Evidence of meeting #53 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.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
No, no. I just want to make sure that on the record we have the correct—
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
NDP-6.1 is an amendment is for the grievance board. We've seen a problem, for example, with the MPCC, in that if there's a grievance in process, and they may have had hearings that have gone on or they may have been involved in this process, if their term—
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
I'm sorry, Mr. Harris, but just to be precise for all the members, NDP-6.1 has the number 4993427 at the left of the page. I want you to have the right page.
Go ahead, Mr. Harris.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair. That is the correct section that I'm looking at. It's an amendment to section 29.16 of the act, adding a new subsection 3.1. The idea is that if the term expires of the person who has been participating in the consideration of a matter, or if the person resigns before the grievance committee concludes its consideration of the matter or gives a decision, the member is considered to be a member of the grievance committee for the purposes of rendering a decision.
It is a tidying up of the powers. Essentially, the problem is that if your term expires, you are no longer a member of the committee, and there are administrative law issues having to do with people who haven't participated in the consideration of the matter actually rendering the decision. If someone else were appointed the next day, that person couldn't rely on the other members to make a decision. You would have to rehear the whole matter.
The idea here is simply that of an administrative tidying up, which I think is useful. There are similar provisions in other legislation in other jurisdictions that I was certainly familiar with, and we were aware, of course, of the difficulties and issues with respect to the MPCC and thought this would be something that would be useful. It may not be used very often, but it would be a useful improvement to the powers of the members of the grievance committee.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We have a problem with this amendment in several areas. First of all, it doesn't talk about if a member is removed for a cause, and it also says that the member “shall continue”, which means the chair has no say in the matter. We don't think that's appropriate.
It also talks about the committee “giving its decision”. This committee doesn't render decisions; it gives advice. Frankly, we think it's probably outside the scope, but I think that would have been brought up if the legislative clerk had thought so as well.
But we don't think the way it is written it is technically correct. It is not accurate and it should be further considered. As has been stated by the JAG, this is one of those areas that's for further consideration. We can't support this. There are too many things wrong with it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I think the comment just made by Mr. Harris is really shortchanging someone who slips into the new position. Anybody who is taking on a new position where there is a case in progress would do the homework initially.
We see it through Parliament in committee when we're studying something and we're going through a bill and new members are added to committees all the time. We do our homework in advance to make sure we're well aware of the situation.
I don't think his arguments are valid, Mr. Chairman.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you.
I will now call the vote on the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party.
Yes, Mr. Harris?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chair, if I may reply to Mr. Hawn, if someone is removed for cause, I guess you wouldn't really expect them to be participating in a decision. I'm assuming you wouldn't want them to participate in the decision after the fact that they were removed for cause, so that's purposely left out.
The Lamer recommendation--number 85--recommended this, so Chief Justice Lamer obviously thought this was important. I think the decision is the decision as to what advice it's going to give, so I don't see that as a problem. And why should the chair have a say? If the person is appointed and participating in a decision, then it's just simply a matter of ensuring that the jurisdiction doesn't lapse. This is really a legal point that the Chief Justice of Canada recognized as an important legal point. I don't see why we should try to second-guess him at this stage.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
We will now move to the vote on the amendment from the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Bachand, you wish to discuss amendment NDP-6.1?
March 9th, 2011 / 3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Yes, I would like to discuss amendment NDP-6.1. I am somewhat sensitive to Mr. Hawn's arguments. Might the committee make amendments to what is already on the table, in order to take into account Mr. Hawn's idea?
I am sensitive to the fact that a member of the board might make a serious mistake and, in so doing, be forced to resign. Mr. Harris will correct me if I am wrong, but, with this clause, such an individual might be allowed to deal with the matter right up until the end, which I would not like to see happen.
Would it be possible for us to try and insert an additional provision that would resolve this problem?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
It is possible, if you provide, in writing, a sub-amendment to the NDP amendment.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
That is a problem. I would need a lawyer in order to do that. I do not know if Mr. Gleeson would be prepared to cooperate and help me in this regard.
3:45 p.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence
I'd be happy to if I had legislative drafting skills, but trust me, Mr. Bachand, you probably wouldn't be well served by that service.
3:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm not sure what assistance Mr. Bachand requires. If someone is removed for cause, they're removed for cause; this says if someone “resigns”. Is that what you're suggesting, that if someone is forced to resign...? Well, you know, nobody can be forced to resign--they choose.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
We are now going to vote on amendment 6.1 of the New Democratic Party.
(Amendment agreed to)
We will now vote on clause 11 as amended.