National Defence Committee on March 7th, 2011

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our problem is that while we don't deny the desirability of getting to the solution, this is simplistic. It is in fact beyond the scope of the bill as written. It's not a solution that works, because the authority to dispense funds actually doesn't come from this act. It doesn't come from the National Defence Act. It comes from the Financial Accountability Act. If I recall Vice-Admiral Donaldson's remarks, he did want it to be solved, but he said the department was in the process of solving it and that he preferred to see it solved through that ongoing process.

For the same reason that amendments BQ-3 and BQ-3.1 were outside the scope of the bill, we believe that amendment NDP-1 is also outside the scope of the bill, and we would vote against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris.

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

I might have some sympathy for the comments of my colleague, Mr. Hawn, but this recommendation was made by Chief Justice Lamer in 2003—eight years ago. We're told they're working on it. Well, let's give them a hand here, folks.

In my amendment, all we're talking about is the authority to decide on all matters related to a grievance, including financial matters, so at least the decision is there. We're being told, frankly, that he has the power to give his views on it. I think that was the phrase used. Given the power of authority to decide, then maybe the person who has the authority to decide this question—and frankly, I haven't heard the ruling on my amendment yet, so I'm trying to make a pre-emptive argument here—will be motivated to write a cheque instead of going through some other process.

From what I see here, the problem is—and we have been told what happens here—that we have the Chief of Defence Staff as the final arbitrator of the grievance deciding whether something should be settled, and the only thing that can happen after that is they're sent off to some lawyers who decide whether or not it amounts to a claim against the crown. It's then decided on other issues that have nothing to do with the grievance process but have to do with whether or not a person would succeed under the law in getting this claim.

Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have no power to do that anyway, and they'd be going off to a lawyer on a fool's errand. I think this is an untenable situation for our military to be faced with. If all we're saying—and I'm talking about my amendment here now—is that the CDS has the power to decide all matters relating to a grievance, adding the words “including financial matters”, then the actual payment may come from somewhere else, but the decision at least will be there, and I don't think that requires an expenditure upon us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris, my understanding is that you're proposing your amendment, NDP-1. As I just said to Mr. Bachand, the ruling on your amendment is the same as the chair of the committee....

We all know that, under the regulations that govern parliamentary committees, we can accept neither this amendment nor that of the Bloc Québécois. This has to do with the terms specified in the royal recommendation.

That being said, and before proceeding with the vote on clause 6, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Hawn.

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

I have a motion, sir.

I would like to move, notwithstanding the ruling of the chair, that this committee move amendment NDP-1 as an amendment to clause 6.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris, the official way to do it is to appeal my decision and challenge the decision of the chair.

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

Then I'll change my amendment to “challenge the decision of the chair” or “appeal the ruling of the chair and challenge the decision of the chair”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Procedurally, but on a point of order, could we get some input or advice from our subject matter experts on Vice-Admiral Donaldson's comments and the process that is under way to try to resolve this through another--

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

No. It's a matter of argument whether we should pass the motion, I think.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

But it's directly related to the motion and the advisability of passing it. I'm not sure you can do this anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I don't think we can debate that. We have a motion in front of us.

On a point of order, Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I wanted to get clarification from the chair as to what you were citing to make that ruling. What was it? I think it would be helpful if the members heard what it said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I have it in front of me in French right now.

On page 767 of the 2009 second edition of O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, we read the following:Financial Initiative of the Crown: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In short, this amendment infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown and is, as a result, inadmissible.

We have in front of us....

Yes, Mr. Harris?

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

I don't know if my motion needs to be seconded.

My position would be that it's for the House to decide, not the committee. Whether it actually imposes a financial obligation is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. The question as to whether it's inadmissible is really a question for the House to decide, not the committee. Through my appeal of your ruling, frankly, I would like to just move it to the House so that the House can determine this issue on its merits. As I say, if it does in fact turn out to require a royal recommendation, then perhaps one will be forthcoming by the time this gets to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, Mrs. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Chair, is it correct procedure to challenge the decision of the chair? We are masters of our own destiny, so to speak, in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You're absolutely right. Right now Mr. Harris is challenging the decision of the chair. I want to give the floor to the clerk, because I'm in a conflict. We'll have a vote on that right now.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Lafleur]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris, I get the idea of what you're saying. The way to resolve it, according to our practices, is to have the motion read as follows: that the chair's ruling be sustained. It is written in an affirmative way. Those who challenge the chair's ruling would vote against this motion.

Is it my understanding that you would like to overturn the chair's ruling?

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

I would say to overturn the chair's ruling, as long as my making a motion that the chair's ruling be sustained does not preclude me from voting the other way.

[The Clerk]

Procedurally, that's the way to do it.

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

That is unless Laurie would like to make such a motion.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

For further clarification, hypothetically, if Mr. Harris' motion to overturn the ruling of the chair passes, we would vote on the amendment. It doesn't automatically say that the amendment passed; it just says--

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

You can make those arguments.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It just brings it back into order, as far as the committee is concerned.