National Defence Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

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

Yes. Thank you very much for allowing me to have a conversation with our team and get some clarity.

As I said, I think, overall, the intent of the motion has very strong merits in the sense that it was on notice and we knew it was coming, but I have some hesitation to say yea to the way it is written right now. We would like to propose some amendments—actually very friendly amendments.

[A voice]

I'll be the judge of that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

They're always friendly amendments coming from me, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to go back because I want to make sure I'm reading it exactly the way it is. I do not have the copy of your motion, Mr. Bezan, so I apologize.

I think my understanding is that it would read that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on all defence expenditures since 2013 and their impacts on the operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces; that the committee hold a minimum of three meetings for this study; that the committee invite the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Bill Blair, and deputy minister Bill Matthews to appear before the committee for the study; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Hang on to the point of order.

First of all, do we all understand the amendment as it's been presented?

Are we debating the amendment, or are we having a point of order? We have a point of order.

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

I believe if you review the amendment, you'll see that it changes the intent of the motion, which is to review the budget cut.

She changed it to looking at expenditures that have already taken place. We're talking about a budget cut that was announced.

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

I apologize to my honourable colleague for misreading this:

Whereas, Budget 2023 announced reductions in spending on consulting, other professional services, and travel;

Whereas, these reductions will not impact direct benefits and service delivery to Canadians, direct transfers to other orders of government and Indigenous communities, and the Canadian Armed Forces;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on all Defence expenditures since 2013 and their impacts of the operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces;

That the committee hold a minimum of three meetings for this study and that the committee invite the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence to appear before the committee for the study; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

All right.

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

I just want clarification.

The preamble talks about the announced reductions, the budget cut, of a billion dollars, but it's not actually part of the motion. The motion starts at “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2),” so it still changes the intent.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If it changes the intent, then it is out of order, but if it doesn't change the intent, it is in order.

Without reading it, I'm unable to determine whether it's in order or out of order. I'm proposing, since I'm going to bring this gavel down at 5:30, that we undertake this discussion on Tuesday in the afternoon, after we complete the health study.

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

Mr. Chair, if you want to adjourn, then you need to have a motion to adjourn, based upon the fact that we are in the middle of a debate on a motion.

The only way a committee can adjourn is if there's a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I didn't say I was going to adjourn. I said that, at 5:30, I'm bringing the gavel down and I will adjourn. We have two minutes left. If people want to carry on the debate at this point....

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

We can't debate the amendment until you rule on whether or not it's in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's what I was suggesting.

That's why it would be better if we adjourned to Tuesday, which I'm going to do in a minute and a half anyway.

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

I'm prepared to debate the motion. I understand that I have already caught your eye and that I am next to speak, but are we debating the motion or are we debating an amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The amendment's on the floor, but the objection has been that it is out of order. I can't determine whether it's in order or out of order until I actually read it, at which point we will know whether there is a debate on the amendment or.... If it's in order, then there's a debate on the amendment. If it's not in order, then there's no debate on the amendment.

If you want to use your last 30 seconds debating that—

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

No, this is a point of order.

If you are going to adjourn this meeting and leave it until the next meeting to determine if the amendment is out of order, that's fair. We're down to a couple of minutes, and that would be acceptable to me at this point. However, the next meeting is scheduled to be in camera and we would need to debate the motion in public, not in camera, Chair.

I have no problem just adjourning this now. You can rule on this on Tuesday, but please do so in public so we can debate it in public. If the amendment is in order, we'll debate the amendment. Otherwise, we'll debate the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's fair.

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

Mr. Chair, can I make one final comment on planning ahead?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

In 25 seconds...?

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

In that case, if we are going to adjourn and you're going to rule on this when we come back next week, I would suggest that we start off in camera and get our recommendations done on the report. We can then move into a public meeting to finish off our report.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's exactly what I had intended. We'll finish off the health report, hopefully in camera, and the clerk will make the necessary arrangements to be in public after that.

The meeting is adjourned.