Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A House of Commons committee has reversed a decision to wrap up its investigation into sexual misconduct in Canada’s military.

But how much further the investigation will go was in doubt Friday as Liberal committee members launched a filibuster to avoid a vote on a Conservative motion to summon one more witness, a former senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Earlier this week, the Bloc Quebecois had joined Liberal members of the defence committee in voting to conclude their investigation this week and begin preparing their report on the matter.

Story continues below advertisement

But Conservative MP James Bezan moved Friday that Elder Marques be summoned to testify within seven days.

Liberal committee chair Karen McCrimmon ruled Bezan’s motion out of order, saying it was inconsistent with the earlier decision to conclude the committee’s investigation.

However, Conservatives challenged her ruling, arguing that the decision to begin preparing the committee report didn’t preclude hearing from more witnesses.

All opposition members, including the Bloc’s Andreanne Larouche, voted to overturn McCrimmon’s ruling.

However, Liberal members then filibustered Bezan’s motion with lengthy speeches about whether Marques should be invited, rather than “summoned” to appear and bemoaning the fact that appearances by three people who were supposed to be the final witnesses Friday had to be cancelled because of prolonged debate over the surprise motion.

Among the cancelled witnesses was Rear Admiral Rebecca Patterson, the defence champion for women in the Armed Forces.

The meeting was finally adjourned hours later without getting to a vote on Bezan’s motion.

Story continues below advertisement

To root out misconduct in the military’s highest ranks, the CAF needs a more personal playbook

The committee has been investigating allegations of inappropriate behaviour involving former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance.

Global News has reported that Vance allegedly had an ongoing relationship with a woman he significantly outranked. He is also accused of having made a sexual comment to a second, much younger, soldier in 2012, before he became commander of the Armed Forces. The outlet has reported Vance denies any wrongdoing.

Vance, who turned over command of the military in January after more than five years in the job, has not responded to requests for comment by The Canadian Press and the allegations against him have not been independently verified.

Military police are now investigating the allegations against Vance. They have also launched an investigation of Vance’s successor as defence chief, Admiral Art McDonald, who stepped aside in February following unspecified allegations of misconduct. McDonald also denies wrongdoing.

Opposition members of the defence committee have been trying to determine who in the Liberal government knew about the allegations against Vance and when they learned of them.

Their investigation has been frustrated by the government’s refusal to allow staffers in the PMO or minister’s offices testify at committees, despite a House of Commons order. The Liberals maintain that ministers, not their staffers, are the ones who should be held accountable.

Story continues below advertisement

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has testified three times on the Vance allegations. He has said he was told by then-military ombudsman Gary Walbourne about an allegation against Vance in March 2018 and that his chief of staff alerted the Privy Council Office about it.

Former clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick has testified that the matter could not investigated because Walbourne refused to provide details or the name of the alleged victim.

Know what is happening in the halls of power with the day’s top political headlines and commentary as selected by Globe editors (subscribers only). Sign up today.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies