National Defence Committee on March 2nd, 2011

[A voice]

Ah, ah!

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

The number is on the right, the top right. The numbers are BQ-8, BQ-9, BQ-10 and BQ-11, all going with BQ-1.

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

So, I win them all or I lose them all. It really is like the lottery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

No. You have arguments for us, Mr. Bachand. Then the committee will decide how persuasive your arguments are.

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

Okay. So can I ask the committee to give me 10 minutes so that I can look at this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay, we are going to suspend the meeting for…

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

I would be just as generous towards my colleagues if they were in the same situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Is the reason we're grouping those because they're consequential?

Yes, the government has the same comment we have; these are clearly consequential.

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

Maybe Mr. Hawn can figure out what the consequences are. Is the legislative clerk around? Okay, maybe he can discuss it with the clerk and figure it all out. Let him decide that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Do you want to have a--

Could you answer his question? Is it because these are consequential amendments?

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

I will check with the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

The meeting is suspended for five or six minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We will now reconvene.

I would like to confirm that we are looking at clause 2. The Bloc Québécois is proposing amendment BQ-1, which affects amendments BQ-8, BQ-9, BQ-10 and BQ-11. So, when we go to vote on that amendment, all the amendments will be taken into consideration.

I am giving the floor to Mr. Bachand.

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

First, Mr. Chair, I think that, instead of saying that there is an impact on a group, we should say that there is a correlation. That is the first thing.

Secondly, we would like to hold a vote on amendment BQ-8 because BQ-1 is simply a definition. Amendment BQ-8 is the principle we are fundamentally defending.

So, if you agree with what I am proposing, I would like us to deal with amendment BQ-1 first, and then amendment BQ-8. We won't deal with it automatically. If amendment BQ-8 is rejected, we will support the rejection of the rest of the amendments.

Does the procedural clerk agree with my interpretation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, I think that's fair. I'll just say that if we are going to make determinations of consequentiality, or whatever the right word is, could we have a little bit of an explanation as to why that is?

[Lucie Tardif-Carpentier, Procedural Clerk]

Basically, amendment BQ-8 removes the concept that military judges can be from the reserve force. Then, in amendment BQ-1, we are removing the same concept in the definition. In amendments BQ-9, BQ-10 and BQ-11, we are removing the reference to the reserve force military judge. That is why it is correlative.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

So, Mr. Bachand's proposal is that we discuss amendment BQ-8 immediately.

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

Yes, that is another way of doing it.

We can deal with amendment BQ-1 without dealing with the others. When we come to amendment BQ-8, if we deal with it, we will be dealing with the others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Perfect. Amendment BQ-1…

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

I would like to mention one last thing, Mr. Chair.

I have here in the department's summary and explanations:Given, however, that these judges would have security of tenure until their retirement, it would not be desirable for the Canadian Forces to have too many full-time military judges in relation to the number of cases that are usually heard by court martials.

So, in other words, instead of resolving the problem with full-time judges, we want to resolve it by bringing in part-time judges that we can get rid of more easily. That is the department's argument. That is why I maintain that, if we want to resolve the problem and if we do not have enough judges, make them part-time and then use those part-time judges, telling them that we no longer have any responsibilities toward them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I would ask a question of Colonel Gleeson. In normal circumstances, without any operations like Afghanistan or things that might come along, is having four full-time judges sufficient?