That's my understanding.
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.
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.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
To answer your question, Mr. Hawn, in the event the said motion is defeated, the motion goes to the floor of the committee as a regular one. It could be amended and subamended.
The motion is that the chair's ruling be sustained. All in favour of the motion?
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Just a moment. Do we need three hours to sustain the chair's ruling?
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Harris has made it clear that he would like to overturn the ruling.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Harris cannot propose to sustain the chair's ruling since he wants the opposite.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
As I said, procedurally, the motion is written in an affirmative way out of respect for the chair.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, and Mr. Harris did so.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
He made a ruling on my amendment that is similar to yours, and I challenged the ruling. I have to do it by proposing that it be sustained under--
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would prefer that somebody else who is opposing it sustain the decision of the chairman. If nobody proposes that, it means we have unanimous consent that we're appealing the--
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, we're calling for a vote. They voted to sustain it, and I'm voting the other way.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
It is the opposite proposition. It is a bit odd, but that's the procedure.
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
As the motion is defeated, the amendment is on the floor of the committee.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'm going to seek the advice of the subject matter experts, except to say that what we are doing here specifically is not what Admiral Donaldson asked us to do. He said there was a process under way through which the department was addressing it. It's taking time, but it's involved with the Financial Administration Act, the National Defence Act, and this.
This act does not give anybody the authority to spend money, nor does the National Defence Act. That comes from the Financial Administration Act. So saying that here is not an appropriate response to the bill as written. Despite the ruling or vote just made, it is out of our scope.
On my question going forward, will we be going through this every time? A number of these amendments are outside of the scope of the bill, so will we go through the same process every time we come up with that? I just throw that out as a rhetorical question at the moment, because I'm afraid I know where this is going, and it's going to take some time.
We have a legislative clerk here who is giving us advice. We have subject matter experts who are giving us advice. I think we should, to the maximum extent possible, listen to that advice.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Then I'd like some advice from the subject matter experts.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I just want to speak to this motion. I know I made some comments along the way.
I think what we've heard so far from the officials is a degree of frustration that they haven't found a solution. I didn't hear about the financial administration. I heard from Mr. Hawn about it quite a bit. The RCMP have a situation where the commissioner can settle a grievance. We were told that's different because he's an accounting officer. An accounting officer, it seems to me, seems to be some sort of appointment or position.
There may well be bureaucratic ways to solve this problem that require regulation or change or whatever. But what I thought we would do here is make it clear that the CDS is not just offering his views as to what a proper settlement of a grievance is, but if he's the settlement officer, then he should have the right to make these decisions.
The implementation of the decision is something else. What we've got now is the non-implementation of a decision. What we've got now is a decision being made by the grievance officers as grievance authorities that Corporal Smith is entitled to $1,200 reimbursement for his expenses or his moving costs or whatever. Instead of that being the decision, that's the view of the CDS in the settlement of a grievance, and then he's got to go and try to convince some lawyer in the Department of National Defence that this is a proper claim against the crown. That seems to me to be totally untenable from the point of view of resolving grievances.
This has been hanging around for a long time. It's been pointed out by Chief Justice Lamer. It's been the source of impassioned representation by the ombudsman for the Canadian Forces and the grievance board chair. We really should try to do something about it. This at least puts the decision-making authority where it happens. The actual payment is another matter. I'm sure with all of the clever people in the Department of National Defence and the JAG's office, and given the authority or given the fact that a decision was made, they can find a way of implementing it. As I said to Vice-Admiral Donaldson after the meeting the other day, we're going to try to help you solve this problem. He didn't say, don't do it; he said, we're working on it.
I think this is something we can do at this committee. We can say, look, this was recommended by Chief Justice Lamer eight years ago now. It's clear that we want the CDS to be able to make that decision for the goodwill and morale of the Canadian Forces, and we want to give that authority. As I said, if it requires a royal recommendation, then this committee, in effect, is calling on the government to give it a royal recommendation so that this problem can be solved, without another eight years passing while someone tries to figure out how to make it happen.
That's my point here. It may be considered a political point and people might accuse me of trying to get brownie points. You can say what you like, it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter what you say. What I think is that this committee at least can go on record as having moved an amendment that will give effect to the recommendation of Chief Justice Lamer allowing the CDS to make that decision, giving the ministry an opportunity, if it desires, to include a royal recommendation so that this problem can be solved without waiting another eight years.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
My point is essentially the same.
Just very briefly, I didn't hear Vice-Admiral Donaldson say that he had it in hand. I thought I heard him say quite the opposite, that he thought he would have it in hand and he didn't imagine it was going to be difficult, but he found it far more difficult than he imagined. So we are where we are at this particular moment, which is not the right resolution. This should not have taken eight years. It should not take a lot of time into the future.
We need to find an answer, and I don't know what the answer is. But I think it's important to deliver the message and to reinforce the message. I think they have heard the message, but I think it's important to reinforce the message that it's just not acceptable for all this period of time to pass without a resolution. That's my reason for voting as I have. Again, I thought I heard Vice-Admiral Donaldson say that, really, it's as if he was out of answers, and that he was quite sure he would have one, and has looked in every direction and doesn't have one. But that's not where we as a committee need to be. We need to be sure that an answer emerges out of all of this.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you. Merci, Mr. Dryden.
Mr. Hawn asked for advice from Colonel Gleeson. I don't know if you want to give us your comments.
March 7th, 2011 / 4 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence
Certainly, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to make a few comments on this.
I think you heard from the vice-chief when he appeared that he did note that the underlying issue that's trying to be addressed here is very complicated. He certainly acknowledged the time that had passed in trying to deal with it, and he noted that much work was ongoing within his organization to try to find a solution.
The issue is really from the perspective of what the effect of this proposed amendment would have. It's very unclear what it would do. I think Vice-Admiral Donaldson made clear that the Chief of Defence Staff currently has the authority to render the decision that I believe Mr. Harris was referring to, a written decision saying the member is entitled to x. So the issue isn't one of granting, through this amendment, the authority for the chief to direct or give that decision; the issue really is one of how we give effect to that decision. Vice-Admiral Donaldson, I think, was very clear that the objective is to find a mechanism to do that.
With respect to the whole question of his being out of answers, again it's not for me to interpret the evidence that was heard, but I do believe that the Vice-Chief of Defence staff did point out that he was looking at a number of options right now, a number of mechanisms to achieve this. He did say they were much more complicated than he had anticipated them being when he started looking at this last summer. But I didn't hear him say that he was out of ideas or out of ways to try to make this better.
So again, I think the only point I would make is that it's not clear what this amendment achieves with respect to the change in the act. I appreciate that it does make an express reference to financial matters, but that authority seems to exist already and is exercised on a regular basis by the CDS in rendering his decisions. Perhaps it might even further complicate or make this matter even more complex to resolve if we end up with a legislative provision that says this and nobody really knows what it does or how it works within the broader framework of the Financial Administration Act and the authorities issues that the vice-chief and his staff are currently struggling with. The same would be true for the membership, obviously, as they try to figure out what that means when they render a decision. They receive a decision from the CDS, but the effect is really no different than it is today.
I put those comments on the table for the committee to consider.