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.