Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 44 - Evidence - Meeting of May 28, 2019
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 28, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 2 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, we will begin. I’d like senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I’m Gwen Boniface, your chair.
Senators, before we begin, we have two housekeeping matters to deal with. First, as all of you know, Senator Jaffer has left the committee. Therefore, we will need to elect a deputy chair.
Senator Gold: I propose that Senator Mercer be elected deputy chair.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The second matter, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, I have an agenda item. We’ve passed around the motion that I’ll introduce and read to you in French:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to examine and report on the circumstances that led the RCMP to lay, now withdrawn and unfounded, criminal charges against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, including the scope and nature of the involvement in that process by any other persons.
That, as part of this examination, the committee be authorized to call the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Vice-Admiral Norman, and any other witnesses that the committee may decide to invite.
That the committee submit its report by no later than June 20, 2019.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Dagenais, in terms of the motion, I believe we have an agreement to send it to steering; is that correct?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I hope that all members of the National Security Committee will accept the motion. Madam Chair, I think it would be better to hold a vote. I want to make sure that everyone agrees before we discuss the motion and consider it. The purpose is to clarify the suspension of Vice-Admiral Norman. We mustn’t forget that his case has been brought to the public’s attention. I think that, out of respect for Vice-Admiral Norman, we must give him an opportunity to explain his position or give him access to a forum in the public arena. This is the role of the National Security Committee, which is authorized to review Canada’s national security and defence practices, circumstances and capabilities. I would prefer to hold a vote to accept the motion. We could then discuss how to proceed with the work.
[English]
Senator Gold: The motion raises an important issue to be sure. I have two difficulties with proceeding to a vote. Most importantly, we would need to take time to discuss it and deliberate it. In that regard, we have been given permission by the Senate and authorized to sit for the exclusive purpose of Bill C-77, of which I’m the sponsor, so I declare my interest in proceeding to clause by clause.
First, I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be debating what we would have to do before a vote because that’s not what we were given permission by the Senate to do at this time, outside our normal meeting time.
Second, I think it’s appropriate for steering to have an opportunity to discuss this and bring it back for a full discussion. I don’t know when steering is proposing to meet, but we’re meeting as a committee next Monday. I can’t help but think that would give steering time to discuss the modalities and come forward with a recommendation that we would then consider in good faith.
It’s inappropriate today to take time from clause-by-clause consideration, which is the only reason we’re allowed to be sitting today instead of being in the chamber.
Senator Plett: Well, as the whip, and as Senator Gold knows, we both gave permission to sit today. There were reasons begin, but we just simply approve. Today, when a request was sent out as to whether this committee could meet at 1:30 as opposed to 2:00, specifically Senator Mitchell said, “Only if it is to deal with government business.”
When we want to be specific about why we approve a committee to sit, we have the option to do that. I didn’t do that. I just simply agreed after the chair of this committee asked me whether I would agree to a number of different meetings.
The fact of the matter is that we are already discussing this. A vote takes about one minute. Without question, that vote can be taken now. It will take a minute or minute and a half, and then we will be able to move on to clause by clause. The debate itself will take longer than that, so, chair, I suggest you call the question.
The Chair: Senator Plett, if I can clarify for the purpose of the record, this meeting is as a result of a notice of motion and a motion passed by the chamber.
Senator Mercer: This is an important issue. I’m an old friend of Vice-Admiral Norman, so I would be happy to see him.
My understanding is that the purpose of this meeting today was to discuss government business. When our group was asked for permission to sit at 1:30, we said okay, but the government said no. So the government says no and they want us only to discuss government business. That’s the only thing we have permission to do — discuss government business.
I think this is a motion that needs to be discussed. We have the short time limit that Senator Dagenais has put on this — and I understand that we don’t have a lot of time — to report back by June 20. Steering has not met on this. Steering has not had an opportunity to look at the schedule or the availability of the witnesses that the mover of the motion has suggested. None of these people could be available. They could be out of the country on business — anywhere in the world on government business.
I think to do proper justice to Senator Dagenais’ motion, steering needs to sit down and talk about this. I don’t think we should vote on it today. We should defer the vote until the next meeting of the committee.
Senator Pratte: I don’t find the process proposed here acceptable. It’s a very important topic and there are very interesting aspects to the motion as I just read it. However, I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask us to say, “Here’s a motion and let’s vote on it because it will take a minute.” The opposition is always in favour of debating issues and bills for extended periods of time, so we have time to have a real debate. I think we need that time to reflect on the motion, the possibilities and the text of the motion. That requires time. I think we need that time. It is not reasonable to us ask to vote in a minute on this motion that we just had put in front of us now.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, I understand that my colleagues want to hold a “procedural wrangling” debate. However, I can tell you one thing. We’re studying government bills. As deputy chair of the National Security Committee, on which I’ve served for six years, I’ve never seen so much flexibility on the part of the opposition, as you call us. In recent weeks, we’ve held meetings with five or six groups of witnesses on Mondays, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. We had the whips’ permission to sit while the Senate was in session, which I’ve never seen before. We can’t be criticized for not wanting to study government bills.
Today, I’m introducing a motion that will take a few minutes. I understand that my colleagues on the other side may not want to listen to Vice-Admiral Norman for purely political reasons. I’ll try to contain myself, because I believe that “procedural wrangling” is being used to avoid clarifying a situation. This person has been suspended for two years and deserves to be heard. When we’re told that we would need a steering committee to study this issue together, I don’t understand. On the one hand, we want to take the time to study — I know that today we were supposed to do the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-77, which we’ll do. We were rushed through the study of this bill, which comes from the House of Commons and which is, once again, flawed. The committee must study the bill for two days. We’ve been asked for our approval to sit from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. in order to meet with five groups of witnesses. I’ve never seen anything like it. Today, we’re being criticized for taking a few minutes to introduce a motion.
I find that unacceptable, Madam Chair. I rarely get angry in this committee. However, if we’re asking for transparency, flexibility and cooperation, it would be perfectly normal for our colleagues on the other side to approve the motion. If we want to discuss how this study should be done, we can do so on Monday, provided that we agree to hear from Vice-Admiral Norman; from General Vance, who is on the opposite side of the issue; and from the somewhat talkative Minister of Defence, who came yesterday and who had trouble answering our questions.
I’ll stop there. We’re told that we mustn’t be partisan and that we’re a chamber of independent thought. I think that we’re not behaving like an independent chamber today and that my colleagues are acting in a partisan manner. This is unacceptable.
Senator Boisvenu: In response to my colleagues Senator Gold and Senator Pratte, I understand that the Norman case has received very little media coverage in Quebec. The topic has received extensive media coverage in English Canada and the Maritimes. Unless you’ve been living on Mars or elsewhere for the past three weeks, this motion doesn’t require much debate. A troubling event has occurred, and it concerns national defence and, therefore, our committee. My colleague’s motion is completely justified and doesn’t require any debate, other than on the issue of whether we agree to hear from Vice-Admiral Norman. That’s it.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Madam Chair, I would like to observe what I think has been a practice of this committee, and that is to respect the additional services and thought that our executive committee gives to matters that need further consideration. I hope we will do that with this motion. I urge us to do that.
In addition, I would like to state that we’re here to do clause by clause. We have people sitting waiting for us to stop wrangling, and I would urge us to go ahead with the stated business for today.
Senator Plett: I certainly agree with the last comment that Senator McPhedran made; so if we would go to a quick vote, we could do that.
Senator McPhedran referred to the practice of committees. The fact of the matter is that the practice at a number of our committees as of late, because of the lateness in the parliamentary schedule, Bill C-69 and the Energy Committee is a prime example and, today, Aboriginal is another prime example where steering committees did not make decisions but committees made decisions.
Back when this committee started studying Bill C-71, chair, you know that I wanted to reverse two bills. I went to you and we ended up dealing with both bills, and I have commended you in the past for the way you handled those bills. But I went to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and he was adamant and said that committees are masters of their own destiny. The leader was clear that committees are the masters; they can make decisions as to what they do.
Chair, this doesn’t need a lot of discussion. If members opposite aren’t happy, they can vote down the motion. That won’t take long at all.
Madam Chair, I strongly encourage that we call the question on this, and if there is no agreement, it will be voted down.
Senator Gold: I understand the passion with which the proponents of this motion are presenting the case. I will not make any assumptions about motivations. It is not what I do.
The Senate, not the whips, authorized us to sit to deal with government business. That government business is clause by clause. We have officials here; we have work to do. I’m led to believe that amendments are to be proposed and discussed.
I, for one, not will not be challenged or, dare I say, bullied into agreeing to a vote on something without the opportunity to discuss it properly. It’s not an inconsiderable thing, notwithstanding the relative elegance of the language.
I barely had time to read it. I don’t know what’s involved. I’m not sure, frankly, it’s even within the scope — masters of our own house notwithstanding — of this committee as compared to other committees. That would depend on the range that the committee chose to explore because there are other committees with very specific mandates that, frankly, we don’t have, including the administration of justice.
So it’s not so obvious. I would benefit from the steering committee and from Senator Mercer, who has just joined steering. All we are dealing with is a matter of some days.
I say this to whomever may be watching us: It’s irresponsible for us, in the Senate, to both ignore our responsibilities and the mandate we have from the Senate to complete our study of a government bill that deals with victims’ rights and important changes to the military justice system for the purposes of a quick, fast vote for whatever reason that is being thrust upon us literally at the very last minute.
I hesitate to go further procedurally, but it is not obvious that this is in order. I would benefit from steering and urge the proponent —
[Translation]
— my friend and colleague Senator Dagenais, to accept that the steering committee members take the time to discuss the matter together and come back to us with their recommendations.
[English]
That is the proper way for the Senate to proceed.
Senator Plett: Call the question.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I want to reassure my colleagues. First, I have tremendous respect for our chair, and we have an excellent relationship. Before I introduced the motion to the committee today, I took the time to inform the chair. Senator Jaffer, who was on the steering committee, is absent. We formed the steering committee, since Senator Mercer joined us only today. We all agreed to introduce this motion yesterday at 5:30 p.m. because we had half an hour left before the scheduled 6 p.m. end time. At 5:45 p.m., after seeing how tired my colleagues were, I suggested that we postpone the discussion and the vote until today. So we formed the steering committee. If you’re concerned about the discussions that must be held by the steering committee, we had those discussions.
On another note, we mustn’t forget that the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence couldn’t hear from Vice-Admiral Norman because the Liberals were opposed to it. There may have been partisanship in the House of Commons. We’re told that there isn’t any partisanship in the Senate. I think that we should all agree to accept this motion.
You can smile. You sometimes criticize us for acting in a partisan manner. However, I think that Vice-Admiral Norman deserves our respect. His career has been brilliant. I don’t know him personally. To those of you who are on the fence, I must say that it was my idea. I didn’t understand — perhaps because of my police officer background — the reason for the two-year suspension of an individual who had a brilliant career. I also don’t understand what the RCMP did in this investigation. As a former police officer, it seems that charges were laid only because the prosecutor authorized them. Now he’s being told, “Vice-Admiral Norman, don’t worry, there are no more charges, you can go back to work, nothing happened.” In my opinion, there was a lack of respect for a high-ranking military officer.
The National Security Committee’s role is to advocate for the military members and their interests. I can understand them. There’s the hierarchy. We know who appoints the high-ranking officers. I used to be a police officer, so I know how ranks work. We have an excellent forum, the Senate Committee on Defence, to study what happened to Vice-Admiral Norman and to give him a chance to explain his position in the public arena. The chair and I have discussed this issue. Once again, I’d like to acknowledge her excellent work. We have a good relationship, and we’ll continue to maintain it.
Today, I expect that we’ll vote on this motion to hear from Vice-Admiral Norman, General Vance and the Minister of National Defence. We’ll then see how we progress on the issue. By the way, if you’re concerned about the clause-by-clause consideration, we have enough time to finish it today. Instead of meeting at 1 p.m. next week, I propose that the committee meet at 11 a.m. We’re very flexible. I think that we have enough time today to do the clause-by-clause consideration.
Once again, I urge you to accept this motion. We’ll then move on to the clause-by-clause consideration. We don’t want to hold up our witnesses, who are military members. I understand their silence, because they can’t get involved. I think that they fully understand that we must show respect for Vice-Admiral Norman. One way to show respect for him is to invite him to appear before our committee.
Senator Gold: I’ll try to find a compromise that may be acceptable to my colleagues.
[English]
I will do this in English so that I can be clearer in my own mind. I stand by everything that I have said to date, and I think it’s inappropriate for us to vote without proper discussion. My understanding is that we were given permission to sit as of two o’clock with no necessary end time. Here is what I would propose, and I hope it’s acceptable to you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais, in a spirit of compromise and collegiality, I propose that we proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration. It could take an hour or two. I’m not familiar with the amendments that haven’t been shared yet and I don’t know whether it will be necessary to debate them or to hear the testimony of our guests. We have the right to sit until the end of the session. We’ll have enough time to introduce this motion at the end and debate it. That way, my colleagues and I will have time to ask questions and decide how we want to vote at the end of the day. Senator Dagenais, would it be acceptable to postpone the vote on the motion until the end of today’s meeting in order to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration immediately? What do you think?
[English]
Senator Plett: Let me start and Senator Dagenais can jump in.
