Evidence of meeting #22 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
February 2nd, 2026 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I recommend that we go ahead with a three-year sunset, as in CPC-8.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Well, seven.... We're saying three in CPC-8. Justice Deschamps felt that five years is too long, especially if it's not working, so this requires that a mandatory review happen within three years.
If it's not working, we just let them expire.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Based on what Lieutenant-Colonel MacMillan mentioned, three years after royal assent we might be in an election. If the House is in an election period, the motion cannot be put forward for the House to continue. I'm just thinking about the timeline. I was just going to check to see if the colleague—
Conservative
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I know the NDP put forward a separate amendment that's very similar, but given that there will very likely be an election in the next three years—the next scheduled election is in October 2029—I think three years might be too tight. I'm just asking whether the colleague across the way would consider five years. I agree that seven is too long, but would he agree to five years?
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
We can split the difference and go with four.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
I think what our colleagues are saying is that, before we move a subamendment to the amendment, which is pretty much the NDP's amendment.... Do we want to proceed that way, or are we going to just spin our wheels?
Mrs. Romanado.
Liberal
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
On the sunset, Christine Wood said two to five, Diane Hill Rose said two to five and Justice Deschamps said three, because five is a long time if harm had been done. If you're willing, then I'll go with four. That's based on Justice Deschamps saying that five was too long.
Plus, I'll just say this—
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, I'll move the subamendment.
Let's say four years.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Give me a moment. I want to check on a particular item.
I will ask the witnesses a question, for clarity. We already have something that says seven years in regard to the National Defence Act. By making this amendment of three, four or five years, is there a conflict thereafter?
Geneviève Lortie
It's not a question of conflict. What is proposed is a review of these provisions so that the two reviews would happen. If, after the first period, there's a resolution proposed and passed, that could extend for another period. I'm not sure of the number, but it's the addition of the same period twice. In the end, we're back to the way the National Defence Act reads today.
There's no way to protect, come back or maintain those provisions after that period of time. If that's the intent of the committee, at that point a bill would have to be proposed and reintroduced, and you would have to redo all of the amendments your committee is doing right now.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
If they expire, then they'd expire after three years.
Conservative
Col Geneviève Lortie
—it's the addition of the two, and at the end, there's no way.... With the way we understand how it's proposed and written, that's the end of it; there's no way to keep them. If this works—and our recommendation would be to keep them—another bill would have to be tabled, and you'd go through all the steps up to royal assent to maintain those provisions.
Liberal
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'll try to be quick, because I think, at this point—