Richards: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: Yes, 8; no, 4.
The Chair: The motion carries.
Senators, before we close, in the event that this may be the last time we are together, I wanted to make some closing comments, if I may.
In my time as chair, I’ve had the opportunity to learn and grow as a senator with the help of many of you around the table. We have received a number of pieces of government legislation. In my view, we’ve all worked very effectively and efficiently to complete our studies, both Bill C-21, allowing for CBSA to collect information on travellers, and Bill C-23, regarding pre-clearance for part of the Beyond the Border Action Plan between Canada and the United States. We studied the subject matter of the Cannabis Act to see how legislation would affect interactions at the border. I’m really proud of the work we’ve accomplished on those pieces of legislation.
I don’t need to remind you of our post-winter-break efforts. All of Bill C-71, Bill C-59 and Bill C-77 made their way through our committee and, most recently, pre-study of the budget.
We were also able to come out with two reports, the first being our report on sexual harassment and violence in the Armed Forces and the second having been initiated in our Veterans Affairs Subcommittee under Senator Dagenais’ leadership, discussing the topic of veterans’ use of cannabis for medical purposes, tabled just last week.
Senators, all this work could never have been accomplished without a general sense of teamwork and collegiality. I want to thank all of you. I think our committee’s functioning is the envy of many committees in the Senate.
I’d like to particularly extend my best wishes to Senator McIntyre in the event that we are not at this table again as he moves on to do what I know will be very interesting work in his home community.
Our steering committees have always found a way to move forward on the basis of consensus. Senator Dagenais and Senator Mercer, thank you for your guidance. We made a good team.
To Senator Jaffer, who can’t be with us today, I thank you as well for being a member of the committee and of steering for much of my tenure as chair. All of our thoughts are with you, and you are deserving of praise along with all of our National Defence colleagues.
I want to thank each and every one of you for your efforts. Our thanks extend to your staff members who, altogether, probably make up 90 per cent of our committee viewership.
I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to staff in my office, particularly to Cameron Ross who has been my rock as I’ve worked through this chairmanship.
I now turn my attention to our committee staff, past and present. We benefited from the best of the best. I’m sure they have aided each senator at the table on numerous occasions. From briefing notes to suggesting witnesses to writing our reports, these staff are the engine that really drives us. I would like to thank all of our analysts, of which there have been many, for their professionalism and dedication. Dan McBryde and Constance Naud-Arcand, as the first analysts I had the opportunity to work with, we thank you. To Tanya Dupuis, Dominique Valiquet, Julia Nichol and Ariel Shapiro, who only recently came with us, thank you. To Isabelle Lafontaine-Émond, our analyst on the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, our thanks as well. And Christina Yeung, who has been our rock for a number of months now and a superb addition to our committee, we thank you.
I will now take this time to appreciate our clerks. We began with Adam Thompson. During our committee deliberations, his knowledge and guidance helped shape how we operate as a committee. I don’t know if it’s me or the other committee members, but along with our other analyst, Adam left us to pursue other ventures.
Luckily for us, Adam was replaced with another veteran clerk and a familiar face to many of us — Mark Palmer. Mark has been extremely helpful, especially since Christmas, in offering procedural advice to our steering committee. He has been essential in getting through our recent pieces of government legislation. He has been adaptable to our shifts in priorities of subjects and witnesses. We thank you, Mark.
I’ll turn to Senator Dagenais for any comments you may have.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, you said it all in your speech. First, allow me to thank you for your collaborative work. We have known each other for a long time because of our duties with the police, and I have to say that you have done a remarkable job as chair.
I want to thank my colleagues. Although we are not always in agreement, we have worked well together and we will continue to do so. Our thanks go to the employees and the people working with us who provide immeasurable support. I also thank the people at your side, especially Mark Palmer, who has worked very hard recently. We must highlight their professionalism. I would be remiss if I did not highlight the work of the interpreters; it is because of them that I am able to understand all the formalities. Thank you all. Despite our political affiliations, we do our work well; we do it with professionalism and respect and we will continue in that fashion, because, in my view, it is the hallmark of the Senate of Canada. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Very quickly, Madam Chair, you have hit all the high spots. As the new guy on the block, I wanted to express my thanks to everyone, but also I wanted to tell you about my excitement in joining the committee. It has been something that I’ve not had an opportunity to do since I’ve been a member of the Senate. I come from a military town. I come from a family with a military background. Being here is an honour and a privilege.
Yes, we will have disagreements, but I know that, generally speaking, we all work for the betterment of Canada and for the betterment of our Armed Forces. We rely on them daily, we praise them daily, and we should appreciate them every minute we’re here.
The Chair: Senators, before we close, I will need a motion instructing me to get Senate approval to table a report when the Senate is not sitting. Can I have such a motion?
Senator Griffin: So moved.
The Chair: On that note, senators, we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)