For me personally, Senator Gold, that would be acceptable under the condition that when we are done with clause by clause, the question gets called on the motion, without any further debate.
Senator Gold: My French and English weren’t clear.
Senator Plett: It was very clear. I think the translation was fine.
Senator Gold: But, Senator Plett, if I understand correctly, and everyone should understand what you are asking, you are insisting that a motion you are presenting be voted upon without the opportunity to ask questions. Even on the face of it, it speaks only of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Senator Dagenais, in his remarks, invoked General Vance and the minister. You can understand the uncertainty that it creates in my mind, and I would like the opportunity to ask questions. I would like the opportunity to listen the answers, and I would like the opportunity in the hope that it can be a dialogue rather than a dialogue des sourds, that some comments my colleagues may have — and I have no idea what they would be, because we have not had a chance to talk about it — would land on receptive ears.
What is wrong with doing the work we are required to do and allowed to do by the Senate, get that done and then turn to the matter that you have introduced just this morning?
Senator Plett: Do you want to put a timetable on it?
Senator Gold: I said today.
Senator Plett: Fair enough, today, but we’re 12 people. To sit here and have no time limit — what we are doing right now is repeating ourselves, saying the same thing. That is what would happen if we have no end time, sit here and debate, argue this back and forth, from now to midnight.
Why don’t we say that after clause by clause we will take 30 minutes to discuss it and then the question gets called? I think that’s reasonable.
It is not a long motion; it is a fairly simple motion. It doesn’t dictate or force anybody. It calls on people to come, and maybe cannot come. Somebody said, “Well, the minister may be out of the country.” If he is out of the country, no one would expect him to come. None of the motions we have had in the Senate would compel someone to come back from Germany on a given date.
I think we want to be reasonable, so let’s set a time limit — 30 minutes, 45 minutes, an hour — and then the question gets called. I think that’s reasonable.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I agree with the compromise proposed by Senator Gold. I think that we would need some time to discuss the motion and, in particular, the text of the motion. In principle, I agree that the committee should examine this issue. This is an important issue and there are many unanswered questions, so I agree. However, after a quick initial review of the text, I have at least three questions that I don’t want to comment on right now.
First, the French text states as follows: “criminal charges, which have now been withdrawn and deemed unfounded.” The charges were withdrawn, but who deemed them unfounded? The prosecutors said that Vice-Admiral Norman didn’t act illegally, but that he did something inappropriate. I’m not sure that I want to keep, in the motion, a determination of what the committee considers Vice-Admiral Norman’s responsibility.
Second, the French version contains an error in the first paragraph, which states as follows: “y compris la portée et la nature de la participation à ce processus du autre personne.” Are we talking about “une autre personne” or “de toute autre personne”? This should be corrected.
Third, I have a question about the deadline. I understand that everyone expects Parliament to stop sitting after June 21 at this time. However, frankly, given the complexity of this issue, I have trouble understanding how we can conduct a serious investigation at the rate of one meeting a week. We’ll hear from Vice-Admiral Norman, if he agrees to appear, and General Vance. If we want to conduct a serious investigation, we should hear from many witnesses to clarify issues. The June 20 date poses a problem for us. I think that it limits us.
In principle, I’m in favour of an investigation, but I have questions about the motion. We should find time to discuss it before voting. Perhaps we could discuss it after our clause-by-clause consideration.
[English]
Senator Mercer: You mentioned partisanship earlier, chair, and I think there is nothing more partisan than this motion. We’re months away from an election. The objective, I would suggest, is for the Conservatives to get this out in front of the public and go on a fishing trip to find something that would be embarrassing to the current government. That may indeed happen if this motion passes.
I would like to add to the list of people we call as witnesses: the former Conservative Minister of National Defence, and senior officials from the Stephen Harper PMO who may have been involved in giving directions to Vice-Admiral Norman or giving directions to the Minister of National Defence to proceed with this process with Vice-Admiral Norman.
As I said earlier, I consider myself a friend of Vice-Admiral Norman. I’ve got a great deal of respect for him, and I was so pleased when this whole thing came to an end. Within two minutes of hearing the decision, I emailed him to congratulate him and wished him well.
But I want to know what else happened. If they want to talk about partisanship and get this out in the open — be careful what you ask for in this business, because once you start peeling the onion, you have to go down all the levels. There is probably somebody in the former Conservative government, either the Conservative Minister of National Defence or senior officials in the Harper PMO, who have had their hands in this.
What bothers is that they knew this, but they let Vice-Admiral Norman go through this for two years. You could have ended it by coming forward and saying, “Hold it, guys: We asked him to do this, directed him to do this, and he did nothing wrong.” That’s what you should have done, and that’s what didn’t happen.
So don’t talk about politics from your side. There will be other political questions asked from people sitting on this side.
The Chair: If I may, before we move to Senator Dagenais, I want to remind everyone of the process we went through for Bill C-77, which I think was very acceptable to the committee and why I made the point of referring it to steering. Senator Mercer reminded me of this process. We decided to do an actual work plan and bring it back to the committee. It would look at witnesses, timing — all things that I’m hearing, senators, in this discussion. That is precisely why, at the beginning, I said that this would come to steering, and we could bring a work plan back.
I think this is just a bit unusual. I thought with Bill C-71, once we went through that process, it worked quite well. I just include that in the discussion.
In my view, what you agree to or what’s perceived to be agreed to should be the entirety, not perhaps just a couple of people and more witnesses.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We’ve been talking about this for half an hour already. I’d ask for the vote.
[English]
The Chair: I have Senator Plett on the list.
Senator Plett: First of all, I will second that.
Briefly, Madam Chair, you did a great job on Bill C-71. I think I’ve told you that in the past. However, Bill C-71 was a bill we all agreed needed to be dealt with, so there was a work plan.
I think once we have an agreement that we want to do something, then again I agree with you entirely: It’s up to steering to decide how we want to do it. When do we want to have our meetings? How long should our meetings be? Whom should we add? The motion refers to other witnesses the committee may decide to invite. I think those are things that steering would do. But steering doesn’t decide whether or not we deal with something; they decide how we deal with something.
Steering cannot decide whether this motion is acceptable. They can decide how we deal with the motion if it’s adopted.
In reference to Senator Mercer, I was always wondering where Senator Ringuette got her horrible amendment from, and I guess you helped her draft one that in the chamber. I suggest you make an amendment and call Scott Brison in if you think Scott Brison should come in. Call the previous Conservative Minister of Defence. Those amendments, of course, can be voted on.
Madam Chair, we’ve debated this. The mover of the motion has called the question and I say we call the question.
The Chair: Senator Plett, Senator Griffin would like to make a comment. Senator Gold’s proposal to defer until after the discussion on Bill C-77 is on the table.
Senator Griffin: My comment is very short, you will be glad to know, and it’s a technical point. The charges were not withdrawn; they were stayed. So if the resolution goes forward, that should be taken as a friendly amendment, I would suggest.
The Chair: Would senators agree to a time frame and we could deal with this after, because we will need amendments, as I’m hearing at least a few? Could we defer it until after clause by clause? Could we have a time limit?
Senator Gold: If the consensus is that we’ll take an hour to an hour and a half or something, I think we need more rather than less, frankly. I’m willing to commit a certain amount — I’m in the middle of a sentence, Senator Plett.
In response to the question, yes, I would agree to some time limit to the discussion this afternoon. I think it is less inappropriate to do it that way than it is to vote without discussion or to continue 35 minutes into when we were supposed to be doing clause by clause. So I propose that give up to 90 minutes to discuss this at the end of clause by clause.
The Chair: Is it agreeable, senators?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Gold: What would be agreeable?
Senator Plett: Thirty minutes.
The Chair: No.
Senator Plett: Fine. Let’s call the question now. Call the question now.
Senator Mercer: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn the committee.
The Chair: Senator Mercer has moved the adjournment of the committee. All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I believe the “nays” have it.
Would you like a roll call?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Let’s go back to the discussion, then.
Senators, can we reach some sort of agreement? We have heard 30 or 45 minutes. I think Senator Plett said an hour. What we’re hearing on this side is an hour.
Senator Gold: I would be prepared to accept an hour. We need time to discuss, for reasons that have been articulated and others that have not. No one has had the opportunity to ask questions, much less hear the answers. Although I think an hour is too short, I would be happy to agree to an hour.
The Chair: Agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Can we move to clause by clause, then?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear about where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure at all times that we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an agreement earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
One small point: If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill. It would be useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have a question about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, they certainly can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide where there is sufficient discussion of a matter or order, and make a ruling. The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation and ask you all to consider other senators and keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can proceed.
Welcome to the table, Senator Ngo.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that on clauses that do not have amendments we group them in groups of not more than 10?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We’re going to pass out the amendments.
Senator Gold: I just received a letter from the minister. Can I make a motion to have it read into the record? How should we proceed?
The Chair: It has been brought to our attention that there has been a letter distributed, I believe, from the minister.
Senator Gold, did you want to speak to it?
Senator Gold: I think this should be made part of the record in some way. Forgive me for being a little unclear about the procedure.
The Chair: Would you like to table it?
Senator Gold: Yes. I move that this letter from the minister be tabled. Thank you.
The Chair: We will move to clause-by-clause consideration, then.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I don’t know whether I’m at the right spot. It’s Division 1.1 of the preamble.
[English]
The Chair: Senator, if you don’t mind, we’ll just pass out the amendments so that people get to see it.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, I’ll explain the reason for my amendment. This amendment includes a preamble to the declaration of victims' rights in Division 1.1 of the National Defence Act. The federal ombudsman for victims’ rights made this recommendation on pages 4 and 5 of the brief submitted to the committee. The declaration proposed in Bill C-77 doesn’t contain any general preamble recognizing, for example, that (1) offences are harmful to victims and the broader military community; (2) that it’s important that victims’ rights be considered throughout the military justice system; and (3) victims deserve to and should expect to be treated with courtesy, compassion, respect and dignity.
This type of preamble exists in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 2015, along with references to the 2003 Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. That’s the purpose of the amendment.
[English]
Senator Gold: I recall we had testimony as recently as yesterday that addressed the question of whether it’s appropriate drafting form or appropriate even substantively for preambles in a part of this bill which will become part of a larger bill, and I would like the officials to comment on that. When you do, could you also comment on whether or not this to some degree duplicates the actual provisions of the declaration of victims’ rights in there? The more important point is to comment on this proposed amendment. Then I might have other comments too, if you don’t mind.
Colonel Stephen Strickey, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you.
For the record, it’s our pleasure to be here and assist the committee in clause-by-clause consideration. I have a great team with me that has worked very hard on the bill. I would say that we have not had the opportunity to review any of the amendments. Indeed, it was only a few seconds ago that we received this one.
While we will certainly endeavour to provide the committee with all the technical expertise that we have on the bill, I would beg the committee’s forgiveness in terms of the time frame in which we are asked to provide that feedback.
[Translation]
That said, Madam Chair, I want to take a few minutes to consider the amendments, if possible. I think that it’s worthwhile to have a conversation with the clerk. Obviously, I’m not an expert on a technical amendment such as this one, and I want to hear the clerk’s opinion before I respond.
Senator Boisvenu: You may remember that I asked the woman who was here on Monday why the bill doesn’t have a preamble such as the one in the Victims Bill of Rights, adopted in 2015, and the one in the 2003 Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. The woman said that this type of declaration existed, but in the form of spare parts in many of the legal components that make up the National Defence Act. No instrument brings everything together.
Second, why is it important to have a preamble? The reason is that there have been no consultations with victims of crime. The purpose of the legislation, which is to respect victims and treat them with dignity, trust and empathy, must be clarified in the preamble. The purpose of the preamble is to explain why the legislation is being passed. This legislation is being passed for victims, but victims haven’t been consulted.
I think the preamble is very significant here. A victim of the armed forces could check the preamble and see the legislator’s intentions with the legislation. The preamble sets out the objectives in this regard. I think that the proposal of my colleague Senator Dagenais is completely justified.
Senator Dagenais: In addition, Madam Chair, I want to continue along the same lines as my colleague Senator Boisvenu. In my opinion, victims should be treated with courtesy, understanding and respect, as I said. The privacy of victims should also be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible.
All reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims. The safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation. The bill must include the need to inform victims about the criminal justice system and the victim’s role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes. It must also include the need to inform victims about the status of the investigation and the scheduling, progress and final outcome of the proceedings.
The bill must establish the importance of informing victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation. I think that all this must be added to the bill.
I think that the views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies and procedures. The needs, concerns and diversity of victims should also be considered in the development and delivery of programs and services, and in related education and training.
Lastly, information should be provided to victims about available options to raise their concerns when they believe that these principles haven’t been followed.
I believe that we have enough information to adopt the amendment to ensure that the bill is changed to the satisfaction of the victims. We must never forget that the main purpose of this bill is to support victims.
Senator Pratte: I have two questions about this amendment. The text is basically the same as the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It isn’t a controversial text per se. The first question is strictly technical. As Senator Gold said, we’re wondering whether there’s a legislative drafting issue with regard to the insertion of a preamble into the National Defence Act. The preamble would be just before the declaration, which is part of the National Defence Act. Is there a technical barrier? That’s the first question.
The second question is whether, given that the text of the proposed preamble is a “copy and paste” of the text of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, an issue arises with regard to inserting into the declaration of victims’ rights, in the National Defence Act, the same text found in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
[English]
Col. Strickey: Thank you for the questions.
