Evidence of meeting #55 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 section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Mr. Chair, if I may say so, motions were generated for each of the options. I believe that only option “a” was circulated, so this is the package that deals with option “c”, if that is to be circulated to the membership of the committee. Again, we have option “b” here as well.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I am directing this comment to the lawyers here. I am not a lawyer and I know very little about law. I imagine a situation where a crown attorney would table a series of documents that are in one language only.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Yes, but the explanations are not. Even Mr. Hawn said that I should take my document and throw it into the recycling bin. This document here is in both languages but we also need the explanations. We have them here but are told not to use them.
To continue with my reasoning, let us imagine a crown attorney who submits new documents at the last minute to support his charges. Do you think that the defence lawyer would just trust him and accept these documents without reviewing them? Certainly not.
We have here a situation where new aspects have been added without us being consulted. Furthermore, these documents have not been tabled in both official languages, except for these motions which contain a list of numbers. So I cannot go along with this process which is contrary to the principle of fairness, in my view.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Hawn, can you just read your proposal, your motion, in front of us?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Option 3 is 07c. It's not just a list of numbers. It is that Bill C-41, in clause 75, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 49 with the following...and there is the list of exemptions for which the offender is sentenced to a severe reprimand, a fine not exceeding basic pay for one month, or a minor punishment.
I would have to ask our JAG folks to expand on that, to elaborate on that, and if there were any question on any specific one of those, then they could tell you what the number is and what it means.
4:05 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Again, Mr. Chair, this option, as I indicated earlier, looks at both the objective gravity question and the subjective gravity question, and it increases the threshold with respect to both. The five offences that were initially identified in clause 75 are now expanded to 27 offences, all of which involve a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment or less. That is the objective gravity portion.
The subjective gravity portion deals with the punishment that may be imposed, which in the original drafting of clause 75 was a fine of $500 or less. We now talk about a punishment that would involve a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine not exceeding basic pay for one month, or a minor punishment. Essentially we've expanded the punishment threshold with respect to when the exemption would apply.
I'm more than happy to walk through a listing of what the offences cover with respect to each of those numbers that are on the page, and I can certainly provide copies of those in both languages to members of the committee as well, if there is a desire to receive those.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm prepared to entertain some discussion about this, but I really don't like the idea of trying to do this on the fly.
I have a list here in front of me of the summary procedure charges. Some of the numbers that are left out here, which I had in another version of my amendment, would have included 83, 84, 85, and 86. I don't know why 86 is not in there at this point.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
They have it in French. We don't have 86 in English. So there must be a drafting error there somewhere.
“Quarrels and disturbances” apparently is in the French version but not in the English version. Insubordination, for example, is not included in your list. “Quarrels and disturbances” is not in the English version. “Disobedience of lawful command” is not. I'm just going down through the list here. “Cruel or disgraceful conduct” is not included. For some reason, section 98 on malingering or maiming is not included. Malingering, to me, seems rather an inconsequential type of matter, but maiming might be a little different. I can't see a consistency here in these choices.
4:10 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could walk through the list, because I think many of the items that were just identified are in fact on the list. I recognize that it's hard to sort of match up as you're going here.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
That's my issue, Colonel. We're dealing with this for the first time. This is the first time I've seen this motion. I realize that you may have done it some time ago, but these are complex legal matters, and there are things on the list--if you read through what's on the list you'd still be dealing with the ones that aren't on the list. And I'm not convinced, having just noticed this error, that we have the same lists in English and in French. I don't know if anybody is able to confirm that for us.
4:10 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
This is not a drafting error. This is replacing lines that are in the current bill. The lines are different on the French side compared to the English side of the page in the bill itself. So “86” is captured in the English version on the line above the line that you're reading on the amendment motion, and “86” in the French version is captured on the line that is being changed. That's why it shows up on the French version but not the English version. So 85 and 86 are both captured in this listing even though you don't see them on the motion. That's because they were already in the bill.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
And 90 is on the list in the motion, I believe, Mr. Harris.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes, but it's also on the same line as 85 and 86 in the original draft amendment to clause 75. That's, at a very minimum, confusing to me. I understand your point that you're only amending the next line, but if 85 and 86 are omitted from your amendment because they're included in line 6, so is number 90, but you have repeated it again.
4:10 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Actually, in my version of the bill, on page 49, 90 is on the next line, so maybe we'll work it up--
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm dealing with the version that's attached to the thing that was sent to me today.
4:10 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
That's not an extract from the bill.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
All right. Well, I guess maybe we need to break and have a chance to read this stuff and see what we're dealing with. I think this is a very untoward procedure for dealing with amending legislation.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
So there is a proposal in front of us to discuss the proposal, the one from the NDP with some modifications, which we called option 3.
That Bill C-41, in clause 75, be amended, by replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 49 with the following:
86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 101.1, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112, 116, 117, 118, 118.1, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126 or 129 for which the offender is sentenced to
(i) a severe reprimand,
(ii) a reprimand,
(iii) a fine not exceeding basic pay for one month, or
(iv) a minor punishment;
This is the subject of the proposed discussion.
Do any other members want to speak to the motion?
Mr. Hawn.