National Defence Committee on March 4th, 2013

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Might I suggest that we seek some cooperation. I can't move a motion on a point of order, I know that, but I guess we have several more pages of these. I'm wondering if we can agree on the ones that we'll carry and then come back to all of the contentious ones instead of slowly picking our way down the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We don't have any amendments from here until clause 117. Taking your direction, Mr. Strahl, I don't have a problem in grouping.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'd like to move—

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

No, I don't agree with that. I agree with the approach that you've suggested that we stand clause 75, and that we carry on. There are some clauses we may wish to comment on as we go through.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Let's just continue on it. It was working well before. Let's go back to it then.

(Clauses 76 and 77 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 78)

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

Clause 78, is that—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Clause 78 is a French correction.

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

Subclause 78(2), is that a—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's a correction in the French.

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

That's a correction in the French is it? There are two subclauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Then subclause (2) is adding—

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

That's the one I'm talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Do you have anything you want to say on that? It's about no penalty for complaint.

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

No penalty for complaint, that's the interference complaint. That relates to a conduct complaint in relation to what Colonel Gibson—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Colonel Gibson, can you comment on subclause 78(2)?

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Colonel Dufour will comment on this, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Colonel Dufour, please, on proposed subsection 250.18(3), at the bottom of page 45.

[Lieutenant-Colonel André Dufour, Director, Law Military Personnel - Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence]

Subclause 78(2) with respect to 250.18(3) is new. Basically, we are saying that a person may not be penalized for exercising the right to make a complaint, so long as the complaint is made in good faith. This is in relation to a conduct complaint. We have the same amendment in clause 78 with respect to interference complaints.

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

Could you explain what a conduct complaint and an interference complaint are please? Who will decide whether it is being made in good faith or not?

[LCol André Dufour]

A conduct complaint is defined in section 250.18, and an interference complaint is defined in section 250.19.

Basically, a conduct complaint is any person, including an officer and non-commissioned member, making a complaint about the conduct of a member of the military police in the performance of any of the policing duties and functions that are prescribed.

An interference complaint would be a member of the military police who conducts or supervises a military police investigation or who has done so and believes, on reasonable grounds, that any officer or member of the department has improperly interfered. He can then make an interference complaint.

For those two sets of circumstances of two types of complaints, there's a scheme that says what we should do with this in part IV.

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

So you are just setting up good faith as a defence to someone being penalized? Who decides it's good faith?

[LCol André Dufour]

It's a safety valve to make sure that if a complaint is made in good faith there will be no repercussions or consequences as a result of that.

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

Who decides whether or not there's good faith?

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

Mr. Chair, I might address that.

I think it operates in two fashions, first of all as a statement of principle, because this follows directly from the Lamer report recommendation.

The second prong of the answer, to answer Mr. Harris's question, is that if a person felt they were penalized for a complaint they had made in good faith, they could plead that as their defence, if they were actually charged with an offence. If the penalization took the form of some sort of administrative action, then they could submit a grievance. So in terms of who would adjudicate, ultimately it would either be a court or the grievance process, just as it is for anything else that's contentious in our system.

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

Thank you.

(Clauses 78 agreed to)

(Clauses 79 to 86 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 87)