Well, I may or I may not. We'll see.
I would like to point out to the committee and the chair that the issue of royal recommendation is one that really is not a matter for this committee. That's a matter for the House. Our job here is to look at the legislation, recommend changes, and make amendments here in committee. It may well be that the royal recommendation will be to include such a thing.
We've heard from witnesses from the government, just this last time from Vice-Admiral Donaldson, that this is exactly what the government wants to do. They want the Chief of the Defence Staff to be able to resolve these matters. They've simply been trying to find a mechanism to do that.
It seems to me that this committee's role is to make recommendations for amendments to the act that may assist in the performance of the duties, in this particular case, of the CDS in accordance with the desire and aspirations of the military themselves. So for us to refuse to make a recommendation that follows along with that, that may assist that cause.... Who is this committee to say that when this matter goes back before the House, if indeed a royal recommendation is required, that it won't be forthcoming? I think this committee should, as a committee, make this recommendation an amendment anyway, whether or not it's the view of the chair at this particular point that such a recommendation requires a royal recommendation.
It was suggested to us that it was difficult to amend this act to achieve that object. Well, if it can be done with a royal recommendation, then that's not the case at all. I would submit that it's up to this committee to make whatever amendments it wishes at this stage. I'm no expert in parliamentary procedure, but my understanding, from talking to the legislative people who helped draft this--my amendment, at least--was that it could be decided by this committee to forward it to the House and have a ruling made then. The royal recommendation is one that's open to change, frankly, when it goes back to the House. We don't know what the royal recommendation is going to be, whether it's considered to be broad enough at this point to include this or not.
You have made your ruling on Mr. Bachand's.... Unless the committee wants to seek to overrule your ruling, to challenge your ruling...and it's up to Mr. Bachand to ask for that. But I believe that given the importance that's been given to this by witnesses, by the ombudsman himself, by the grievance board, and by the expression of frustration by Vice-Admiral Donaldson, who's charged with this responsibility, we as a committee should try to assist by recommending a change that could at least go some way, and hopefully be successful, in allowing the CDS to do what he wants to do, what we're told he wants to do, and thereby assist in the greater morale in the Canadian Forces and all of the positive things that were suggested here.
When the ombudsman, Colonel Daigle, comes here and says that the CDS can't give you $2,000, but some captain in Afghanistan can pass out $10,000 to a villager, based on whatever authority is given to them, it seems to me rather extraordinary that the royal recommendation rule would be used at committee stage to thwart a helpful recommendation to the House. If the minister decides not to provide a royal recommendation when the time comes, at report stage, well, then, let them say so.
I don't know if this committee chair is required to prevent the committee from bringing forth a recommendation to amend an act before we've been notified by the ministry or by the government that the royal recommendation would not be forthcoming.
My point is that's an objection that should be made by the government or the government House leader in the House, not by the chair—apparently to his own motion—here in the committee. That's my view on it, sir. I'll be prepared to listen to what other people have to say, but that's my view on it.
