National Defence Committee on March 2nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good afternoon, everyone.

We now continue the 51 ^st meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

You have two budgets in front of you. We want to be able to reimburse the witnesses who were before us when we did our study on search and rescue and the other study on Bill C-41.

The first budget I want to have the committee approve is in relation to our study on search and rescue response times. The proposed budget is in the amount of $35,500. I'm asking the committee to adopt this budget in the amount of $35,500 to reimburse witnesses.

Do we have agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thanks.

The second budget is in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The proposed budget is in the amount of $11,650.

I'm asking that this budget be adopted by the committee, in the amount of $11,650.

Do we have agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

This budget has also been approved. Merci.

Now we'll go to clause-by-clause consideration.

Oui, monsieur Bachand, vous avez la parole.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say that I really appreciated Admiral Donaldson's testimony. Personally, I would have liked another hour with those witnesses because some of their views could affect the kinds of amendments I want to propose. But we are short of time. I actually saw that coming, as I already said that I wished we could have had a little more time with the witnesses.

This is typical. They answered questions very well, and we now have to debate amendments that we no longer have the time to thoroughly discuss. I see that as an obstacle to the way we work. I just wanted that noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you. Duly noted.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed until the very end. The chair moves to clause 2. We have an amendment from the Bloc Québécois, BQ-1.

(Clause 2)

You have the floor, Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, this boils down to saying that we want to do away with reserve force judges. Let me explain our reasons a little.

We see that there are four full-time judges for the 65 cases before courts martial at the moment. That is not a lot of cases per judge. It is all very well for people to try to explain that it is to give a little more flexibility, but we see it as needlessly creating extra positions, especially given that these are reserve force judges.

So the Bloc Québécois would like to dispense with this addition of part-time, reserve force judges. We feel that four full-time judges are sufficient to be able to handle 65 court martial cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, we can't agree to that. This is simply a matter of providing some flexibility. There are things that go on, as in Afghanistan—and who knows what is going to go on in places such as Libya or wherever—in which the Canadian Forces might need that flexibility. You have judges who also take leave or get sick, and there are many other reasons that some people may not be available for duty. This simply gives the Canadian Forces the flexibility to hire part-time judges—people who are qualified—to do that duty. To take away that flexibility could jeopardize the timely and effective application of military justice.

It's not a financial burden on the CF. It simply gives them the authority, with properly qualified people—and these are all properly qualified people—to act in that capacity, so we cannot support that amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Perhaps Colonel Gleeson can help us here. Are these part-time positions, paid as used? Is that the way it works? Are they on reserve, like a supernumerary of some sort?

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence]

That's exactly correct, Mr. Harris. It would be very analogous to a supernumerary type of program. When the judge was called out by the chief military judge for duty to perform a judicial function or to do judicial training, he would be paid for that function, and when he is not performing those duties, he would not be getting paid.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Are these retired judges, or could they be serving in another capacity?

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson]

There would be some restrictions on what other work they could do, but they would be individuals who could perform other functions. I'm just looking for the clause.

It's at page 18 of the bill. If you look at page 18 at proposed section 165.22, you will see that there is a list of four categories of individuals who could be placed on this panel.

I think there was some information put before the committee earlier that was incorrect. It suggested that the only people who would be qualified to perform this function would be retired military judges. That's one of the classes of people who could do it, but if you look at proposed paragraph 165.22(c), there is an “or” there; it's a disjunctive list.

Starting from the top, “a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing at the bar” could do this; anybody who “has been a military judge” could do this; anyone who had “presided at a Standing Court Martial or a Special General Court Martial” could do this; or anybody who “has been a judge advocate at a court martial” could do it. Those categories in proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) are fairly technical, to reflect some unique status of individuals prior to 1995 with respect to how we appointed military judges at that time, but essentially, under proposed paragraph 165.22(a), any person who “is a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years’ standing at the bar of a province” could do this, as long as they're a member of the reserve forces and they're an officer in the Canadian Forces.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

And they're not paid a stipend except when they're on duty?

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson]

When they perform their duties, it would be all set out through the compensation scheme as to how they would be paid, but no, they would not be paid on a full-time basis to do part-time work. As was pointed out, the objective here is to provide flexibility if there were to be a significant mobilization of the force.

It's particularly important from a policy perspective for you to understand that in this bil we arel introducing tenure until retirement for military judges, so if we were to respond to a mobilization type of situation and were required to move from four to twenty military judges, that might be a situation that existed for a five-year period; if we appointed 16 more military judges, when the force demobilized, those 16 military judges would be there on a full-time basis until they reached retirement age, pursuant to what this legislation does.

This also just provides general flexibility in the day-to-day operation of the chief military judge's office. Four people, while there are not a lot of courts, are also not many judges, and if somebody is sick or whatever, it is challenging for the chief judge to balance his pool of judges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to inform the member that, as you know, we have with us for our clause-by-clause consideration,

Colonel Patrick K. Gleeson, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law; Lieutenant-Colonel Michael R. Gibson, Director, Strategic Legal Analysis; and Lieutenant-Colonel André Dufour, Director, Directorate of Law, Military Personnel. Thank you for being here with us and helping us with our work.

I would also like to tell members of the committee that the law clerk has suggested to the chair that Bloc Québécois amendments BQ-1, BQ-8, BQ-9, BQ-10 and BQ-11 be grouped. It is better for the committee to discuss these amendments and then proceed to vote on them all together.

Mr. Bachand, the floor is yours.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Did you just read out the lottery numbers?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

They are your amendments.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

That is what I have just found out. What can I say? I have to read them through.

Can I ask for a suspension? I have to look at this more closely, because I am being told that five or six of my amendments are being grouped together.

Can we suspend, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, you can.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Can we suspend the meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We are suspending the meeting for two or three minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

It will take me more than two or three minutes. I have to re-read all those various amendments.

Could you tell me those lottery numbers again?