National Defence Committee on March 9th, 2011

[Voices]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The committee will now vote on clause 35.

(Clause 35 agreed to)

(On clause 36)

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Given that clause 35 was carried as is, the amendment having been withdrawn, we are now on clause 36, and amendment BQ-7.2.

Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.

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

As I was saying earlier, it is the same thing here.

However, amendment NDP-8 deals only with the commanding officer. Personally, I would like to see this also capture the superior commander.

Might it be possible to apply amendment NDP-8 to the superior commander, given that I made a distinction between "immediate commanding officer" and "superior commander"?

Might I be authorized to not move this amendment right away, but rather after amendment NDP-8?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, you could indeed not move it.

I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I believe the same thing applies: NDP-9 would in fact cover BQ-7.2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

NDP-9 is on clause 75.

Colonel Gleeson.

[Col Patrick K. Gleeson]

Again, the way clause 75 is worded, it would capture both of these. It deals with convictions by any service tribunal, including a summary trial, whether it's done by a commanding officer or a superior commander. So it doesn't line up perfectly with the two amendments. The NDP amendments don't line up perfectly with the two amendments by the Bloc, but the effect would be the same if those amendments were implemented. So this peer commander notion is captured in the NDP amendment--at eight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Bachand, you therefore wish to withdraw your amendment?

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

Indeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Do I have committee members' consent for the withdrawal of amendment BQ-7.2?

[Voices]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

(Amendment withdrawn)

Given that the amendment is not being moved, we will now vote on clause 36.

(Clause 36 agreed to)

We are now on clause 37, for which there are no amendments.

Shall clause 37 carry?

[An hon. member]

To clause 40, as a group?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay. Shall clauses 37 to 40 carry? Carried? Okay.

(Clauses 37 to 40 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 41)

On clause 41, we have an amendment by the Bloc Québécois, BQ-8.

Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.

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

I would like to remind my colleagues of the way in which we decided to proceed in this regard.

Legislative counsel wished to group together amendments BQ-1, BQ-8, BQ-9, etc., but we had preferred that we deal with amendment BQ-8 and that BQ-1 be rejected. In fact, we did not want to reject amendment BQ-1, because it was nevertheless my motion. Given that it was simply a definition, we did not want to fold it in completely with amendments BQ-8, BQ-9, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You therefore wish the result of the vote on amendment BQ-8 to also apply to amendments BQ-9, BQ-10 and BQ-11.

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

That was the suggestion made by the legislative counsel. There is nothing to be gained by my going through my spiel three times. I will only do it once, and it will apply to everything.

I maintain my argument. We do not need part-time judges. We had 65 court martial cases last year. To my mind, four full-time judges would suffice. I see no use in adding judges to try and... Flexibility is being invoked here, but I believe that that would lighten the workload of the four judges who are presently in place.

I believe, unfortunately, that this bill is not serving ordinary soldiers; it seems that it would mostly impact upon the higher echelons.

Consequently, relying on the reasoning I developed with regard to amendment BQ-1, I consider that it would be appropriate that there not be reserve force military judges. This is what we are proposing in the three clauses you have before you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

After that, I have Mr. Payne.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It really is quite simple. With only four judges, there are going to be times, unpredictable times, when we will need more. If it's a major operation such as Afghanistan, Somalia, or whatever, or if we happen to get into things in Libya...who knows what's going to happen?

The simple fact of having reserve force judges means that, yes, they do have tenure until they retire, but they are not paid, and they're not used unless they're actually needed. It's a no-cost way to give the Canadian Forces legal system some flexibility. It just makes common sense to us. It doesn't cost anything unless we use them. We won't use them unless we need them, but we can't use them if they're not there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

It is now Mr. Payne's turn, after which it will be Mr. Bachand's.

Mr. Payne, do you want to...? No?

Monsieur Bachand.

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

I would simply like to be provided with a clarification. It is amendments BQ-8, BQ-9, BQ-10 and BQ-11 that are grouped together, correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You are right, the vote on amendment BQ-8 will also apply to amendments BQ-9, BQ-10 and BQ-11.

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

We are going to be voting in favour, but we will be alone in doing so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Very well.

Colonel Gleeson, do you want to add something to that?