I take your point certainly, sir, in regard to the proper placement of a preamble like this. When we review the bill, the “declaration of victims' rights” would begin at proposed section 71.01. From a technical perspective, I would say we have to consult with the Department of Justice legislative drafters to determine from a legislative drafting perspective — I am a technical expert in military justice but not on legislative drafting, unfortunately. It’s unclear to me whether the proper placement of this would be at the front of the — because it appears to me that what we’re doing, from a technical perspective, is adding a preamble to the bill, not adding a preamble to the proper place in the act. I put that out as an issue to be determined, not as an answer.
Second, in preparing for clause by clause today, I did review some — and again I apologize profusely because I’m certainly not an expert in the rules of this committee or anything else — but in determining some of the possible amendments based on our appearance, in terms of a preamble, we were unclear if such an amendment could go forward. Again, that’s not a legal perspective. I would leave it for this committee to determine that question. That’s not a technical question. I just point that out as a question, really, back to the committee.
Senator Gold: I’d like to make a few more general comments, less about this amendment than about the process. I beg the indulgence of my colleagues. I will only make this somewhat lengthy speech once.
As far as I understand, we’re going to be confronted with a number of amendments following this. Some will be unnecessary. In my view, this is an unnecessary one that actually complicates things, because there is language in there that — but leaving that aside, others will be meritorious and will no doubt improve the bill. All bills can be improved. This is a good bill, but it is not perfect. Our job is to improve legislation, and we all take it seriously. I do.
We’re faced with a very practical challenge, which all members around the table understand: There are only so many sitting weeks left in this Parliament, and there are only so many sitting days left in the House of Commons. The practical challenge, then, is if we amend this bill to improve it, there is a risk that it may very well die on the Order Paper. This was alluded to or acknowledged by the minister here in response to Senator McPhedran’s question. As legislators, it is a practical question, and as sponsor of the bill I’m confronting it very acutely.
Speaking of the part of the bill that would introduce a declaration of victims’ rights, for myself, I was persuaded by the testimony of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Ms. Illingworth, and the testimony of the Executive Director of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, Dr. Preston, that the bill is a positive step forward and should be passed. They were very clear in their testimony.
I was also impressed by the difficult decisions and conclusions that witnesses Major Arkell and Lindsay Rodman came. When asked about the bill, they said that though imperfect, they would nonetheless recommend the bill pass. It was difficult for Major Arkell, and we felt the humanity in her answer. She nonetheless said it should pass as is, even though each and every one of the witnesses I just identified had recommendations and amendments they were proposing. None thought this bill is perfect, but they all said, on balance, better this than nothing, if that were the choice. I agreed with those witnesses.
And I agree with them that the failure to pass this bill or put it at risk of dying on the Order Paper would be a major setback for victims’ rights. It would perpetuate the current system where victims who are caught up, through no fault of their own, in the military justice system are denied the same rights, however incomplete we may believe they are, that the law currently provides to victims in the civilian justice system, rights that our colleague Senator Boisvenu championed, and rightly so, in a previous Parliament.
I also believe that a failure to pass this bill or, more accurately, putting the bill at risk of dying on the Order Paper, as responsible legislators we have to have our eyes wide open when faced with this and we have to accept responsibility for our actions. Putting this bill at risk of dying on the Order Paper sends a terribly wrong signal to the victims of offences committed within military justice, but it also sends the wrong signal to the military. The military has a responsibility to address and continue to work toward reforming the culture within the military that has given rise to the unacceptable level of sexual misconduct and other unacceptable acts within the forces.
I was encouraged throughout our hearings by the openness of the minister, the Office of the Judge Advocate General and the officials, many of whom are here today, to take into account the preoccupations and concerns of this committee. I was encouraged by the process that they outlined for seeking input in the very important regulation process. We all know, those of you more experienced than I, a lot of the action is in the regulations, and a lot of our questions were around that. As a constitutional lawyer, I have some background in this.
I was very encouraged by the testimony. Although I only had a brief chance to read the minister’s letter, which I tabled earlier today, I was very encouraged by the minister’s commitments to consider a number of issues that were central to our preoccupations and may very well arise in amendments as yet not circulated.
So, I come to my conclusion. This bill received all-party support in the House of Commons. Of course we could improve the bill, but if in the effort to improve the bill we actually put it at risk of dying on the Order Paper, I have to say as someone who believes in this bill and in the rights that it accords, however imperfect to victims, believes in the signal that it sends to victims, believes in the other reforms it’s introducing into the criminal justice system, including bringing in some of the provisions from the criminal justice system, the civil justice system, on sentencing and about hate-oriented crimes regarding sexual orientation and expression, however meritorious, I’m having difficulty accepting any amendments.
I want to be transparent with you. If circumstances were different and we were not at risk of this bill dying on the Order Paper, I have no doubt — though I have to say not necessarily this one — there will be amendments I expect to come forward that I would support with enthusiasm. However, because I cannot put this bill at risk, I am not able to support this amendment and I will be voting against all amendments. I want it to be understood on the record that it’s not because I don’t think the amendments would not be meritorious, although I haven’t seen them yet. It’s simply that I think the bill is too important to let die.
As I said, you won’t hear the full speech again.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: First, if the bills were more tightly written and prepared in less of a rush, we would not be forced to go over them again and make amendments. The goal of an amendment is to improve a bill. In this case, it is to make the bill more acceptable to victims. I heard from some victims yesterday. The three witnesses agreed that the bill would not give them anything more.
I also know the government’s strategies, of course. They send us bills at the end of the session and only give us two days to study them, which is ridiculous. They are disrespecting the victims waiting for this bill. Today, we are being told that this amendment is useless. All amendments to a bill are intended to improve and refine it. That is what we are doing on behalf of armed forces members and all Canadians. I feel that this amendment is acceptable.
Senator Boisvenu: I completely understand Senator Gold’s position. He is defending the Liberal government. That government has been in power for four years. In four years, the government has done nothing for victims of crime. Name one other bill that has addressed victims of crime in the last four years. There are none. There was one bill that was intended, among other things, to make the victims’ ombudsman equal to the criminals’ ombudsman, the correctional investigator. All the Liberals voted against that bill, which would have made the government’s victims representative the equal of the one who speaks for criminals. Four years have gone by, and we are told that all the amendments we are introducing are useless.
You represent the government’s interests. We represent victims’ interests and they have not been consulted. So we are going to speak on their behalf and try to improve anything that can be improved. When a bill tells victims that a representative will be appointed in their place if they are not there, it shows a lack of consideration to them.
If your position is to say from the outset that amending this bill is useless, what are you doing as senators? Our job is to improve the bill so that they meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, victims of crime. If we decide not to amend this bill, what are we doing here? What use will it have been to have listened to the witnesses yesterday who told us that it is better to have no bill at all than to pass a badly designed bill that does nothing to advance victims’ rights and that will change nothing? That’s what the witnesses told us.
At very least, can we improve things that need to be improved? We can let some things go, but the bill has some points that absolutely must be amended. The minister said so in his letter, and I quote:
Ensure that the SMRC, Military Police and Military Prosecution Service proactively make victims aware...
So it is not the bill that mentions the need to work proactively, it is the minister in his letter. Can we make the bill correspond to what the minister wants?
[English]
Senator McInnis: I hesitate to speak on the bill because I have not had the advantage that other members have had to hear witnesses and testimony and to actually get into the bill. I think it’s an important bill. When I was Attorney General in Nova Scotia, we passed a victims’ rights bill, and that was back in 1988-89.
Preambles to legislation are statements of the purpose of the act. They lay out the principle and the guiding form.
With respect, Senator Gold — I have a lot of respect for you, and you know that — you never pass an imperfect bill if you know that changes and amendments can be made. I know you’re passionate about getting the bill through, but we are not sure when we’re going to rise here in the Senate. I know you’re worried about amendments that go to the other place, and, of course, we want to ensure that the bill gets there before they leave.
The other important thing about getting the bill through is when we leave for the summer, we know that there will be dissolution and all that it brings; things die off.
The other point I wanted to make — and it’s perhaps irrelevant to the point but should be made — so often I see where bills are passed in the House of Commons and they simply haven’t taken the time to do a good job. We see time allocation in various committees. It’s in this body, the Senate, where we have the ability and the time normally to do a good job, to bring in good witnesses and hear what they have to say. I’m sure you’ve done that this time.
But I caution: Never pass an imperfect bill if you can make it better.
I know what you’re saying: Some of these amendments — I have not had the opportunity to study them — perhaps don’t go to the root of the bill. I don’t like the word “gut” a bill. They’re not about that and some that I have just looked at certainly have the intent to improve the bill. If we can do that, we should.
Senator Gold: I don’t think I was misunderstood, but because my wife tells me I so often am and she’s always right, I will say it again.
Though I haven’t had the benefit of seeing amendments that follow this one, I have no doubt that they are not only well-intentioned but they would have the effect of improving the bill. This is not an example, which we’ve lived with in other places, where there are attempts to gut the bill. It’s not that at all.
I will leave without comment Senator Boisvenu’s attribution of what my role is. My role as sponsor is to try to facilitate the passage of a bill I believe in in principle. My remarks were offered in the spirit of openness and transparency. As many committee members know, not only in my parliamentary group but elsewhere, I have shared these preoccupations with others in the hope that we would approach the decisions that we have to make with full knowledge of the facts. I see that as our responsibility as legislators. Of course it is always to try to improve the law, but sometimes a half a loaf is better than no loaf and I fear we’re faced with that situation in this bill.
So we will all do what we choose to do, but there will be consequences if the effect of our best intentions will result in this bill not being passed and victims not getting the rights that are proposed in the law.
It’s not the first time that senators have been faced with this dilemma or indeed have spoken passionately for the exact same reason. It was as recently as 2015 in the context of the third reading debate of Bill C-32 when our colleague Senator Boisvenu made the exact same point when confronted with amendments from Senator Joyal. He said, “Victims support the Victims Bill of Rights,” and our witnesses did, in significant numbers, even when they had reservations, but they said it can be improved. I’m quoting from the English translation:
Basically, we have a choice between two options: a Cadillac that we won’t have the money to run or a decent sedan that we can cover a lot of ground in because we can afford to drive it.
Here, it is not a question of money or resources; it’s the practical question of whether or not our best intentions are going to have the unintended and — I won’t say “unforeseen” because these are foreseeable — unfortunate consequences of the bill dying.
I just want to be clear that it is not because I don’t think our role is to improve bills, and it is not because I’m here doing the government’s bidding. The government makes decisions as to its priorities and when it introduces bills. I take that as read.
I have a practical problem. I believe that half a loaf is better than none, and it’s for only that reason, and I’m just announcing it. I don’t control anybody’s vote here, despite what some may say, but I want the record to be clear that it’s a still dilemma for me.
I’ve opted to act in this way, and I won’t say anything more about that.
The Chair: Before the colonel put his hand up a couple of times.
Did you want to make a point?
Col. Strickey: Yes, Madam Chair. We’ve had an opportunity to review it from a technical perspective, and this answers I believe Senator Pratte’s concern in taking a provision from one act and placing it into another. As we look at the preamble line by line, and as this committee knows when I appeared yesterday, I said many times — and I warned you that you would be bored with me saying it over and over again — that to the greatest extent possible, Bill C-77 mirrors the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, or CVBR. This would be an occasion where there would have to be amendments made to ensure that it takes into account the military justice system. For instance, where the first line states, “Whereas crime has a harmful impact on victims and society,” we recommended that that would be a service offence to ensure that the military justice system is taken into account. Line 3 states, “Whereas it is important that victims’ rights be considered throughout the criminal justice system,” again, the military justice system. Line 5: “Whereas consideration of the rights of victims . . .” of service offences — instead of “crime” — is in the administration of proper military justice. Another change in the following line, and so on.
In terms of the technical review of this preamble, to Senator Pratte’s point, he’s quite correct that it is in our view that should this go forward, there would have to be a number of modifications to ensure it aligns with the military justice system instead of the civilian justice system.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: For two days, we have heard victims — and we must never forget that they are victims — testify more than once that they were never consulted. So this entire bill has been written without victims being consulted. I feel that our amendments are intended to make the voices of victims heard and to give them a place in this bill. I asked the victims who appeared, and, without intending to repeat Senator Boisvenu’s comments, they confirmed to us that Bill C-77 provides them with nothing new. If the amendments mean that the bill has to die in the Order Paper, the previous bill remains. It was not perfect either. A bill is never perfect, but can we at least pass some amendments to make it more acceptable to the victims? That is what we are being asked. Today, we are doing the consultation that the victims have never had.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I’m hearing “no.” Would senators like to have a roll-call vote?
Hon. Senators: 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: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
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, 6; no, 6.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Before we move on, I’m sure you noticed the light is flashing, so we have a vote at 4:03. We will continue, but we will stop to give all senators time to get to the chamber.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Boisvenu: I have an amendment.
The Chair: We are just waiting for it to be circulated.
Senator Boisvenu, we will turn to you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: So, the current paragraph says this:
(b) if, for operational reasons, the victim is unable to act on their own behalf and has requested the appointment of a member of the Canadian Forces to act on their behalf, a member appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff or any officer authorized by the Chief of the Defence Staff.
