National Defence Committee on March 9th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good afternoon and welcome to this 53^rd meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Monday, December 6, 2010, we are pursuing our study of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have with us today Colonel Gleeson and Lieutenant-Colonel Gibson, from the Department of National Defence.

Thank you for your presence here.

I would like to tell members that if they have questions of a more technical nature, these gentlemen are here to answer them.

(On clause 11)

Last week, we were at clause 11, for which the NDP has moved amendments.

Regarding amendment NDP-4, I believe it had been suggested to group together amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6 and NDP-7, so as to deal with them as a whole.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor on amendment NDP-4 and the question to bring together amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Just as a small point of order or something like that, I'm noticing that it's 2:30 today, the same time as it was when we finished the other day. I'm told that requests were made to have the battery put in the clock, but that hasn't happened.

I'm given to understand that it requires the good offices of a member of Parliament or a député such as yourself, as chair of this committee, whose request might actually be listened to. I wonder if you could undertake to do that. Just as a committee member here who is trying to keep track of how long we're at this, it's a bit disturbing.

[An hon. member]

Do we need a motion?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. That's a good point.

I have another point of order, maybe on the same kind of subject. For next time, I would ask that the people in charge of the room here would ensure that next time we have room on my right, because it's so tight here and members from the government cannot circulate. I will ask the people who understand this to work the room a little bit more--

[An hon. member]

A move to the left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

A move to the left, yes. I have difficulty saying that but I'll say it: move to the left a little bit.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

That being said, Mr. Harris, you have the floor on amendment NDP-4.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I believe what happened the other day was that, after debate, amendment NDP-3 was passed and Mr. Hawn requested an opportunity to have a closer look at amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7, which were presented by me as consequential amendments. They were provided to me by the legislative counsel and were consequent on the amendments that we had.

It is possible--and I just say that because I don't know what Mr. Hawn has come up with in response--that some of the issues relate to another amendment that we have circulated, but which is not numbered. I think someone has graciously called it amendment NDP-3.1, but it's an amendment to clause 11 that has been circulated and refers to section 29.16 of the act.

Perhaps Mr. Hawn could respond to amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7. As I say, they were presented to me as additions required on the passage of amendment NDP-3.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'd be happy to do that.

Amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7 are consequential to amendment NDP-3, so I suggest we talk about those for a minute, and then go back to what somebody has labelled amendment NDP-3.1.

With respect to amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7, amendment NDP-3 was passed, and we think that was a serious mistake. Be that as it may, what it has done--and I'm not going to re-debate it-- again--is tie the hands of the Governor in Council with respect to making appointments.

We're not so much concerned with the removal of currently serving officers and NCMs, because there are lot of retired folks who could fill that bill just as well. What we are concerned with is the limiting of retired service members--officers or NCMs--to 40%. That is a huge mistake. It is tying the hands of the Governor in Council. It is not going to be very workable at all.

All that said--I just say that from the point of view of getting it on the record--I recognize that they are consequential and linked to amendment NDP-3, so I suggest that we just call the vote. We'll be voting against amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7 on principle, because we think amendment NDP-3 was wrong, but I understand that it will pass.

Just to take the chair off the hook, I just want to make a clarification. If it's a tie vote, how does the chair vote on this? Because I'm only seeing five across....

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Well, I have some more to say on that--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No, it's just that today Cheryl is not here. You can call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

As to what would happen in the case of a tie vote, I don't know. If they're consequential amendments on item NDP-3, then the status quo would then assume they would be part of the motion.

I think Mr. Hawn referred to tying the hands of the Governor in Council. I think the experience has been that there has historically been a balance, and that balance can obviously easily be achieved once again. The fact that it's mandated by legislation is only the reality.

I want to go back to one thing that was debated the other day, because I had a lot of trouble with it when we were getting down to the various positions one way or the other. It was mentioned that this is about quotas, etc. I think it's really more about making sure there's a balance on the board.

I would like to add one other thing. I'm sure the Judge Advocate general would want to put this on the record too. In discussions afterwards, the Judge Advocate General advised that the information provided to the committee about an actual competition for these positions was not accurate.

They are not competitive positions. They're Governor in Council appointments. I understand that there is a competition for the chair. Applications are called for and people are interviewed for the chair, but the other positions are not competitive. Information was provided that suggested there was a competition and that if 30 people applied you would have to refuse to hire some people because they didn't meet the civilian qualifications.

I'd like to give the Judge Advocate General an opportunity to correct the record on that. I'm sure they wouldn't want to have that information on the record if it's not correct. Perhaps the chair would allow that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay.

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a quick question, Mr. Chairman, for the Deputy Judge Advocate General, on NDP-6. Will this allow for double-dipping?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Colonel Gleeson.

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice and Administrative Law, Department of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I'll have a quick look at NDP-6. Let me quickly check the act to make sure I know what I'm referring to.

All NDP-6 will do.... Currently, the act makes reference to members who are not officers or non-commissioned members. NDP-6 will remove that reference to officers and non-commissioned members, because the effect of NDP-3 is to essentially prohibit non-commissioned members from sitting on the board. So it doesn't really impact on the double-dipping issue one way or the other. It doesn't permit it if it doesn't already occur. If it does already occur, then presumably it won't make anything that would prevent it from occurring.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson]

If I may mention this, Mr. Chair, I have one final point in response to Mr. Harris's comment on the competitive process. I was informed after our meeting yesterday wrapped up--informally, and I have not gone back and checked, so this is very informal information.... But I was advised that yes, the chair's position was competitive, but not necessarily the member positions.

Again, just for the record, I'm not saying that this is in fact absolutely accurate, but somebody obviously had a different understanding than I did. So we're unclear as to whether or not there was a competitive process for all of the member positions on the grievance board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay. Merci.

So we're ready to call the vote on amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7. All in favour? Against?

(Amendments agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move on to amendment NDP-6.1.

Mr. Harris.

Ms. Gallant?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, when you called the vote last time.... I just want to make sure I heard, because I'm at the back of the room and somebody else picked it up as well. You said, “All in favour?”, and then the opposition put up their hands. Then you said “And again?”. I heard “again”. Did you mean—

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

“Against”. I'm sorry, it's my pronunciation. But you were counted.