National Defence Committee on March 9th, 2011

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

We are attempting to resolve a problem, and the legal officers will most certainly listen to me.

The present act provides for a review of the law every five years. The Canadian Forces told us the other day that a review was under way and that it will be tabled shortly. We wish to provide for the tabling of an independent review report. The danger for us here, if we pass the bill as is, is that the clock will be turned all the way back, for seven years this time.

Even if we have the Canadian Forces' commitment, we would like this to be included in the act. We are therefore proposing that clauses 101 and 117 come into force two years after the bill receives royal assent. This would give the Canadian Forces the opportunity to table the review, which would avoid us having to start from zero for the next seven years. That is the purpose of my submission. I do not know if I have made myself clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Amendment BQ-14 does not deal with this matter very much. We feel that we are somewhat getting lost in the forest with this amendment.

Amendment BQ-15 says that "[s]ections 101 and 117 come into force two years after the day in which this Act receives royal assent". That is what matters to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Therefore, you are proposing to withdraw amendment BQ-14 in order to move ahead with amendment BQ-15.

I give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have a question for Colonel Gleeson or Colonel Gibson. Does dropping BQ-14 and only doing BQ-15 somehow disrupt the continuity of the coming into force...?

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson]

Mr. Chair, I will obviously defer to the clerk, but in my opinion, yes. What clause 135 currently does is to say that those provisions come into force on royal assent, so we would have two conflicting provisions, with one saying royal assent and one saying two years after royal assent.

In my view, you have to deal either with BQ-14 and BQ-15 or with neither one of them. You can't pick one and leave the other, but I defer to the clerk on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

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

When you say “deal with” it, do you mean accept it as it is or do something a little differently? I think this is perhaps a good opportunity for you to provide advice to the committee on how we achieve what Mr. Bachand has suggested, so that the changes to the act don't lapse the five-year review that has yet to be completed and tabled.

I understood from your evidence earlier as part of this process that indeed a review was going on and that you were going to continue it, but I think the desire of Mr. Bachand--and certainly, it's my desire, and I would assume it's the desire of the whole committee--is that it be done as part of the process envisaged by Chief Justice Lamer and incorporated in the existing legislation, that there not be a 12-year review, in other words, that the five-year review that is contemplated actually takes place even if it takes an extra year to do it.

So can I ask you to tell us how we can best achieve that within the context of the legislation? Do we have to do BQ-14 and BQ-15 or some version of BQ-14 and BQ-15? Because if Mr. Bachand withdraws it, I'm prepared to move it, if necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I will answer your question.

We are of the view that amendments BQ-14 and BQ-15 are consequential. The two relate to the coming into force. Amendment BQ-14 removes clauses 101 and 117 from section 135(1), and the BQ-15 amendment creates a new section 135(3) to include in it those two clauses. This amendment is such that clauses 101 and 117 would only come into force two years after the date on which the act receives royal assent, rather than the date to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Therefore, the committee's vote on amendment BQ-14 will also apply to amendment BQ-15. Either Mr. Bachand withdraws both amendments, or we vote on both of them, as Colonel Gleeson said. The legislative clerk is also of this opinion.

Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Could you grant us five minutes in order for us to discuss this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I would like this to be resolved before we leave here. I will give you a moment to reflect upon this, Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

In the end, Mr. Chairman, we will bow to Mr. Gleeson's argument and to yours. We will maintain amendments BQ-14 and BQ-15.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We therefore will vote on amendment BQ-14, on clause 135.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We will now vote on amendment BQ-15. I believe there is no need to discuss it.

(Amendment agreed to)

We will now vote on clause 135.

(Clause 135 as amended agreed to)

There are the last clauses, but we cannot move to a vote on them until we have resolved the fate of clause 75. At our next meeting, we will come back to clause 75 in order to conclude the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I thank everybody.

Colonel Gleeson, do you have something to add?

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson]

Mr. Chair, I just want to make one point. I think it was indicated that there was evidence that the review had started. It has not started. Work is being done to advance it very shortly, but just so there's no confusion, I don't think there was any evidence put before the committee that it actually started. I just don't want anyone to be misled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you to all committee members. We will see each other next Monday afternoon. This concludes our 53 ^rd meeting.

This meeting stands adjourned.