So the principle is about acting on the behalf of victims.
This amendment is about the victim having the right to have someone represent them and act on their behalf. I feel that it is a fundamental right. If a victim cannot do it because of operational issues, especially when they are deployed, they can ask a relative, a friend or a spouse, basically someone they trust, to exercise their rights as a victim.
Bill C-77 states that a person appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff or any other officer appointed by him will act on behalf of victims who cannot do so for operational reasons. This therefore removes the right of victims to choose anyone they trust if they are not able to act on their own behalf for operational reasons. I believe that there is still a significant risk — in theory — that the person representing the victim could be someone close to the attacker. In terms of justice and representation, this is inconceivable if a victim has to be represented in the legal proceedings. I believe that the choice is theirs, certainly not the employer’s. This amendment makes it possible for them to ask other members of the armed forces to act on their behalf.
In a word, the victims choose who will exercise their rights. This avoids conflicts of interest and inspires confidence that the legal proceedings will be transparent. It means that the principle of replacement or of representation is a right that belongs wholly to victims.
I therefore move:
That Bill C-77 be amended in clause 2, on page 3, by replacing lines 24 to 28 with the following:
“act on their own behalf, they may ask another member of the Canadian Armed Forces to act on their behalf.”
[English]
The Chair: On debate.
Senator Gold: I wonder if any of the officials can help us understand what the rationale was for the provision to which this amendment is directed.
Col. Strickey: This clause is to be read in conjunction with the definition of “victim” in subclause 2(3). It’s required in order to ensure that certain people are authorized to exercise a victim’s right when a victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf. In particular, the clause by clause stipulates with this provision — it accounts for the unique requirements of military operations by permitting a victim who cannot act due to operational reasons to request the appointment of a Canadian Forces member to act on their behalf to exercise their rights under the declaration of victims’ rights.
When we look at the current provision of the bill, paragraph 4(1.1)(b), the key phrase from a technical perspective would be that “the victim is unable to act on their own behalf.” If that victim is unable to act on their own behalf for operational reasons, then a person will be appointed for that victim. It is a triggering clause in that sense.
Senator Gold: Thank you. I want to make sure I understand. Can you elaborate on what it means by “if, for operational reasons, the victim is unable to act”? Can you explain what that might be? You mentioned somebody dead. Obviously, if you’re not there, you can’t choose somebody, but can you elaborate upon factual circumstances where this might arise so we can understand the significance of the amendment?
Col. Strickey: Thank you for the question. I can pose some hypotheticals.
When I was here yesterday, you will recall that we talked about the phrase “for operational reasons.” That’s used throughout the Queen’s Regulations and Orders. We had a conversation yesterday with regard to a victim liaison officer in the operational reasons clause — an assisting officer in the current framework of the summary trial, “for operational reasons.” This would be a case, for instance, if one were unable to communicate with a victim because of a deployment or an inability of a communication system to work, or if the victim is travelling. If, for any reason, a victim could not express their rights under the declaration, this would allow for the chain of command to take care of that victim.
Senator Gold: In other words, they have requested another member of the Canadian Armed Forces, but for some reason they can’t take it any further than that. So this allows some — but it’s only if and when he or she has requested, not a relative, but somebody from the Armed Forces; is that correct?
Col. Strickey: That is correct, sir.
Senator Richards: I think the problem is the phrase “. . . a member appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff or any officer authorized by the Chief of the Defence Staff.” That might potentially leave the victim in a compromised position. I think that’s what Senator Boisvenu is worried about. Can you address that for a moment?
Col. Strickey: Thank you, for the question.
I would submit this would be a very rare situation, one we do face from time to time in the Canadian Armed Forces, where, for unique operational reasons — and there are many. As I said, we may be on deployment, in transit, on exercise in the middle of nowhere. If, in this particular case, the victim cannot act on their own behalf in terms of them being incommunicado or there is a gap in time in which an aircraft is landing, this would allow the chain of command, for a set period of time, I would say — “unable to act on their own behalf” — until such time as the operational reasons are not there. This will allow for the chain of command to bridge the gap to ensure that the victim can exercise their rights.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would invite our witnesses to exercise caution in the examples they give. Using an exception to determine the general rule seems questionable to me. Let us stick to the general rule. You are talking about someone who is dead. Not everyone in a military operation dies. Not all women who have been sexually assaulted are in military operations.
Let me ask you not to interpret provisions using exceptions as examples when the provisions are general in nature. We are studying a bill of rights, and we are being told that victims have no right to appoint their own representatives. Do you see the weakness in the bill? At its most basic level, its philosophy is to take away a victim’s right to appoint a representative if they are absent. How can that be called a bill of rights? There is something I do not understand here.
[English]
Senator Gold: I’m trying to understand this, too. I’m understanding a little better, but I want to make sure I understand it correctly.
Do I understand, though, that this amendment would actually rob (1.1)(b) of all meaning? As I read it, it says:
(1.1) Any of the following individuals may exercise a victim’s rights . . .
(b) if, for operational reasons, the victim is unable to act on their own behalf . . . .
By that meaning, they’re unable to say, “I want Major So-and-So to act on my behalf.” If they’re unable to do that, the amendment then says they may ask another member to act on their behalf, but by definition, they’re unable to ask. They’re unable to get their first choice, so here they’re unable to get any choice.
If I understand the clause, it is to provide for that exceptional circumstance where they can’t exercise the choice, but there may be a hearing or some process where their rights need to be defended in some way, and this allows the gap to be filled.
Am I right in thinking that this amendment actually has an internal contradiction? You’re unable to act. When you’re unable to act on your behalf for operational reasons, you can ask someone else; but, by definition, if you were able to act, you would have had the person you wanted. You are not able to have that person, so how can you have another person?
Am I missing something? I think it’s well-intentioned to avoid conflict of interest, but I think it takes away the right of a victim to be represented when he or she, for whatever reason, can’t exercise the right the law would otherwise provide.
I certainly wouldn’t want any of us to pass an amendment thinking it’s well-intentioned and adds rights if it in fact takes away rights. Maybe I’m wrong in my understanding.
Col. Strickey: You’re quite correct.
It’s important to return to paragraph (1.1)(a), which outlines that any of a number of individuals may exercise a victim’s rights; for instance, if the victim were incapable, other than for operational reasons. We have the list. So, other than for operational reasons, if the victim is incapable, then we have a list of people who may exercise rights on their behalf: their spouse, a person in a conjugal relationship, a relative or dependent. And there are a number of other subparagraphs.
Paragraph (b), as you articulately stated, senator, would cover “for operational reasons.” Indeed, it says “for operational reasons.” From a technical perspective, I would propose that (b) is intended to fill a gap if a victim is unable to act on their own behalf for operational reasons, nothing more.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Paragraph (b) mentions a member of the military in deployment, meaning that they are alive. They cannot appear in person. Basically, this says that the armed forces will decide who represents them. Where is the logic in paragraph (a) saying that, if the victim is dead, a relative or friend can represent them, while paragraph (b) says that, if they are in deployment, the armed forces will choose who represents them?
(a) if the victim is dead or is incapable, other than for operational reasons, of acting on their own behalf,
That means someone who can speak for them, right? But in paragraph (b), if they are in deployment, the armed forces will represent them.
Senator Gold: Senator, you have forgotten another sentence:
(b) if, for operational reasons, the victim is unable to act on their own behalf and has requested the appointment of a member of the Canadian Forces . . . .
[English]
In other words, they’ve asked for an appointment. If they’ve asked for someone from the military but they’re unable to choose, I asked whether there was a contradiction. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know. That was the question.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Let me tell you where the contradiction is. Victims were not consulted about the content of that paragraph. That is the question I asked one of the victims yesterday: If you were in deployment, who do want to represent you? As a victims’ representative, I say that the paragraph must be amended. Victims were not consulted about the wording. It was written by senior officers. We simply must amend it in order to return the power to the victims, to their loved ones, or to someone who can make decisions in the victims’ place.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Roll call.
Mr. Palmer: 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: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Mercer?
Senator Mercer: No.
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: Abstain.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Ngo?
Senator Ngo: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: Yes, 5; no, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Senators, I’m watching the clock. We will suspend in about five minutes.
Shall clauses 3 to 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I understand there are amendments, Senator Boisvenu, on clause 7.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Absolutely, Madam Chair. Do people have a copy?
[English]
The Chair: Senators, since there will probably be some discussion on the amendment, shall we distribute the amendment and then suspend and go vote in the chamber?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will pass that out and then suspend.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Senators, as a reminder, we are on an amendment, which has the letter and title PB7-5a.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: You will not be surprised at this amendment, which is basically to change the name from “Declaration of Victims’ Rights” to “Charter of Victims’ Rights.” Basically, the legal title in the civilian justice system is the “Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.” The proposal is to change the title to “Charter of Victims’ Rights in the Military Justice System.”
I could speak about this subject at length. The purpose of the amendment is basically to give victims in the military justice system a powerful symbol that their rights are protected, not just in the content, but also, symbolically, in the title. As we know, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was adopted in 1982, provides that those who have been charged or convicted have fundamental rights that the courts have historically recognized. The charter has been given full value in statements from the courts.
A declaration of victims’ rights exists in many provinces. It existed at federal government level until the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was adopted. There was quite a pitched battle at the time because the bureaucracy did not want to use the words “charte” or “charter”. They wanted to use the word “declaration,” as the bill does. But for victims of crime, having a charter, a bill of rights, was a victory that was just as big as the rights recognized under the charter. Having a Charter of Victims’ Rights in the military justice system therefore provides justice to the victims.
So I move:
That Bill C-77 be amended in clause 7, on page 5, by replacing line 7 with the following:
“Charter of Victims’ Rights in the Military Justice System”.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I want to begin by expressing heartfelt appreciation to you, Senator Boisvenu, for your years of advocacy on behalf of victims and also for what I consider to be some very excellent proposed amendments. My comments relate to this amendment and to a number of the others that have very real substance to them.
I’m also mindful of the reference earlier from a former Attorney General about the need to not pass imperfect legislation. I need to say, though, that in my relatively short time here I have yet to see a single perfect piece of legislation that we have passed on any topic, at any time.
My sense is that we’re working within a pragmatic environment. I must say that for this amendment and for the others of great substance, the letter we received today from the Minister of Defence has had quite a profound impact on me. With permission, I would like to read part of it into the record, which I think is highly relevant to this amendment and some of the others that are likely to be proposed.
In the letter, the minister says:
. . . I want to be clear that National Defence is committed to working with you and all Parliamentarians to pursue meaningful change to ensure the CAF is a respectful workplace that fosters inclusiveness and diversity. I have listened carefully to your concerns, and as part of this commitment, National Defence will . . . .
The words “commitment” and “will” are important.
I’m now quoting:
•Require that regulations ensure that Victims’ Liaison Officers (VLO) will receive appropriate training in order to effectively carry out their role in the military justice system;
•Ensure that the SMRC, Military Police, and Military Prosecution Service proactively make victims aware of their rights under this legislation, including the right to request information and to ask any Commanding Officer for a VLO of their choice;
•Enable VLOs to work in conjunction with the SMRC Response and Support Coordinators in cases of sexual misconduct to ensure that victims are aware of the resources available to them and their rights under the Declaration of Victims’ Rights;
•Ensure that the policy analysis required to draft the regulations will include consultation with victims and key stakeholders such as the SMRC to ensure that all perspectives are properly taken into account; and
•Ensure that the regulations pertaining to the summary hearing process are drafted in light of the fundamental principles of creating a non-penal, non-criminal disciplinary system.
I have had a chance to raise some of these points with some of the witnesses we have heard. For me, this goes a long way.
I think this will remain an imperfect bill. I think this amendment and a number of others would make it a better bill, but it would still be an imperfect one.
I asked the question specifically of the minister about the chances of this bill dying on the Order Paper, and his answer reinforces for me the fact that for the purposes of the ongoing initiatives that are under way and the commitments that have been made by the minister in this letter today, it is important to proceed with the bill and not to allow for delays that may, in turn, cause it to die altogether.
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, did you have something else?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I do not want to question what those opposite are telling me, but minor amendments to the bill like this one will not adversely affect the timelines. Basically, when the minister receives a bill with such minor amendments, he makes the decision. He can almost make the decision on the spot and say that he accepts them. All he has to do is send his response to the Senate.
Delay is not at all at issue here. This is not as if we wanted to fundamentally amend the bill by removing entire clauses. Items as minor as this title depends only on what the minister wants. Delays have nothing to do with it, senator. I find it regrettable that an alleged reason such as a delay is being used to say that minor amendments cannot be accepted.
I have been in the Senate for ten years and I know that, when a minister agrees to amendments, it is done in 48 hours. It is not a matter of months or weeks. It is done very quickly. However, it is your choice.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Senator Boisvenu, I very much respect your point of view on this. From my perspective, though, this is really not about content. It is about the number of sitting days that we have available to us to get through an agenda that is huge and the high probability that any amendment would create sufficient delay that the bill would die on the Order Paper.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am aware of the minister’s letter. I find it odd that the minister decided to send us a letter at the last minute, knowing full well that we will be studying the bill clause by clause and that amendments will be proposed. The letter, although it is well written and quite commendable, is no more than a strategy to make us quietly swallow his Bill C-77. I regret that we are interpreting the minister’s letter to mean that we agree with it and, now that we have it, we should not worry about any amendments. I will have been here for seven and a half years soon and this is the first time I have seen anything like it.
