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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
It's too late.
Let's vote on amendment BQ-4 on clause 7.
(Amendment negatived)
Amendment BQ-4 was not passed by the committee.
Now we are going to vote on clause 7.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
(On clause 8)
Turning to clause 8, Mr. Bachand, you have another amendment, amendment BQ-5.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I do. I am very much afraid that the intent is once more to require grievances filed by military judges to be submitted to the Chief of the Defence Staff.
I stand by my arguments. After all, we can agree to disagree at this committee. So I will stick to my guns and I will not just drop this.
I want to keep the amendments, even though I know that, generally speaking around this table, people want to keep the Chief of the Defence Staff as the final authority. That seems to me to be a kind of conflict of interest that means that judicial independence is not protected. So I am going to keep my amendment.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As before, we see this as consequential to amendment BQ-3, and therefore, for the same rationale or reasoning, we don't think it should pass.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Fine.
I am now going to call for a vote on the Bloc Québécois amendment.
Monsieur Harris, do you want to speak to that amendment?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Can I ask a question?
I admit that this is a technical question.This says that there have to be reasons given by the CDS if he doesn't act on the recommendation of the grievance committee, or I gather, for some reason, if the grievance was submitted by a military judge. It seems to me to be unusual to say that the CDS provides reasons only if he's disagreeing, I presume, with the grievance committee. When it's anybody else, when it's a military judge, he's expected to provide his own reasons, even if he's agreeing with the grievance committee.
I don't see the point in that and why it would be separate, especially if we are trying to avoid, as Mr. Bachand is hoping to do, a minimal amount of potential for interference with military judges by the CDS. Maybe we can get an explanation from the JAG on that, from Colonel Gleeson, as to why that would be.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn and after that to Mr. Gleeson.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
The way I read that, it gives further protection to judges, because the CDS has to give reasons when it is a grievance by the judge, whereas he doesn't have to otherwise. Judges are in fact getting more protection, the way it's written. But I'll defer to my JAG colleague.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence
Yes, Mr. Chair.
It is essentially that. It's a transparency provision so that any time a judge submits a grievance, it's properly within the scope of the grievance system for a military judge. The objective is to ensure that there is a clear record of all the decisions taken with respect to that grievance for transparency reasons and to address the general concerns that have been expressed around the table here.
It really is simply that. It's transparency. It is different from the requirement for reasons in any other case or with respect to any other member of the Canadian Forces. It seeks to strike that balance between military judges who continue to be members of the Canadian Forces, and who should have access to the grievance system with respect to matters that don't fall within the scope of their judicial duties, and this judicial independence matter that is so important to the integrity of the military justice system.
Again, it's a transparency measure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you.
We are now going to vote on Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-5.
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Now we are going to vote on clause 8.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
(Clause 9)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Now we move to clause 9.
Mr. Bachand, proposed amendments BQ-6 and BQ-7 are yours. Please go ahead and enlighten us on amendment BQ-6 first.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Hold on a second, Mr. Chair. I am trying to follow and it takes a little time.
Mr. Chair, the amendment proposes removing the words “a grievance submitted by a military judge”. This is along the same lines as the other amendments we have proposed, and, once more, it is in order to protect judicial independence. That is also the wish expressed by Justice Lamer. We do not want military judges affected by this clause any more, just as we suggested in the previous amendments.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I totally applaud Mr. Bachand's aim to protect judges and make sure they're treated properly. I think that is, again, in fact what this does. It's not saying at all that grievances by military judges will be thrown out. That's not what it says at all. It talks about the delegation of dealing with that grievance. I would just like to refer again to Colonel Gleeson or Colonel Gibson to get their interpretation of what this actually means.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence
As the clause is currently drafted, it provides that the CDS may not delegate decision-making authority with respect to a military judge grievance. He must decide on that grievance personally. The amendment would remove that requirement.
So you're now moving the military judge grievance into the delegation scheme. This is simply a transparency protection measure aimed at maintaining or indicating the importance of the judicial independence element and balancing that with the right to allow officers who happen to be in a military judicial appointment, or performing that function, to maintain their right to access the grievance process.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'll speak briefly in support of the amendment.
On the delegation of the CDS's power, the issue is the independence of the judiciary here. If we're talking about delegating, presumably a person of lesser rank than the CDS would be making the delegated decision. My preference would be that these matters not be delegated to someone of lesser rank. If the CDS has to face the fact that there's a grievance from a military judge, then he should face it head-on and not delegate it to anybody else.
So if the effect of the amendment is to prevent the delegation of military judges' grievances, I support that.
Conservative
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence
To respond to Mr. Harris' concern, the clause prior to the amendment does exactly what you've just said you prefer to happen. The CDS, in the currently drafted text, could not delegate. The amendment would allow him to delegate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
We now move to the vote on Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-6.
(Amendment negatived)
Mr. Bachand may now speak on amendment BQ-7.