National Defence Committee on March 23rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good afternoon and welcome to the 55^thmeeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence, which might very well be the last in the 40^th Parliament.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Monday, December 6, 2010, we are continuing with our consideration of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have again with us our two expert witnesses from the Department of National Defence, Lieutenant-Colonel Dufour and Colonel Gleeson.

Thank you for being with us today. I know you will be able to answer questions members of the committee may have.

We are at clause 75.

I am going to give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

(On clause 75)

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Hopefully we can do this fairly quickly. There is just one clause left, clause 75. Last time there was some concern about clause 75, about the offences that would lead to or not lead to a criminal record and so on. The Judge Advocate General folks went back and developed some options that they believe will address the concerns expressed.

I would just ask them to review options 1, 2, and 3. From our point of view, JAG is satisfied with all three of the options. They are not concerned about which one is chosen; therefore, we're not concerned. If JAG is comfortable, we are comfortable on this side of the floor. So if options 1, 2, or 3 can satisfy the opposition, then we can move along and get the last clause passed and get this over to the Senate.

I will just ask our experts to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris.

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

On a point of order, I'm rather surprised at the turn of events since our last meeting. It was agreed by the committee, as a way to follow through on this, that the committee members who wished to meet with the Judge Advocate General over the period between the last meeting and this one—not the one on Monday—would get together and consult, to see whether we could come up with something that met the concerns that were raised.

That hasn't happened, to my knowledge. I don't know who else would have been consulted, but I certainly wasn't. I have seen some documents that were put on my desk in the House today. Thank you for giving them to me, but that was at two o'clock this afternoon. I obviously haven't had an opportunity to study these seven or eight pages of documents, including, apparently, some questions that other members of the committee had with respect to those options, which seem to have answers as well.

Obviously some consultation has been going on, but it hasn't been with my involvement, and some dialogue has been going on, but it hasn't been with my involvement. I don't know about Mr. Bachand. He can speak for himself.

We can certainly hear from the JAG today, but with regard to coming to some conclusion this afternoon without having an opportunity to study this further.... It was a serious matter that was raised, and we had a useful discussion the last time. But clearly, if we're talking about something of this importance and there appears to be some interest in coming up with something that's acceptable, we really should have and need to have an opportunity to look at these things in detail. There are lists of offences that have been added that might be available in options 1 or 2. There are complex interrelations between the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code on various matters.

I'm not very happy to find that these ten days have passed and no consultation with us or dialogue has taken place and I find myself given a very complex document at the start of question period, which is not the best time to be studying legal documents and trying to figure out what they actually mean.

If your purpose, Mr. Hawn, is to allow for discussion of this here today, I don't see any new amendments or anything else before us and I'm not in a position to adequately address amendments today based on any of these options.

I'm happy to discuss them and consider what they might be, but if Laurie is talking about getting this to the Senate, I don't know how that's going to happen, unless he has some special parliamentary procedure that I'm not aware of whereby it goes directly from the defence committee to the Senate.

So this is a bit of an ambitious agenda, I suggest, Mr. Chairman. I would welcome other people's comments, but I haven't had an opportunity to study the implications of these options and have any dialogue with the JAG on them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, and after that Mr. Bachand.

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

I was supposed to get the floor before Mr. Hawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay, Mr. Bachand, go ahead.

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

I do not want to repeat the comments of my colleague from the NDP.

First of all, I have here a document which has been handed to me by Mr. Hawn but in English only. I already have enough difficulty with legalese and lawyers, despite my great admiration for them. It is not easy to deal with these issues, so just imagine having to deal with such complex matters in a language which is not my first language. I know my English is good, but I would have liked getting the document in French.

Secondly, there is something intriguing in this document: it answers questions from the Liberals. It means that Liberals have had the document and asked questions they probably communicated to the parliamentary secretary, while we ourselves have not been consulted. I find improper this process where two parties consulted with each other while the other two parties were kept in the dark.

Consequently, I am not ready either to pass amendments to these clauses today, not before we are given some time to consider this document in French. Question period is not the best time to examine a legal document, especially in a language that is not mine. Therefore, we are not willing either today to pass these amendments that would put the final touch to our consideration of Bill C-41.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, you have the floor.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I did forward that to you guys by e-mail. We sent it to the Liberals and I forwarded that e-mail to BachaC 9 or 5--I forget what it is--and yours, Jack.

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

When was that?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Last week. I can't remember the day.

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

Was it in French?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No, it was not in French. So you ignored it because it was not in French. I can't help that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Can we--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Whatever. We can discuss it if it makes some sense. I suggest we could still go ahead. If it makes sense to the majority of the committee, I'm not sure if we could go ahead. The fact is, it's not a direct line from this committee to the Senate. It has to go back to the House. It has to be reported to the House at report stage. If we could do that, get it through report stage and third reading, then it would go to the Senate. If not, I guess it will die on the order paper again and we'll come back to it down the road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I don't want to put you in a political situation, but could you give us your point of view on the three amendments that you have?

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I didn't get called, but I didn't ask to be called. I thought there was going to be a meeting, but none of my colleagues, at least in the Liberal Party, told me.

Was there a meeting on these, Mr. Chairman?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No. The JAG was available to discuss it with anybody.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

There wasn't going to be a formal--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It was very informal.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

When I left I thought there was going to be an informal meeting among all the parties to work out which of these options they would like. I looked at the options this morning. Obviously, it was our intent to get this bill out of here. If the consultations didn't take place--I asked Ken, and he wasn't part of it, and I know Dominic wasn't--I'm just wondering--

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

I wasn't either.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay. That didn't happen. I just wanted a clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Let's have the consultation right now.

Mr. Bachand.