The time we have left does not matter; we can sit in July if we have to. There is no problem sitting in July or August in order to consider the bill properly. To me, an amendment has more force of law than a letter stating the minister’s good intentions. If that was his intention, he could have done it earlier. He has had the position for three and a half years. That is my comment.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Roll call.
Mr. Palmer: 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 Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Mercer?
Senator Mercer: No.
Mr. Palmer: Senator Ngo?
Senator Ngo: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Richards?
Senator Richards: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: Yes, 6; no, 6.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 8 to 15 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have an amendment to clause 7 on page 5.
This amendment deals with the right to information. We heard about it during committee meetings, both from victims’ representatives and from legal people. It refers to what is most important to victims when they report their attackers: information. The bill says that victims will only be informed on request. That was roundly criticized by the ombudsman for victims of crime. We know that some of the victims are minors, 16 and 17 years old. Victims like that are living under authority. If they are pressured by that authority, they will not have the energy, the courage or the strength to seek out information. The armed forces is a unique environment in which authority plays a very strong role on the personnel at the beginning. That is even more true when members are victimized by superiors, especially victims of sexual assault.
I feel that even the minister has understood this. Moreover, as I said earlier, in the letter he wrote, the minister says that the military police and the military prosecutions services are or will be proactive in informing victims of their rights. Personally, I believe that victims will be informed only on request, given the way in which this bill is written, even though the minister talks about working proactively.
This contradiction must absolutely be corrected. If not, I feel that the minister’s statement, the position he himself describes, will be contradictory in nature.
So I move:
That Bill C-77 be amended at clause 7:
(a) on page 5,
(i) by replacing line 24 with the following:
“71.02 Every victim has the right to informa-”
(ii) by replacing line 32 with the following:
“71.03 Every victim has the right to informa-”; and
(b) on page 6, by replacing line 6 with the following:
“71.04 (1) Every victim has the right to in-”.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Mr. Palmer: 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 Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
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, 6; nays, 6.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have another amendment to clause 7. Can we distribute it? Madam Chair, the amendment is intended to shelter liaison officers from pressure that could come from members of a unit or from the chain of command. We know that the chain of command appoints the liaison officers. So it is important for us for the appointments to be independent.
So we would have a lawyer — let’s use the term “military lawyer” — as the liaison officer, rather than a social worker or someone else. That appointment would not be made by a commanding officer. Commanding officers would simply inform victims of their right to have a liaison officer. Appointments would be made by the Judge Advocate General, who is responsible for all lawyers.
The way in which liaison officers are currently appointed by the armed forces is somewhat similar to what is done at the Crime Victims Assistance Centre, where victims are given assistance with the legal process and information about the procedures, and so on. But one of the major gaps, especially with victims of sexual assault, is the lack of legal support. We feel that having liaison officers without legal training would mean that victims would be poorly supported during the legal proceedings. We know that, with sexual assaults, the most frequent complaint in the armed forces, appropriate legal support is needed so that victims do not withdraw their complaints during the case. In civilian courts, almost 50 per cent of victims abandon the prosecution. A number of provinces have understood that and now provide legal support to victims throughout the entire process, so that they do not abandon the case after they have filed their complaint.
So here is my amendment:
That Bill C-77 be amended at clause 7, on page 8, by replacing lines 16 to 30 with the following:
“71.16(1) A commanding officer shall inform the victim of their right to have a liaison officer appointed to assist the victim, unless the commanding officer is of the opinion that it is not possible to have a liaison officer appointed for operational reasons.
(2) At the request of the victim, the Judge Advocate General shall appoint a military lawyer to be a liaison officer to assist the victim as provided for in subsection (3). In the event of the absence or incapacity of the liaison officer, the Judge Advocate General shall appoint another military lawyer to replace the liaison officer during that absence or incapacity.
(2.1) A liaison officer appointed under subsection (2) must satisfy the requirements established in regulations made by the Governor in Council, including all regulations in respect of required training for liaison officers, in particular or criminal law and victimology.”
Senator Pratte: This amendment worries me a bit because it limits the training of the victim’s liaison officer. It would be a lawyer. But according to the testimony we have heard, yesterday in particular, victims themselves are telling us that they have multiple needs, not just legal needs. So I do not see why we would limit this role to lawyers exclusively. I know that is the system in the United States, but we do not always have to do the same thing here.
In his letter, the minister formally committed to liaison officers being properly trained. I quote:
Require that regulations ensure that Victim’s Liaison Officers (VLO) receive appropriate training in order to effectively fulfill their role in the military justice system.
That is a very clear commitment that a number of people requested. I do not see why the type of person to be victim’s liaison officers, and the training they receive, would be limited to lawyers only.
Senator Boisvenu: This is for the sole reason that most complaints in the armed forces are for sexual assault and what victims need is legal support in legal proceedings. There are two reasons for that: the number of prosecutions abandoned is very high, because of internal pressures, and the command structure in the armed forces exerts much more pressure than the civil system. It is strictly for those reasons. The needs are more legal than psychological or therapeutic.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Again, I want to commend Senator Boisvenu for the nature of the content of the amendment.
I think that in some ways this is ahead of our time. I heard clearly in the testimony from Major Rodman yesterday that what is now being contemplated by our Canadian Armed Forces is actually a model that the Americans abandoned after they tried it. They have now moved much closer to what Senator Boisvenu is describing here.
I definitely tilt to supporting the rationale that Senator Boisvenu has given in terms of the value of being represented by someone who is, if not a lawyer, certainly legally trained.
I’m left, though, in the same position as I spoke about earlier. I won’t go into more detail at this point because I went into so much detail before. I will not be able to support this amendment primarily because I think it will end up having the result of killing the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Perhaps I was not clear. It is really at the victim’s request. It does not exclude the possibility of other types of liaison officers. I have in mind criminologists who are not lawyers. It is at the victim’s request, meaning that, if a victim needs a legal counsel, I feel that the system should allow them to have one, which the act currently does not allow.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Mr. Palmer: 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 Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
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: Yeas, 6; nays 6.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: This is amendment PB 7-8c.
The amendment strengthens the role of liaison officers, which is defined in subclause 71.16(3) of the bill. It adds responsibilities, including to inform victims of the programs to which they have a right. That goes beyond the idea of explaining how the charges in military offences are handled. So this is about informing victims of the programs to which they have a right and of the rights that the current declaration provides.
The amendment points victims to the services they are entitled to in the military. It would add a right to the responsibilities of victim’s liaison officers. In addition, if a victim leaves the armed forces or the Department of National Defence, they have a recognized right to be directed to the provinces instead of just being dumped. The bill gives the armed forces no responsibilities after a victim leaves.
This was something that the ombudsman for victims of crime brought up. At very least, the provision could be improved by clearly stating that liaison officers are also required to explain to victims the rights they have.
So here is the amendment I propose:
That Bill C-77 be amended in clause 7, on page 8, by replacing line 34 with the following:
“the Code of Service Discipline;
(a.1) informing the victim of the various programs to which they have access;
(a.2) informing the victim of their rights under this Division;
(a.3) ensuring that a victim who leaves the Canadian Forces at any time is informed as soon as possible after their departure about programs in their province of residence that are available to assist them; and”
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Mr. Palmer: 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 Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
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: Yeas, 6; nays, 6.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Madam Chair, I have another amendment, still on clause 7.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, can you wait while we hand it out?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Of course, Madam Chair. I am always obedient to your commands.
This amendment would remove from the bill the provisions that take away the victims’ power to have their rights respected.
Let me read what is in the bill.
No cause of action
71.24 . . . an infringement or denial of a right under this Division.
— so if victims find that the content of this bill violates or does not recognize their rights —
No cause of action or right to damages arises . . . .
if victims are denied their rights they cannot appeal —
For greater certainty, nothing in this section is to be construed as affecting any other cause of action or right to damages.
Clearly, if their rights are upheld.
Subclause 71.25 reads as follows:
No appeal lies from any decision or order solely on the grounds that a right under this Division has been infringed or denied.
So these clauses take away all right to appeal. If we do not remove this clause, victims may make a complaint, and, if the complaint is dismissed, they have no right to recourse. If we want victims’ rights to be upheld, they have to be able to have that right. If we take out these two clauses, the current law still applies. This means the right to a judicial review, and if there is an error in law, federal law applies.
In procedural terms, the current procedure for an offender in the correctional system is to inform victims about the assistance services and other programs that are available. The opinions, the concerns and the comments of victims are important features of the current criminal justice process. It is appropriate for us to consider the policies and procedures that are currently in place, in accordance with the law. It is appropriate to consider the needs, concerns and the diversity of the victims in developing and providing programs and services.
It is also appropriate to inform victims of the options available to them. One option that they absolutely must have is the right to appeal. If the rights they have under this declaration are not recognized and respected, by keeping these two clauses in the bill, to me, it means a lack of respect for victims.
So I move:
That Bill C-77 be amended in clause 7, on page 11, by deleting lines 9 to 16.
Senator Pratte: This is something I do not understand, because the same two sections, exactly word for word, are in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. If it’s fine in the bill of rights, it must also be good for the declaration. I understand that what is wanted in both cases is that there be no legal recourse. There is recourse in an internal complaint management system, but no recourse before the courts, which is what the bill of rights provides in sections 28 and 29. The words are exactly the same.
Senator Boisvenu: Here is the problem, Senator Pratte.
Senator Pratte: I have just paid you a great compliment.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, I understand. Here is the problem: you must not compare the two charters on that basis because, in the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights, the federal government responsibilities are minimal and involve only the prison system and the Parole Board, which already has a complaint mechanism.
The problem with this charter is that it also affects the responsibilities currently downloaded to the provinces in terms of assistance to victims. These may be for damages or for financial or psychological support. Those responsibilities fall on the provinces; they do not come from the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. This charter, however, contains all the rights and services that victims can be given from the Canadian Armed Forces. The victims will not be knocking on other doors.
With the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims will not be knocking on the federal government’s door when the time comes for front-line services to be provided. They will be knocking on the provincial government’s door, looking for IVAC or CAVAC.
That is not the case we have before us, since the only outlet here is the Canadian Armed Forces. They provide all the services that the provinces normally provide under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
So these are two completely different situations. By removing this right, if victims file a complaint for assault and if the complaints are dismissed, they have nowhere else to go. With the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims have recourse elsewhere, in their provinces. There is a big distinction between the two.
Senator Pratte: I am not sure I completely follow your reasoning. I am sorry, I am not very strong in this area. Under the Victims Bill of Rights, there is no right of action or right of appeal either. It is the same thing.
Senator Boisvenu: Let me say it again. Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims have recourse elsewhere, either to IVAC or CAVAC, for compensation, information, legal information and support, or psychological assistance. Those services are provided by the provinces, not the federal government, whereas the charter we are dealing with here encompasses all the services and all the rights of victims in the Canadian Armed Forces. There is a major difference between the two charters.
If the responsibility for victims of crime — civilian victims — lay with the federal government, you would be perfectly correct and there would really be a gap in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. However, that is not the case, because 80 per cent of the services for civilian victims are provided by the provinces.
In the case we are dealing with, 100 per cent of the services to victims are provided by the Canadian Armed Forces. If they are not given a recourse to appeal for their right, they will have nowhere else to turn in order to claim their rights.
Senator Dagenais: I agree with Senator Boisvenu’s comments.
Bill C-77 is the only option that victims have. There are no other avenues. He is completely right. Having consulted with those services, I can confirm that there are several places where victims can receive services, appeal decisions, or be provided with consultations.
We have to understand that Senator Boisvenu’s amendment is intended to open up avenues for victims. So we have to enhance the bill in order to help victims, because the actual bill itself is about helping them.
In my opinion, we cannot be against this amendment. Not only do we have the bill, but we also want to improve it by giving victims the opportunity to have access to IVAC or CAVAC and other support they may be able to receive, instead of being forced to use the services provided by the federal government, in other words, by the army. I repeat, this bill is about helping victims, so why not give them more opportunities for help?
Sometimes, despite all the goodwill of its members, an organization is not up to the task. And the victim might feel more comfortable elsewhere. I’m inspired by an email I received yesterday from a veteran who was a victim and who told me that her only recourse was the army. However, she wanted access to other avenues to be heard. That is what the amendment proposed by Senator Boisvenu provides. If we refuse to adopt this amendment, it’s as if we’re telling victims that we would rather impose constraints on them. For instance, if you are required to go to the credit union and you aren’t allowed to go to the National Bank or the Royal Bank, you are restricted. In some way, the rights of victims are being restricted in the bill, and our amendment aims to broaden its scope by offering a little more flexibility and opportunities to victims. I think it would be quite commendable to accept such an amendment. I don’t see why some want to oppose it.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Mr. Palmer: 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 Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
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: Yeas, 6; nays, 6.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 8 to 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 17 to 26 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, you are moving fast.
[English]
The Chair: I will give you a chance to catch up.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: It seems to me that I had a good amendment to propose. We are going to go further. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clauses 27 to 36 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 37 to 46 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 47 to 56 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clauses 57 to 64 carry.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 65 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have an amendment to propose.
