National Defence Committee on April 15th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think the intent of the motion is something we would feel comfortable with, but there are a few things.

The first proposed amendment to this would be that, instead of acknowledging.... I am trying to see here where it says, “eight meetings”. We would like to strike this and say that the committee shall hold at least three meetings for the duration of the study. We have a space study and other things that we've been trying to resolve as part of this wonderful committee.

I am very fond of this DPU. Actually, I think it's a great story to share. We know the importance of it. At the same time, as we heard today, there is a new reality, which is cyberspace. There is value in looking at this. This is something unique.

I am proposing, Mr. Chair, that we make it that the committee shall hold at least three meetings for the duration of the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The amendment is to go from seven meetings to three.

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

There should be at least three.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There would be at least three.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Bezan.

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

I think it needs to be more than that. There should be four or five as a minimum, but I'll let the committee determine the number of meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I feel like we're bargaining. It's like a bingo game.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I, too, would support three, but I would want to know that this would happen after, because we do, legitimately, have three other studies we are juggling at the same time, which have been planned out. I would push for a subcommittee meeting where we could discuss and plan out the calendar for our business.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to Ms. Mathyssen's speech, I have tabled a motion proposing that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure discuss the timetable, notwithstanding the number of meetings required for each study and the priority given to each study, so that we can establish a real timetable for the work ahead.

In that context, I am prepared to vote in favour of the amendment, just as I would have been prepared to vote in favour of the motion as initially worded, because if my motion is adopted, we will be able to discuss the number of meetings as a subcommittee, which will allow us to be much more effective.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We didn't want that to impact on today. The clerk and I were going to respond to your motion on Wednesday. That was the idea. I agree with the general point that we have four or five studies that potentially could be done. We have a limited amount of time. We do have an agenda, but it looks like the committee is changing its agenda—

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

It's every week.

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

It seems to change every week.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

—so it's a bit of a challenge to get going on things.

I have Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bezan.

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

No. I didn't have my hand up to speak.

I'm content to let this go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I have Mr. Bezan.

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

First of all, this is probably a major policy shift that we need to look into. This is what's going to be the guiding light for the Canadian Armed Forces for the next year or two at minimum, so we need to take a hard look at this.

When the last motions and committee structure was set up in the past, we didn't know the DPU was coming out last week, so the situation has changed. I think it would be irresponsible of us not to do this study.

Madame Normandin's motion was that we should have that discussion and organize the committee's work. That's what we should do at the subcommittee, when the chair calls it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The clock is running here.

I have Mrs. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Given all the studies we have ongoing, if we can't get witnesses in on a certain day in a week from today, can we at least deal with the motion regarding the threat analysis with some people from Global Affairs to keep us up to date on what's going on?

We might as well call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I have Mrs. Lalonde and Mr. Fisher.

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

Thank you.

I don't come from a military family, but I'm fascinated to see, when it comes to planning.... I believe the military is all about having a clear direction, a plan and an agenda. This committee, since I've been part of it, has been derailed time and time again when we have valuable witnesses, for the benefit of one party.

I will support Madame Normandin's motion. We absolutely need a subcommittee. We've been calling on this. There was one particular member of this committee who had refused to come to the table, so I'm glad to hear that he has changed his mind, and we're finally going to get some real work done at this committee, instead of having clips for one party in particular.

That said, the motion that Mr. Bezan has just put forward is certainly important, in my view.

Mr. Bezan, we agree in principle to continue the study on the defence policy update, but I want a plan, because without one, we end up doing nothing.

Mr. Chair, I hope today that our subcommittee will be able to meet as quickly as possible to establish a timetable for the very important study we have started on space defence, among others. We can start with a minimum of three meetings, and then we'll see as a subcommittee how many other meetings we need to have.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fisher is going to be the last speaker on this.

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

I was going to suggest, if it's possible, amending it by taking out “the committee report its findings to the House” and replacing that with “pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a comprehensive government response.”

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

That's the second amendment on the table.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

We can't amend it unless—

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

I thought maybe I'd add to Marie-France's amendment.