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.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay. Well, that doesn't address the other concerns we had. A minor insubordination would attract a criminal record if dealt with by a commanding officer, under your concept.
4:20 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Yes, it would.
4:20 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Eighty-four is the same situation.
Ninety-three is cruel and disgraceful conduct, with “five years or...less punishment”, so that didn't make the cut, based on the assessment we did.
That's 93. I think 100 was the next one...?
4:20 p.m.
A voice
Ninety-eight.
4:20 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Ninety-eight? Ninety-eight is malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity.... Ninety-eight is on the list.
4:25 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Ninety-seven or.... Ninety-nine is on the list--
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay. Sorry, 98 is, but 99.... Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong list.
4:25 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Ninety-eight is the punishment again. It's five years--“exceeding five years or...less punishment”.
4:25 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
Five years or less punishment.
4:25 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
It's malingering. I'll correct the listing. I read 99 as malingering, but 99 is actually “detaining unnecessarily or failing to bring up for investigation”.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay. So once again, I would point out that malingering is one of those, when we were having the discussion last time.... Despite the fact that it may, on an offence list, look particularly serious, there are degrees of malingering that I think we would all agree could be extremely trivial. We all know what malingering is; I won't even try to come up with an example. But again, the way you've approached this, it's dependent upon what's already written into the code in terms of maximum offences.
4:25 p.m.
Col Patrick K. Gleeson
What we try--
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Just on a quick point of order, our subsequent witnesses are here, and we would need unanimous consent to release them. I think with votes and stuff we're probably not going to get to them.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
I just want to inform the members that the bells are ringing and we have to suspend our work. Or if we have unanimous consent, we can go on right now. If we suspend, we can also come back for another hour to do our work until we're finished.
I'm asking the members, first of all, if they want to suspend right now, go to do our work in the House, and come back after that--or not.
Mr. Hawn.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
That's fine, but with reference to the witnesses, I think we're probably not reasonably going to get to them, given votes and given this discussion, so I would like to suggest that we release those witnesses.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I for one would have liked to find out what is happening in Libya. As you know, I have a motion and I would probably have introduced it at the time of the debate. However, I understand that we must finish our parliamentary and legislative job. I would be willing to continue. Is this a half-hour bell?