That Bill C-77 be amended on page 81 by adding the following after line 23:
“65.1 The Minister of National Defence must prepare and caused to be tabled before both each member of Parliament, no later than 15 days before the first anniversary of the day on which section 7 of this Act comes into force, a report that sets out the impact...”
These 15 days after the first anniversary, if we read it as drafted, means that after the bill is passed, the minister must report to both houses on the impacts of the bill almost a year later. I can tell you that a year is a long time when you have been a victim of sexual or other assault.
We were told that a devastating report on victims’ rights was released as recently as last week. We know that the situation has not improved, according to the evidence we have heard. We want to know in a year’s time whether this bill will have produced results. However, one year is far too late. The well-being of victims must be taken into consideration. We didn’t hear from them. They were not consulted.
When you are a victim of a crime — and I have known a few in my career — you have to wait for legal proceedings. This bill wants to keep victims waiting another year. I think we should shorten the deadline, accept the amendment and indicate that one year is too long. This restriction should be removed, as proposed in the amendment, and a much shorter time frame should be established to give victims a chance to be better represented. Again, they were not consulted.
I think the colonel wanted to say something.
[English]
Col. Strickey: To clarify a point we talked about yesterday, pursuant to section 273.601 of the National Defence Act, there is a statutory, mandated review that would encapsulate everything that falls within Part III of the Code of Service Discipline, and I believe the minister’s letter indicated that there would be a review forthcoming. So that would encapsulate not only, presumably, changes in this bill if it were to pass, but a myriad of other issues that we talked about at this committee, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: One thing is certain: This bill should have been developed in consultation with victims of crime. A bill has been drafted at the highest levels of the armed forces. We cannot criticize the exercise because there was good will, but the fundamental mistake was to draft a bill in the absence of victims of crime. It’s unforgivable.
When we wrote the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, we consulted nearly 3,000 people. It made all the difference. I know that this bill will be evaluated, as it is every time a government passes a bill, but I am thinking specifically of victims. One year later, we need to know how victims have been protected thanks to this bill, which we find unsatisfactory and incomplete. The victims told us that this will not change their experience. They will experience the same frustrations and abandonment. If the armed forces or the minister tells us that this is a tool that will change the fate of victims, even if they have not consulted the victims, because they know what is good for them, I think we should go to the victims one year later and ask them if the bill has changed anything for them. Otherwise, in two or three years, we will see the same Statistics Canada report with the same percentage of military personnel — especially women — who are being assaulted, and that will not change anything. It is important that a minimum effort be made in the year following the implementation of this bill, by consulting with victims to ask them if they are satisfied with the way the armed forces have treated them.
Senator Dagenais: To add to Senator Boisvenu’s comment, this reminds me of an experience. These discussions should have been conducted on an equal basis. I’ll explain.
As Senator Boisvenu raised, it is as if the big bosses had decided everything without asking the employees what they thought about it. The discussion and drafting of the bill was a one-way street. The boss said, “This is what I thought for you, my employees, and this is what you’re going to get, but I don’t want to know what you think.” This is the current bill. We should have had a joint discussion. I understand that there is no union association in the army, but there could have been joint discussions, which was not done.
The fear is that even if we wait a year to see the results of the bill, it may be too late for some victims, especially the victims we have heard from. When the damage is done, it is done. It’s difficult for the victims. Once again, we should accept this amendment while thinking of the victims. Let’s stop thinking about delays and the government’s bill. For once, can we think about the victims? We are talking about the end of the session that is coming up, and we’re finding that there isn’t much time left. We want to get the bill passed so it doesn’t die on the Order Paper. We can sit a little later in June. Then there are July and August. We should take the necessary time, because right now we are rushing through a poorly crafted bill.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I want to respond to some of the points that Senator Dagenais has just made, and to make it clear that I would be more than pleased to sit longer, including into the summer, but no one around this table makes that decision. It’s out of our control. As a result of that, to frame the difficult choices that we’re making here today as being either for or against victims, I have to demur on that.
Speaking for myself, a motivation that I think I see in other colleagues is to move, however minimally, in the direction of having an articulation of victims’ rights in law.
This is a hugely imperfect bill. I do know, though, from some of the consultations that I’ve had with advocates and survivors, that being able to move ahead with some of the projects that have been spurred on — including by the attention that this committee has paid to the whole issue of sexual misconduct in the military — is a small step in the direction of supporting those initiatives and supporting those who have been given responsibilities and, in some cases, responsibilities that didn’t exist before.
Speaking again for myself, with the greatest of respect to your position, I see this, as difficult as it is, as also being out of concern and support for victims and survivors.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have enormous respect for the armed forces. There are members of my family who have been in the armed forces. When I was young, I spent five years in the Air Cadets. I have a spouse who worked in the armed forces for seven years.
Two mistakes have been made in this bill. The first is that we didn’t consult the victims. The second mistake, which I think is even more important, is that the government used a public consultation that was done in the context of another bill. I’ve never seen this before. It’s as if we took the plans of a Volkswagen to build a Cadillac. This is what has been done.
In addition to not having consulted the victims, we are using consultations that were done in the context of the Victims Bill of Rights, which has nothing to do with the military charter. A fundamental mistake. It’s as if I were asking the army to build me a tank, and it used Volkswagen plans to do so. What will the outcome be? You’ll get stuck.
This is what will happen with this charter, because a totally different context is used in civil society. The government repeated the same thing throughout the consultations: The military is a different context and a different world. It has said this over and over again and is using a civil public consultation. This is inconceivable. This is a blatant lack of professionalism in my opinion.
Finally, victims are not being given an opportunity to be heard in the consideration of this bill. This is the third mistake.
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, just last week, the CBC reported several times on the comments of Statistics Canada and army representatives who said that, despite all the goodwill of General Vance, whom we had the opportunity to meet several times, with Operation Honour, there had been no improvement. Statistics Canada told us that. There has been no improvement.
We think that with the bill, in its current form, there will be an improvement, but given what we have heard, we are still taking the same wrong path. We should have learned from Operation Honour, which was implemented four years ago. I commend General Vance’s efforts, which were full of good intentions. I believe so. It has been difficult. When we see the failure of Operation Honour, if we think that Bill C-77 will be better, and if we reject amendments that could give victims more opportunities, we are going down the wrong path. This is a mistake.
Once again, if the government is still in place after the next election, it will live with its mistakes, but I hope it will be fixed sooner or later because we are on the wrong track.
Senator Pratte: Senator Boisvenu, despite your extraordinary career in the field of victims’ rights, you don’t have a monopoly on protecting victims’ rights. The main reason why most of us rejected many of these amendments is that we are convinced that, despite some weaknesses, the declaration of victims’ rights is an important step forward, because the text is the same as the one in the bill.
I understand that the context is different, but it is still not commonplace to introduce into military law the charter of victim impact statements, which incorporates, word for word, in several respects, the charter of which Senator Boisvenu is one of the main authors. We believe that this is an important step forward for victims’ rights. You have another interpretation, it is your right, but you don’t have the right to claim that you are the only one defending the rights of victims.
Senator Dagenais: We'll discuss this issue again next year.
Senator Boisvenu: We have never claimed to have a monopoly. I have a different experience from yours, but what we are claiming is to have more respect for the victims than you have had.
[English]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Roll call.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Boniface?
Senator Boniface: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Absolutely.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
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: Yeas, 6; nays 6.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall clause 65 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Noted.
Shall clause 66 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Boisvenu: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 67 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 68 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
I understand we have three senators tabling observations.
Senator Gold: The observations to which I wanted to speak are headed DRAFT — CONFIDENTIAL — ÉBAUCHE. It is a stapled document in English and French.
I would be quite content, chair — but I’m in your hands and the hands of the committee — to speak generally about the intent of these since we have them before us and they can be placed in the record, unless it’s your wish that I read them.
The Chair: Everyone has the document in front of them, so perhaps you can speak to it.
Senator Gold: It would be my pleasure.
What underlies these observations were the comments I made, along with Senator McPhedran and others, as we approached this bill, believing there were areas where improvement was warranted. We had questions all the way through the process before witnesses. We wanted to make sure that the report of the committee included statements of principle and directions that I believe, and I hope you share this belief, are important for the government to take seriously. Moreover, they provide a kind of baseline so that we, as a committee in the next Parliament, can hold the government to account and measure the progress that we hope, expect and seek in the improvement of our military justice system in all respects.
These observations pick up many of the themes we heard from witnesses. The only thing I would like to read to you is the preamble, which gives you the guiding principles. Then there are a series of observations about victims’ rights.
By the way, many of these observations are echoed in the minister’s letter, at least commitments that the minister made, and all the better because we now have two hooks to hang our hat on, if we can use that expression. But we also address the subject of summary hearings, which I note en passant was not really the subject of much debate or any proposed amendments here, but are important changes to the military justice system. Witnesses raised important questions that we took seriously, that I took seriously, and I wanted to make sure were on the record as well.
Let me read the first two paragraphs because I’d like the record to understand the context within which I, with the benefit of my colleagues’ discussions, approach these:
In light of this committee’s recommendations in its report of May 2019 entitled Sexual Harassment and Violence in the Canadian Armed Forces and evidence heard during its study of Bill C-77, amending the National Defence Act and other acts, the committee makes the following observations with emphasis on the importance of regulations for implementing the intent of the bill.
Overall, the committee’s observations...
— the ones I’m proposing to you here —
...are guided by conviction that military justice proceedings must be accessible and fair to all parties, and to achieve this, victims must be afforded a meaningful role in military justice proceedings so they are protected, considered, informed, respected and heard.
Then you have before you the specifics. If you have questions or suggestions for improvement, I’m certainly open to entertain all of them.
The Chair: Senators, any comments?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I quickly took into account the comments of my colleague Senator Gold, which are good, by the way, but where I would have a problem is in paragraph 11, the legislative review where it says that the independent review of the National Defence Act, planned for the seventh year — imagine, in seven years’ time — after the implementation of Bill C-77, should make it possible to assess the effectiveness of the victim impact statement and the extent to which these observations have been taken into account.
Imagine a victim next year. Effectiveness will be considered in the victim’s statement, and in six years’ time, the victim will be assessed as to whether the statement given is correct. I guarantee you I wouldn’t want to be a victim.
Senator Gold: Thank you for this question because it wasn’t the intention.
As we heard in testimony yesterday, and as was repeated today, the reference to the independent review in seven years is related to the provisions of the bill. What I understood in writing this is that the independent review will take place in 2021, if I remember correctly. So we’re not talking about seven years. In fact, it’s more a question of a year or a little over a year, because the independent review in seven years is framed in the legislation itself. We aren’t waiting seven years, far from it. The point here is to clarify that, in the context of what Colonel Strickey described just an hour ago, we will focus on the effectiveness of the statement, and also on the process for replacing summary hearings. Was I right?
[English]
The Chair: Senator Gold, before you move to the colonel, I understand from the clerk that there may be an issue in the English versus French translation. I’m wondering if you would like to read No. 11 into the record so that it can be properly heard.
Senator Gold: Which one better captures the intent that I just described?
The Chair: The English version.
Senator Gold: The English version. Thank you. It’s my pleasure.
Observation No. 11 reads as follows, under the heading of statutory review:
The seventh-year independent review of the National Defence Act immediately following the implementation of Bill C-77 and its regulations should assess the efficacy of the Declaration of Victims’ Rights, summary hearings, and the degree to which these observations have been applied.
The Chair: Does that help, Senator Dagenais?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, I’m trying to understand. What I understand is that the independent review of the legislation will take place in seven years and will assess the effectiveness of victim impact statements. This means that in 2026, we will examine the effectiveness of victim impact statements. We are talking about an independent review in seven years. In seven years’ time, I will no longer be in the Senate; people will be relieved, but I find this delay extraordinary. Why seven years?
[English]
The Chair: I’m trying to get clarity. I think somewhere between the English and French it was lost. Unfortunately, because I don’t speak French I’m not able to help explain. My understanding is the review is a seven-year review, but it will fall in place in 2021. Am I correct, colonel?
[Translation]
Col. Strickey: Madam Chair, under the National Defence Act and the independent review, in subsection 273.601(2), I quote:
Report to Parliament
(2) The Minister shall cause a report of a review to be laid before each House of Parliament within seven years after the day on which this section comes into force, and within every seven-year period after the tabling of a report under this subsection.
[English]
That’s the seven years to which Senator Gold refers.
Senator Gold: I think the question we need to know is when is the next review scheduled to happen? I would have no objection specifying it in the observations to make it clear we’re not talking about a seven-year delay.
Lieutenant-Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Director of Law, Military Justice - Policy, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: This provision came into force June 1, 2014, so the next report is expected, based on the National Defence Act, by June 1, 2021.
Senator Gold: The report is due. I would take it that means they would begin to prepare the report at least a year before, so that almost immediately upon the coming into force of Bill C-77 with the declaration of victims’ rights, they would at least be planning the organization of the report for a year thereafter. I’m not sure one could do it any faster.
Senator Pratte: I believe that even in the English version the mention of a seventh-year independent review immediately following the implementation of Bill C-77 breeds some confusion. I’m not sure of the exact wording, but I would suggest that in both languages we remove the reference to the seven years and simply indicate that the next independent review would take place in 2021.
[Translation]
The act already provides for this to take place every seven years, but the next review is expected in 2021, two years from now.
Senator Dagenais: That’s my understanding. So, there is an independent review every seven years.
