Evidence of meeting #52 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Colonel Gleeson.
I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Yes. We need to proceed on this one, but I would just pick up on that a little bit. The Chief of Defence Staff is not an accounting officer like the Commissioner of the RCMP is. I think we're all sympathetic to the situation. I don't think there's any doubt about that, but it's finding something that will actually work and be able to conform with the various acts, to be able to conform with the regulations. This isn't that solution. It is too simplistic. Notwithstanding the desirability of finding a solution, this one will not work within the greater context of all the things it has to interact with. So that's our problem with this. It's simplistic, and it won't conform to what it has to conform to, to actually be a solution that is actually going to be workable in the real world.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would like to add my voice to the people who are saying that, if we cannot come up with a legal solution, it won't be good for the morale of the troops. We are lawmakers, so we pass legislation. Clearly, with this amendment, we are giving the CDS the power to settle financial claims. So put yourselves in the position of who knows how many individuals who have suffered injustices and lost money because of the financial repercussions. At the end of the day, they are being told that yes, an injustice was committed, but they should forget about the money they lost because it's over. They will go to see a lawyer who will tell them that they don't have the right to sue the Crown, so they won't get the money. That will have an impact on the soldiers' morale.
I have always appreciated the contribution of lawmakers. If this amendment is passed, the intention is to rectify an unacceptable situation. I caution my colleagues, because all we have before us are the provisions that the department wanted. They don't seem to want to add anything else to the legislation. Some people have been waiting for eight years. How much longer will they have to wait? We will have a huge problem on our hands if we pass the reform proposed by the bill asking that more judges be added, that military officials have more control and give instructions, and that we completely forget about 90% of those who have been treated unfairly.
That is why I am asking you to support this amendment and then see how useful it can be. Higher decision-making authorities will perhaps tell us that the only way to correct this is with a decision by Queen Elizabeth. I am a lawmaker and I would like us to be able to amend the bill so that the CDS gets a new mandate. Not only would he be able to remedy an injustice in principle and in practice, on paper, but he would also have the power to address financial matters.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Bachand.
It is now Mr. Harris's turn, and then it will be Mr. Hawn's.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
I'll try to avoid repeating any previous arguments, but I propose to deal with Colonel Gleeson's submission.
It's a bit ironic that the proposition before us either requires a royal recommendation, because presumably it has some financial implications, or, on the other hand, we're being told it might not do anything. So it's either one or the other.
If it's as simple as what Mr. Hawn is suggesting, that it would need to be an accounting officer, well, maybe the cabinet has the power to appoint the CDS an accounting officer for the purposes of grievances and give him a budget to deal with it. It could be as simple as that; I don't know. What I do know is that it's taken eight years and a lot of members of our Canadian Forces being denied the fruits of their successful grievance to get us to the point where this is even debatable.
This may well be a tool that would force the government either to give a royal recommendation, if that's what is needed to solve the problem, or something to solve the problem itself. If it's redundant, which is suggested by Colonel Gleeson, and maybe the power is already there, then what's the problem?
By bringing the attention of the legislature to this issue, that this is an important matter that this committee brings to the House, if the House decides to pass it, it becomes a legislative provision that gives the CDS the power to decide it. So the decision is not being made by some lawyers in the Department of Justice, but it's being made by the CDS. I think we should pass that and let the chips fall where they may, and hope that somewhere in this brilliant government we have, somebody can figure out how to make sure that a guy who is a soldier who wins his grievance might actually get the cash in his hand.
It works in the labour movement. You settle your arbitration, you get a ruling, and you're required to pay up. Well, why can't it work for our soldiers in uniform? They don't have a union—we understand that—but they have a process that's supposed to be able to help them resolve matters. We're talking about matters that are within the grievance process. We're not talking about all sorts of other matters, but we're talking about financial compensation that's due as a result of a successful grievance. Well, let's pass this amendment and let the government figure out a way to ensure that people get what they're entitled to.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thanks.
My final comment, because we need to move on, is that despite the best intentions--and everybody has the best intentions, there's no question about that--this amendment has been ruled outside the scope of the bill, although the committee has overturned the chair's decision, and that's going to happen again. The Speaker may in fact rule that it was outside the scope of the bill and override the committee. I'm not sure of the process for that.
Second, despite the best intentions that I think we all acknowledge, this amendment is not workable in the real world. It's not that simple. This amendment won't do what the best intentions want it to do.
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence
Chair, I would just add one thing, and it goes back to the discussion we had last week with respect to the effect of the legislator speaking.
Yes, this may well be redundant, but as soon as it's in the statute, the expectation or the presumption is that it means something. There will be a lot of effort undertaken to try to attribute some meaning to those words.
As I say, with those words not working within a framework that allows them to be interpreted, it's going to possibly create confusion, not only among those who need to interpret it, but also among the very people you're trying to help. I think we heard the vice clearly articulate that the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces has those people in mind here as well.
I'd throw that thought out for you as you consider this.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Gleeson.
We have an amendment in front of us, NDP-1. I will call the vote on that amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
I'll ask for the vote on clause 6.
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
On a point of order and a clarification of procedure--and I'm not sure we can answer it here--is there a process for the Speaker to rule that this is outside the scope of the bill?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
March 7th, 2011 / 4:10 p.m.
Lucie Tardif-Carpentier Procedural Clerk
When the bill is reported to the House, there will be two possible options.
If the problem is with the royal recommendation, the Speaker will act on his own; he has no choice. If he considers that this clause causes a problem with the royal recommendation, he will make that decision and remove the clause from the bill.
If there is no problem with the royal recommendation, it will depend on whether a point of order is raised. If that is the case, the Speaker will examine the arguments and make a decision. So similarly, if he decides that the amendment is out of order, it will be removed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So it would be somebody on the government side, presumably, who would raise the point of order.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'm not sure how we'd note that, but obviously we'll be proceeding in that manner.
(On clause 7)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
We have an amendment by the Bloc Québécois, BQ-4.
Mr. Bachand, do you want to move amendment BQ-4?
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Okay, then certainly I will move it.
I didn't think I would have one today that was admissible.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
It's admissible. We just have to find out if committee members are going to approve it now.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Yes.
The intent of this amendment is to relieve the Chief of the Defence Staff of the authority to sit in judgment over grievances submitted by military judges. Once again—I draw my colleagues' attention to this—judicial independence is important; justice is important and so is the appearance of justice.
I would also like to point out that Justice Lamer's report also proposed separating the two. He suggested that the grievances committee should deal with grievances from military judges.
So I want to amend the wording of clause 7. That is what amendment BQ-4, which you have before you, sets out to do.