National Defence Committee on Dec. 4th, 2025

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I see that we have an extra week to propose amendments, which means that the deadline would be next Tuesday. Can we get an exact date for that?

The motion states that members would have “an additional week following the adoption of this motion to submit their proposed amendments to the clerk” and that clause-by-clause consideration will be postponed until January.

I support the motion, but I would just like to know the deadline for submitting proposed amendments. That's all. That's what I wanted to clarify. We don't need to change the motion. I just want those instructions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I'm being advised that the amendments requirement would be by December 11 at 4 p.m.

Is there any further debate?

Are you requesting the addition of the amendment...?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

No, I just wanted to get clarity.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

It is clear and the date is on the public record, so we have a date and we—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

That's right. We don't need to change the motion. I just wanted some clarification on the deadline. That's all. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

This also then postpones our clause-by-clause for the next meeting.

Is unanimous consent given? Are we proceeding?

(Motion agreed to)

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

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

In lieu of this, since we're talking about it and I gave notice of motion last Tuesday, November 25, I'll move the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee request the Department of National Defence to table the full, unredacted Memorandum of Understanding with the Province of Ontario concerning the implementation of the provisions contained in Bill C-11, and that the Memorandum of Understanding be tabled with the committee no more than five days after the passage of this motion.

Again, I think this is an important piece of information that we need in our full consideration of potential amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is there further debate?

Go ahead, Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Would it be possible for me to pull it up? I know we received it. Can you give me one moment to pull it up so I can follow along?

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I don't wish to suspend. Is it okay if we take a moment to have the review?

I'm sorry, witnesses. I'm trying to take care of business here.

[A voice]

That affects you guys.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

It affects you; absolutely.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

I apologize as well, but I'm sure you understand that this is one of our last meetings before the holidays and there are some things that need to be discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

This is maybe taking a bit longer; I apologize.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Go ahead, Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much for your patience. I just wanted to pull it up.

On that note, I'd like to move an amendment. I will explain the amendment, and then I'll read it out. I will happily send it around.

The amendment is to remove the word “unredacted” and to add, after the words “to table”, the following: “in accordance with the Access to Information Act”. Then it would replace “no more than five days” with “as soon as possible”.

The amended motion would read, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee request the Department of National Defence to table, in accordance with the Access to Information Act, the full Memorandum of Understanding with the Province of Ontario concerning the implementation of the provisions contained in Bill C-11, and that the Memorandum of Understanding be tabled with the committee as soon as possible after the passage of this motion.”

If you'd like, I can send that around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is it in both languages?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

It's in both languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

For the debate, it's Mr. Bezan.

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

I don't have a problem with getting access to information and making sure we're protecting any sensitive information. However, the timeline on this has to be receiving it before we start consideration of clause-by-clause, and preferably before we have to get amendments in. That's why the “five days” is important. If we're going to do our work and do it in an informed manner, we need to have this document.

I'm opposed to the timeline you have, because “as soon as possible” can mean two years from now. I know some of my access to information requests with the department were six or seven years ago, and I still don't have those back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, the floor is yours.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

I agree with regard to the Access to Information Act.

With regard to the five-day period, honestly, I've experienced this before in another committee where we requested documents and where the same senior official promised us that we could have them within the proposed time frame and then, in the end, it took three or four times as long. The deadline isn't binding, but I don't think it is a bad idea to set one, whatever it may be. Honestly, I don't expect that we will actually get the documents within five days, but I think giving a time frame is a way of indicating that we want to move quickly.

As for the Access to Information Act, I agree.

Mr. Chair, I am therefore moving an amendment to the amendment to remove “as soon as possible” and keep “the Access to Information Act”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

We have a subamendment. Do we have further debate?

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, do you want to move the subamendment?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

The amendment to the amendment would keep “five days” as part of the proposed change, so we are going back to the original motion in that regard. However, we are adding “the Access to Information Act”.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Let's be honest. “Five days” is not reasonable. We could say, “before the next meeting to study Bill C-11.” Mr. Bezan mentioned that he would like to have it before we start clause—