Senator Pratte: That’s right.
Senator Dagenais: It’s still quite long.
Senator Pratte: Yes, perhaps, but —
Senator Dagenais: Maybe the act should be changed at some point.
[English]
Senator Gold: That was the intent of the observation, so any language that removes any doubt and introduces clarity is welcome.
[Translation]
Thank you for the clarification.
[English]
The Chair: I believe we may have a suggestion.
Julia Nicol, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Could you not just clarify by referring to the provision in the NDA that requires the seven-year review and say, “the review as per section . . .”? Then it would be clear and you don’t have the seven years.
Col. Strickey: Yes, I think that would be sufficient. In my opinion, it clarifies the question of seven years and would leave a reader to turn to the provision of the act.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I listened, and we won’t spend the evening on it, and I understood the interpretation. Even if I don’t seem to understand, I do.
[English]
Senator Gold: Contemplated by section such-and-such of the act.
The Chair: Are there any comments on other sections, then? I think we have agreement.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator McPhedran: I heartily endorse and was part of the collaboration for the previously accepted observations. I would like to offer two more.
The first is:
The Declaration of Victims’ Rights should be interpreted to not only apply to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but any civilian employee or contractor who is made victim of a crime in the course of their work for the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence, within Canada or abroad.
Are there any questions or comments on that?
Senator Pratte: I just want to clarify something. In the bill as it is, these employees are not covered. Is that correct, or is that ambiguous?
Senator McPhedran: I find it ambiguous and would invite the officials to respond.
Col. Strickey: If we’re dealing with, as we talked about yesterday, the provision of the declaration of victims’ rights, or DVR, would apply to a Canadian citizen, those in Canada and to a permanent resident. I believe you corrected me on that yesterday.
If we’re talking about anything taking place in Canada, once the declaration of victims’ rights is put into law, then we would really have the issue of whether a matter was in the military justice system or the civilian justice system. Then you would have a regime of either the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, or CVBR, applying or the DVR applying, depending on where the matter was dealt with.
Abroad, I can’t say this for all things, but if the matter was proceeded with in the military justice system for deployed Canadian civilians, for instance, then the declaration of victims’ rights would apply at that time.
Senator McPhedran: Because we had a fair bit of discussion about this and I think there is a degree of ambiguity, I thought why not put it in there for clarity.
The Chair: Are we in agreement?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I’m going to talk about Observation No. 1. It is said that the declaration of victims’ rights should be interpreted as applying not only to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but also to civilian contract workers working in the military. Did I understand that correctly? Let’s just say I’m a civilian working in the army. If I am sexually harassed or something like that, I will have to turn to the military system, because I won’t be able to go externally. I won’t be able to call on the IVAC or CAVAC, as Senator Boisvenu mentioned. That’s not quite true, is it?
[English]
Senator McPhedran: This observation is to try and capture a situation when a civilian or contractor is caught up in the military justice system.
The Chair: Observation No. 2?
Senator McPhedran: Yes. It reads:
That in establishing the regulations necessary for the implementation of Bill C-77, due consideration should be given to the recommendations of this Committee’s report, Sexual Harassment and Violence in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Dasko.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, chair. I’ve been asked by Senator Griffin to offer two observations. You will see three of them on the sheet, but she has asked me to remove No. 3 because she felt that was covered by the Senator Gold’s observations we discussed earlier. I will read them:
The Committee recommends that the government:
1. study offering free legal advice to victims in the military justice system;
2. instruct the Canadian Armed Forces to monitor how victims’ rights are being met and to report on these outcomes regularly;
That is what she has asked me to offer as observations.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, with observations, to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: I want to thank the officials for joining us tonight.
As agreed, we will start the discussion on Senator Dagenais’ motion.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We were supposed to have a one-hour discussion on my motion. Is that what you just said?
[English]
The Chair: Are we ready to continue?
Senator McPhedran: I’m requesting a very slight change. I’ve had the benefit of a discussion with Colonel Strickey, and I think my colleagues would agree that he pointed out a mistake I made in observation 1. I should not have referred to it as “a crime”; I should have referred to it as a service offence. May I please ask for support to make that change so that it accurately reflects the military justice system?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Now we’ll move to the motion.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have a comment. The Department of Defence has never made the clause-by-clause binder available to us so we could work on our amendments and to fully understand the meaning. We had a relatively brief presentation. Normally, we are provided with a detailed binder. We have asked for it many times, but we have never received it.
I would like to inform the committee that we didn’t have the support we should have received from the government to properly prepare ourselves to introduce amendments. We have worked very hard, and I thank the staff in my office for their help. The government should have at least provided us with as much information as possible so that we could do a proper job. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. It’s duly noted.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, for the benefit of my colleagues, I have just been informed that Senator Griffin, who participated in the discussions early this afternoon, would like to participate in the next discussions. She should be here in 25 minutes. Can we suspend the meeting for 25 minutes while we wait for her? Why not?
Madam Chair, I was ready to vote. My colleagues said no, that they wanted time to study the motion, and they asked for an hour. It was not at my request that we asked for an hour. Senator Griffin is asking for the opportunity to participate in the discussion because she was there at the beginning. I think, out of respect for Senator Griffin, who is a permanent member of the National Security Committee, we should suspend the meeting. This isn’t a personal request on my part. If I had been listened to this morning, we wouldn’t be here again tonight. We say no without even taking the time to listen to the explanations; I think we should give Senator Griffin the opportunity to be present. Why do we not want to hear her and have her participate in the discussion? She is a permanent member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Senator Gold: What I understand is that, given that she is chairing another committee, she looked for a replacement and Senator Dasko was available to replace her. If Senator Griffin wants to come back, she can follow the usual process to return to the committee by replacing Senator Dasko. It’s been a long day, and we are ready to discuss your motion. I think we need to go ahead.
Senator Dagenais: A message could be sent to Senator Griffin. Sometimes, the chair may be replaced by the deputy chair. I don’t know if anyone could give it to him; at least we should try to ask him.
I find this a bit deplorable, because we were asked for an hour of discussion; there were people who were here in the first hour and who participated in the discussion. I understand that the players have changed, but I think that, for the sake of transparency, Senator Griffin could be given the opportunity to participate — and it is at her request, not mine. Out of respect for the senator, I am sharing the message with you; it isn’t at my request; she’s the one asking to participate in the discussion.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I would like to observe that there are many considerations for many different members of this committee. As important as Senator Griffin is to this committee and as important it is to try to accommodate a request of this nature, there is something in place that both follows the procedures and has her place occupied.
The other point I want to make is that there are certain types of considerations. There is another kind of consideration that I am hoping to have considered, which is that I have been told by my doctor that I shouldn’t be here past 8:30 tonight and arguably shouldn’t be here at all.
I would ask for that consideration as well, and I would ask if we could please proceed.
Senator Mercer: My concern in saying no is the fact that we’re at the beginning of a very long period of four weeks where there will be very few breaks. Our colleague’s reference to her health is going to be echoed a number of times between now and the end of June by colleagues, particularly by colleagues who have not been here for this pre-election process before.
The month of June is always heavy. The pressure to get things done in a particular time frame is going to be there.
Yes, it affects me too. I would like to go home, but I’m happy to do my work and to do work here. We need to be mindful that waiting a period of time for a colleague to arrive is asking a lot. If she shows up, great.
Senator Dasko: I want to say that Senator Griffin asked me to replace her and I’m here to do that. If she wants to return at any point and take her spot back, that’s fine with me, but I think we should proceed.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We aren’t talking about an hour or two hours. Almost 20 minutes have passed since then. I understand that my colleagues are tired and that we are all coming to June. I have been here for seven years and, indeed, in June, everyone wants to go on vacation and everyone has bills to deal with. It is dreadful the work we can do in a month’s time, whereas in previous months — I prefer to keep quiet.
If 20 minutes is too long, listen —
[English]
The Chair: People would like to proceed; am I correct?
Senator Dasko: She discussed this motion with me as well.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You weren’t here at the start of the discussions.
[English]
The Chair: We have time. Shall we proceed?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Chair, I’ve said what I had to say about the motion and, quite rightly, Senator Pratte mentioned that there was a spelling mistake, that is, a spelling mistake of “du” that should be replaced. Indeed, I agree with Senator Pratte that it should read “la nature de la participation à ce processus ou autre personne” instead. I think the “du” should be replaced by “ou autre personne.” It’s a typo. We should check if there isn’t a mistake in the English version. If we want to reflect the English version, it should be “par une autre personne”.
Senator Pratte: “De toute autre personne.”
Senator Dagenais: “De toute autre personne”? I recognize the editorial writer of La Presse.
I don’t think there’s a mistake in the English version.
Madam Chair, as I mentioned, my intention in introducing this motion was that, as part of the future work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, we invite Vice-Admiral Norman, General Vance and, of course, the Minister of National Defence, to appear, and that the committee be authorized to study — and this is part of our responsibilities — to report on the circumstances that led the RCMP to lay criminal charges, which have now been withdrawn and found to be unfounded.
Unfortunately, Senator Griffin is not present, and she mentioned that the charges were not withdrawn, but stayed. Perhaps Senator Gold, who is a lawyer, will tell us, but I have rarely seen charges suspended. Charges are laid or withdrawn. Often, it is the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions who determines whether charges will be withdrawn because there is no motive. You don’t hold a sword of Damocles over a person’s head and tell them that they can go home even if there were accusations against them and that, for now, they are suspended. I think the charges were withdrawn and found to be unfounded.
The defence of the military has been talked about for a long time, so that they are well defended and well-represented. I think the army’s second-in-command would be entitled to a public forum to explain his situation. I tell myself that this person has unfortunately been accused in the court in the public arena, and I am talking about Senator Pratte, who knows that the public court is often more severe than a court of law. For two years, Vice-Admiral Norman was suspended, which affected him, his wife, his daughter and his reputation, and I think he should be given an opportunity to come forward and explain himself. In addition, in the interest of transparency, we must also invite General Vance, who will give us his version of the facts, as well as the Minister of National Defence.
This is not all for the purpose of a public trial, but to clarify a situation that I consider serious. We don’t often see the Canadian army’s second-in-command being suspended and told to go home, and we don’t want to hear from him even if we suspect him. The most surprising thing is that after two years, the charges are going to be dropped. I won’t go any further, because we could also invite the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who couldn’t tell us anything because the investigation is ongoing.
I think we should at least give Vice-Admiral Norman an opportunity to come and explain himself, for the sake of transparency and for the benefit of Canadians. Canadians are proud of their army, and I think that when a second-in-command is suspended in this way in the public arena, if we want to reinstate him in his position, we must give him an opportunity to explain himself. What is even more bizarre is that General Vance is prepared to reinstate him, while the Minister of Defence claims to have appointed someone to replace him.
I look at what has happened in the past. We have often seen senior executives of crown corporations, senior public servants for whom it took two, three or four years to replace them. What was the urgency of replacing Vice-Admiral Norman, knowing full well that it was a suspension and that he could be reinstated? For the sake of transparency and fairness, both parties must be heard. I know my colleagues will say, “Senator Dagenais is a Conservative, and he wants to make it a political event”. However, it wasn’t Senator Dagenais who suspended Vice-Admiral Norman, and it wasn’t Senator Dagenais who wanted to reinstate him.
Evidently, there is no question of inviting Prime Minister Trudeau either. However, what is a little unfortunate is that those who were responsible for the consequences of his suspension left the House of Commons when the time came to apologize. For perception in the public arena... and we know that in politics it’s all about perception. I hear comments, both in Quebec and elsewhere, and Canadians are wondering what happened. I will praise the English newspapers that covered this event extensively. Unfortunately, in Quebec, and I don’t blame the French-language newspapers, because perhaps it attracts less attention from Quebecers, or it’s less of a seller. However, I think it was all written in the newspapers, which reported the fact that the Canadian army’s second-in-command was suspended and that, after two years, it was now felt that he should no longer be suspended. That leaves a lot of lingering questions.
I understand my colleague, Senator Mercer, when he says: “If you want to invite Vice-Admiral Norman, you could also invite Mr. Harper and Peter MacKay.” But we could also invite Mr. Brison, who was President of the Treasury Board and who, after three years, decided to return to spend more time with his family. Has he been involved in any way in this whole thing?
I think Canadians need to know the truth. I think the role of the Senate... often my colleagues tell me about it. The Senate has a reflective role and we owe it to Canadians. We are not elected officials, we are here to study issues, think things through and illustrate the role of the Senate, which is a bit like the watchdog of the House of Commons.
That being said, the purpose of my motion is to invite Vice-Admiral Norman, General Vance and, of course, the Minister of Defence to be heard, if they accept our invitation. They cannot be forced and they can refuse, but it would be appropriate, for the sake of transparency, to invite them to come and explain what happened. This is not a public trial that we are proposing to conduct. We often hear about our neighbours in the United States, and we see how often people from the White House or the director of the FBI have been called to testify before American Senate committees. However, I believe that even if we are not elected, we are senators, and when isolated events occur that we don’t often see, the role of the Senate is to invite the people concerned to come to the Senate, where they will have the opportunity to explain themselves. In addition, we give ourselves the opportunity to question them. This is not a trial, but it is a bit like the way it is done regularly in the United States, where there have been several Senate committees. I think the role of the Senate — I don’t like the expression “House of Commons watchdog” — is to supplement and help the House of Commons.
