National Defence Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I would like to understand this. I know we've been very generous with this important motion in facilitating it. There are other motions we would like to take on. We have also agreed to an extension on the housing study.

I'm not disputing that this is very important subject matter, but what is Ms. Mathyssen's rationale for who she's inviting? It's two more witnesses, so it's four hours. Is that what I'm hearing, or is it two hours? I just want to understand this, with everything in hindsight and with everything piling up on our desk at this wonderful committee.

I'm not saying it's a no. I just want to understand it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead.

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

When I originally put forward this motion, I expected it to be longer. As the committee will remember, it was shortened. As we've discovered, there's a lot to dig into, so I think we owe it to the witnesses who have come and shared their time to do a fulsome study, as we need to.

I also originally asked for the chief of the defence staff to appear because he has the final say. We have heard him and his office referenced several times today and in previous meetings as to the final authority on information and access to said information. I think that's really important. Even today with the ombudsman, as incredible as Mr. Lick and his office are, I think a lot of the historical context of what happened with former ombudsman Walbourne is important for this study.

If we feel that we're able to do it in a meeting and a half, that's fair enough. However, with the depth of these witnesses, I consider two meetings appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Now we'll have Mr. Bezan and then Madam Lalonde.

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

I support the amendment. I believe what we heard this morning from the military grievances committee is that they do take direction from the CDS and refer files, so we want to hear from the CDS.

Based on Mr. Lick's testimony this morning and his comments surrounding the independence of the office, namely that Mr. Walbourne proposed legislation when he was the ombudsman, I think we should talk to Mr. Walbourne about the importance of making the office an independent parliamentary office that's able to do the investigations required.

This is in the interests of those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and those in the Department of National Defence. We want to make sure that we are promoting a culture of transparency. I think digging deeper in this study helps send a message about the culture change that needs to happen to ensure that we have collaboration and co-operation by department officials and the minister himself.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Mrs. Lalonde.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

As always, l like how at the last minute of every committee, without getting any proper notification or information.... We didn't see anything in writing. We have a wonderful amendment that I think will be interesting to see on paper written up, so maybe, Mr. Chair, we can adjourn so we can see it. Then we can come back to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is that a motion to adjourn?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

It is.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Marie-France, are we adjourning the meeting or the debate?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I would like to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, that's a dilatory motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The motion to adjourn debate failed, so we're back to the motion and the amendment.

Is there any other debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Can we get the amendment? This is just James's motion. Is there a way of getting the amendment or the amended motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't think she has it in writing.

Do you have it in writing, Clerk?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

On a point of order, the motion, if I understand your ruling, Chair, is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm not talking about that. We're trying to find—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

We ought to just continue, and if there's no debate, it would go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The amendment is also in order. I'm asking whether there is a written copy of the amendment so we all know what we're talking about.

The clerk has it.

[The Clerk]

I have it in one language. I can't distribute it because I don't have it in both languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We don't have it in both official languages. It has been read into the record, but for a point of clarification, I'll ask the clerk to once again read it into the record so we know what we're doing.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

If I may, Chair, would you allow the witnesses to leave at this point?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It looks like we're pretty well past the time anyway, unless you really want to stay for this really thrilling exercise in democracy.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you again.

Mr. Clerk, so that we all know what we're talking about, go ahead.

[The Clerk]

Perfect.

I'm going to read the whole motion, with the amendments that have been suggested by Madam Mathyssen. The motion would read:

That the committee extends the transparency within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces study by two additional meetings and invite the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the former National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, to appear.