Evidence of meeting #14 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
—but they haven't done that.
Let's proceed. Do you want to hear the response from—
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
It is suspended online, so I suggest that you gavel us back in. You can tell on the screen right now.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
It says we're in public there.
Actually, Mr. Chair, gavel us back in, so that we can have this discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
I'm fine with going on broadcast. I just want to be certain that we understand what's before us.
Are we back on? Great.
Madam Clerk, do you want to read the response?
The Clerk
The response I received reads:
The Minister of Justice is respectfully declining the invitation to appear on Bill C-11, given that the Minister of National Defence is best placed to speak to the changes that are being proposed by the bill, including the reasons for proposing that Criminal Code sexual offences being removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces. As the committee knows, that change is being proposed as a result of recommendations made to the then Minister of National Defence by the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review. Other changes that are being made to the National Defence Act with links to the Criminal Code align the National Defence Act with changes made to the Criminal Code in former Bill S-12, which received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023. The Minister of National Defence is well placed to speak to the reasons for aligning the two Acts.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
I completely agree with what Mrs. Romanado said, that the minister is not required to appear. I understand why he declined.
Having said that, I just want to clarify. I don't want to cast stones at the minister because he won't be here. I just want a formal, parliamentary and legal opinion that we can begin the clause-by-clause study, even if it goes against the motion.
In other words, I want a concrete guarantee that we can do so, or else we'll have to go about it in another way. I need a guarantee.
November 25th, 2025 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I appreciate that we can't compel the minister to appear. That is the parliamentary process. He has declined. It's unfortunate, because we do need to have better information as to how the removal of sexual offences as described under Bill C-11 is going to impact the civilian system across this country.
We've heard disturbing information already from the Victoria Police Department and would suggest that the issues around memoranda of understanding, which would be signed by the Government of Canada, presumably under the Attorney General's signature, are something that we should be discussing here.
I just want to make sure that we register our disappointment in the minister's failing to reappear and its impact upon our ability to properly do this study on Bill C-11 before we go to clause-by-clause.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
From the motion as amended and adopted on October 23, I'll just read this: “(c) the chair may only schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause after the witnesses appear at committee.”, not all the witnesses that appear at committee. This is completely in line with what was passed on October 23 by this committee.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
The interpretation was quick. I didn't quite catch that.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
We passed the motion on October 23. I'm going to read to you in English what is written in point (c).
It says that “the chair may only schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause after the witnesses appear at committee”, not all the witnesses.
We are aligned on the motion adopted on October 23.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
In the French version of the motion, it says “tous les témoins”. I would like to think that the French version is no less valid than the English version.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I didn't say that.
This is the version we've had since October 23. We need to check with the clerk about the document that was sent to us.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
That's fine. The important thing is to have a guarantee that we're not going against the motion.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Chairman, if I understand you correctly, we have a justice bill before this committee, and the Minister of Justice, to whom all of the sexual assault cases supposedly are to be transferred, does not want to appear. How can we finish our work without hearing from that part of the equation?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Is there any more commentary?
The matter at hand is that the minister is not available and is not attending. We have the ability to proceed.
Just so everyone is aware, our next meeting is on Thursday, November 27, and then we have the justices on December 2, which is Tuesday. We're requesting a deadline for amendments on December 3 or 4. After that, we're going to proceed with the supplementaries and estimates, with the minister, on December 4. Then, on December 9, we're proceeding to clause-by-clause, which leaves one more day, and that's December 11.
Now, depending on what we accomplish on December 9—we'll talk about clause-by-clause—if we do everything on that date, then we'll also finish the Coast Guard study on December 11, which resolves that issue as well. They're on hold. They're ready to go.
Mr. Kibble, please go ahead.
Conservative
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thanks, Chair.
I just want to clarify. For the record, you said the minister was not available. We heard the minister's letter, as read by the clerk, and he clearly declined to come here and speak on a bill that deals with justice. I want it on the record that he declined—it was not an issue of availability—to speak on a bill about justice.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
That's why I asked the clerk to read his response. I don't want us to use semantics to put words in his mouth.