That is why I tabled this motion. I wasn’t influenced by anyone, it came from me. I see Senator Pratte smiling. Yes, it’s a fine monologue, but I’m going to do it anyway. Honestly, I suggested it myself to my leader and whip. When I saw that this wasn’t happening in the House of Commons, where the Liberals are in the majority, I thought I would try my luck on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, where we could try to do better than our colleagues in the House of Commons by giving the people concerned an opportunity to explain themselves.
I think I have said enough, and I hope I have convinced you. Otherwise, I hope it will be something to think about. Thank you for listening to me. I see I’m putting you all in a good mood, I’ve never seen so many beautiful smiles on this committee. I think you appreciated my monologue, and know that I am willing to give more, but on other topics.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Senator Dagenais, thank you so much for your fulsome explanation of why you have made this proposal. I have a couple of observations and questions that reflect concerns I have.
First and foremost, I heard — and I may not have fully understood — you used the term “invite,” to invite Vice-Admiral Norman to come, invite the Minister of Defence and potentially invite former Conservative cabinet ministers. When we do this, though, as a standing committee of the Senate, it’s more than an invitation, is it not? It seems to me that part of what’s missing in your analysis is whether this is something that Mark Norman wishes to have added to his very complicated life.
I think this is a time when it behooves us to be very considerate of someone who has been put through more than two years of very difficult scrutiny, allegations, called before public bodies. I personally do not know the gentleman, but I feel very hesitant to engage in a process that may, in fact, be most unwelcome at this time for Mark Norman.
My second observation is that as I heard the way in which you described the analysis that you brought to your proposal, it seemed to me that the investigation of the RCMP was a critical element in what prompted you to make this proposal; yet, I don’t think I’ve heard you mention the RCMP once as being potentially invited to come before this committee. Even if they were, I think we all have enough practical knowledge of how the justice system works that it would be of very limited value to try to delve into what did or didn’t happen, what judgment went behind, not finding documents or not tabling documents, that whole range of questions.
In the decision of the federal prosecutors to stay the charge against Mark Norman, I think we could have numerous discussions over tea, or some other libation, about what all was happening there. But what we are left with is a very clear decision. What we know is that Mark Norman has returned to the Canadian Armed Forces. There is a decision to be made by General Vance, whose responsibility it is to make that decision.
My instinct on this, Senator Dagenais, is that we should let the situation evolve, we should let Mark Norman get on with his life and we should not be adding additional pressure to him at this point in time. I’m speaking very personally here and, I suppose, somewhat instinctively as someone who used to be a lawyer representing people and knowing what often happens when you finally finish a process that has been gruelling.
Those are the observations I would offer. Although I think you’re raising very important points, I’m not at all convinced that it’s the appropriate action for this committee to take at this time.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your comments, Senator McPhedran.
Of course, if that would be reassuring, I had thought of inviting the RCMP Commissioner. In my motion, I could have given the full list of witnesses, but I have identified the main ones. Unless I am mistaken, I wrote, “and any other witnesses that the Committee may decide to hear”.
You’re a lawyer, as you mentioned. I already know the RCMP Commissioner’s answers. She will tell me that this is under investigation and that she cannot tell us any more. If it is any comfort to you, I intended to, because it is clearly stated that an investigation has been initiated and the decision has been made to withdraw the charges. I don’t want to question the RCMP’s investigative methods, but I did intend to invite the RCMP.
As far as Vice-Admiral Norman is concerned, I don’t want to be relativistic, but when you decide to study a particular subject, there is a steering committee. Here, there will be Senator Mercer, Madam Chair and me. We will establish a list of witnesses with the clerk. For example, if the motion is accepted, senators will be invited to submit a list of witnesses, and then the steering committee will draw up the list. That is how it’s done, and I don’t see a different way to do it.
In view of the particular nature of the situation, I believe that we would need at least one motion to allow us to move forward in our work. We would prepare a list of witnesses, the steering committee would hold a meeting, and meeting dates would be set.
I understand Senator Pratte’s concerns that June 20 is very close. That’s true, but, you know, we don’t have to finish on June 20, we can keep working. In fact, senators are paid during the months of July and August. I don’t think the taxpayers will blame us for working. I saw it the same way, and that’s part of our responsibility.
In all committees, that’s how we do it, we prepare the list of witnesses. Look, maybe there would be other soldiers who could be invited whom we don’t know, or even other ministers. I am not against inviting former Minister Peter MacKay, on the contrary. That would make it more transparent and people would feel that the Senate is doing its job. They could say that we are taking charge of the file because we are hearing witnesses.
I will not hide from you that there may be journalists at the door, but we must not take into account what is happening outside. We have work to do as a committee, and I think that not only could we do our job, but it would finally give value to the Senate. I rarely use English expressions, but the Senate is perceived as “rubber stamping” government projects. For once, we would take the bull by the horns and do our job, which we do very well, by the way. We are all experienced senators with different backgrounds.
I think this would allow Vice-Admiral Norman to speak. I don’t know him personally, but I think he might like to come. We must not forget that his reputation was tarnished in the public arena and that he deserves a hearing in the public arena.
You know, I was once accused in the public arena, and the member of the House of Commons who did so apologized publicly. What is done in the public square deserves to be explained in the public square and not in private.
That was my reaction to your comment.
[English]
Senator McInnis: I’m loath to get involved in this, but anyway, here goes.
There’s nothing wrong with inviting any senior individual within government, but I would be quite surprised if Vice-Admiral Norman would show up, for several reasons. One, of course, is that I fully expect — I have absolutely no knowledge but am surmising — there will be pending civil litigation or some form of settlement that will be under way shortly. The RCMP most certainly would not release information that I could understand that would be evidence, because they don’t know where this is going at the moment. For them to come and to give information with respect to evidence that may or may not be in some civil court would be questionable.
Here, you can have an in camera session versus a public session. Obviously I agree with Senator Dagenais that the public has a right to know and is very interested in this subject, but I think it would be challenging. You don’t have to force them to come. They may show up, but in terms of what they would say, I think they would be hand-tied as to what they could do.
I would change some words. You want a report on the circumstances. You actually want a report on the information or evidence or facts. Circumstances is one thing.
These people are not giving evidence under oath, but he could be saying things that would be injurious to future cases.
Having said that, there’s no harm in asking at all. We can always invite these people to come. Normally, out of respect, they do come. Rarely do you see them deny.
My concern is this: What will it be for? What information are we going to get? Those are the questions.
Senator Mercer: Question!
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor.
Senator Griffin: Actually, I have a question before the question.
Before I left this afternoon, I suggested a change in wording in the resolution that the charges have been stayed as opposed to withdrawn. Has that been changed?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Griffin: I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. As I recall, it said “withdrawn” and “unfounded.” The word “unfounded” I find awkward. We don’t know for sure if they’re “unfounded” until we actually have the discussion. I would feel more comfortable if the word “unfounded” is out of there.
“Withdrawn” isn’t correct. The charges were stayed. What I would like to do is replace “withdrawn” and “unfounded” with the word “stayed.”
Are you okay with that as a friendly announcement, Senator Dagenais?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Griffin, I understand your concern. Could we not instead say this: “to lay criminal charges now withdrawn,” stopping there and removing the words “deemed unfounded”?
There are lawyers around the table. Do you think charges can be stayed?
Senator Gold: The expression does not exist in French.
Senator Dagenais: I’ve never heard that before. Charges are not suspended; it seems to me that they are withdrawn or maintained.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Perhaps I could read the definition. I googled the definition, because I understood your concern:
A stay of proceedings is a ruling by the court in civil and criminal procedure, halting further legal process in a trial or other legal proceeding. The court can subsequently lift the stay and resume proceedings based on events taking place after the stay is ordered.
This is according to Wikipedia.
The Chair: There are certainly better lawyers here than me, but my understanding is that with a stay, they’re halted, but it doesn’t prevent them from being resurrected. That’s why they stay versus withdraw.
Senator McInnis: There was evidence that brought about the stay. If there’s new evidence that comes forward — for example, if you had the gentleman there, and he’s saying certain things — that this is not in camera, this is public — that’s why I would be quite amazed if he showed up. He could say things that could be injurious to his case.
I think this is not over yet. We all know that. I would be quite surprised if he would come and say something that would hurt him down the road.
You can always ask.
Senator Griffin: I agree that we can always ask. It’s up to the individual being asked if they want to come and see us.
Also, if he does, he is protected by parliamentary privilege, is he not?
Senator Mercer: No.
Senator Griffin: Not at committee?
Senator Mercer: Not at committee.
Senator Griffin: Then he’ll probably bring his lawyer with him if he does come.
Senator Gold: The more we talk about it, the more I’m uneasy. It’s not that what happened isn’t very unfortunate, but wouldn’t the simplest thing be to find out — it’s Vice-Admiral Norman. This is the linchpin. It would be relatively easy to inquire over the next few days whether he would have any willingness to testify and, if so, what conditions might apply. That would make a huge difference to whether we proceed.
I would be kind of reverting to — although we did agree to vote on this, I’m not that keen to support this motion. If there were agreement to consider not doing anything formally until we find out whether he would be willing to come, I think that would be the most humane thing to do for Vice-Admiral Norman. Failing that, I’m uneasy with this motion, frankly.
If this motion passes, it passes. If this motion is defeated, that doesn’t stop other initiatives to see if he would be willing and under what conditions. But right now, for reasons Senator McPhedran raised and also some of the tone of this motion, I feel uneasy.
Thank goodness we’ll take away the word “unfounded,” because we don’t know. There is evidence at least in the public domain that suggests there was some behaviour. It might not have been criminal behaviour, to say nothing about the fact that this touches on the administration of justice as much or more than defence and military matters. The source of it was procurement issues. I hesitate.
Senator Griffin: I wanted clarification before we voted. There were two words I needed to have removed in order to have comfort with this. One was inaccurate in that it said “unfounded,” and that the charges were stayed, not withdrawn. The word “unfounded” is judgmental. I really would prefer that we remove both of those words: One because I’m uncomfortable, and the other because it’s not correct.
The Chair: I think you proposed it as a friendly amendment. I think Senator Boisvenu was going to speak on it.
Senator Griffin: Okay.
The Chair: Am I correct?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: No, I wanted to answer my colleague Senator Gold. I just wanted to comment on his comment.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Dagenais, are you responding to Senator Griffin?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: This is a complementary comment to Senator Griffin’s comment.
In any case, I am not against replacing the words “now withdrawn and found to be unfounded” with the words “now stayed.”
The purpose of the motion is to invite Vice-Admiral Norman. I think Senator Griffin would be more comfortable with the expression “to lay criminal charges that are now stayed.” That is what Senator Griffin is proposing as an amendment.
The purpose of the motion is to give Vice-Admiral Norman an opportunity to tell his story. As we do with all witnesses, we send an invitation. If he refuses, it will be his decision. This would not be the first time that witnesses were invited and for some reason have said they preferred not to come. We then find other witnesses.
At least I think we will have done our job. The work of the National Security and Defence Committee is to study subjects of a military nature, and I think we have work to do. If people are invited and they decide not to appear, that is their decision. We have never sent a summons to appear; we are not a court of law. As you know, how many times have witnesses been invited who say they are not available? They are not telling us outright that they do not want to come, but they tell us that they are not available.
At least, we will have done our job by saying that we wanted to clarify a situation and study it, as the National Security and Defence Committee. And if, for personal reasons, the witnesses decide not to come forward, that would be all. We are not a court of justice, but at least we will have done our job. Sometimes I read articles in the newspapers about senators that describe what senators do or do not do. At least people will be able to say that the senators of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence have done their job, and that in response to our requests, people have preferred not to show up. They are free, no one is obliged to come and testify.
I know General Vance well, and he always made himself available when invited. Maybe this time he won’t come. It is up to him to decide. It is up to people to decide whether or not they want to come to the committee, but at least our work will be done.
By the way, if there is a vote, I understand that Senator Dasko will not vote, since Senator Griffin is back with us. I say this with respect for Senator Dasko.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence is a very interesting committee, Madam, I can assure you.
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to add two comments. The first thing is that whether or not they are founded, the charges have been dropped. Second, in response to Senator Gold, the day after the charges were dropped, Mr. Norman gave a press conference with his lawyer and said that he had things to say and that he would like to be able to give his side of the story. I have no doubt that he would prefer to be invited in an organized context which is not a circus. I think it is better for him to come here and explain himself, between parliamentarians and members of the Armed Forces, than to give a version to the media.
We are used to questioning, we are used to meeting witnesses on a wide variety of topics, and I think we could do so in a very professional way and listen to the vice-admiral’s version of events. In my opinion, this would be a unique opportunity for Canadians to know the truth from one of the two sides, since the other side does not want to explain.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, for clarity in terms of the friendly amendment on the motion, am I correct that it is to read, on the second line, “. . . to lay, now stayed, criminal charges . . . .”?
Thank you.
All those in favour of the motion, as amended? Shall we do a roll call?
Senator Pratte: Sorry, chair. I understand the amendment was accepted. Therefore, it has been dealt with. The motion is now amended and we are voting on the motion as amended.
The Chair: That’s correct.
All those in favour of the motion, as amended?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Roll call.
Mr. Palmer: 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 McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No.
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: Yeas, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)