Evidence of meeting #69 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was record.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We stood it down because there was some confusion, so let's pick up from where we were.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
If I may, then, I'll discuss the concern about the grievances. The fact is that we've had a situation whereby the existing legislation allows for civilians to be participating as part of the grievance board, and it is intended and specified. In fact, we're actually renaming it an “external” grievance board, and the matters that are dealt with are primarily related to benefits.
It's a circumstance where the experience has been that at one time it was a mixture of civilian and military people, but for some reason, in the last five or six years we're getting all military or ex-military people put on the board. We think that's wrong, so we think some legislative change has to take place to ensure that the grievance board is not simply another military board, and that there is a significant civilian presence on that board, and in fact, a majority. That's why we want to see at least 60%—that's what we've chosen—be members of that board, for the sake of ensuring that we truly have an external review board, in conformity with the notion in the legislation.
As I say, the kinds of judgments this group must make are interpretations of policy and rules, and the group must apply fairness to those grieving within the military. Obviously, in regard to having people with military knowledge and experience there, in addition to the advice they would have from counsel to the grievance board and staff, as well as the representations made to the grievance committee by the military themselves, a substantial and significant representation by people with military experience is appropriate. But there appears to be a need to ensure that there be non-military people there. This is why the recommendation and the amendment are put forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
This is adding a new paragraph to subsection 29.16(2).
Mr. Alexander, please.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thanks, Chair.
We'll be opposing the amendment for reasons that will not surprise anyone at the table, because we made them clear during the debate at second reading in the House. We understand the intention that the opposition has behind their amendment, but we think the form the amendment is taking is misguided, and indeed would create a different kind of perhaps unintended injustice, in that it would discriminate against members of the military. Of course, they could still fill the 40% of the grievance committee, but they would be ineligible for forming a larger part of the membership of the committee.
We just don't think that there are grounds for filling a committee like this on the basis of anything other than merit, professional qualifications, and professional achievement. Yes, military members have shown that and have furnished a large number of the members of the grievance committee, but that need not necessarily be the case if others with similar forms of expertise who have not worn the uniform wish to put their names forward and be considered in the future.
For charter reasons, for reasons of not discriminating against the candidacy of anyone to be a member of this board, and for reasons of not wishing to fetter the Governor in Council in making such appointments on the basis of the very best advice and on the basis of the widest possible consideration of the expertise available in this country, we will oppose this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just so everyone knows, the difference between this new version and the first one we stood is just a small drafting error. In the first version of NDP-15, it was proposed new subsection 29.16(2.1). The subsection we're adding is actually 29.16(2.01).
Mr. Harris.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Briefly, Chair, in rebuttal, some of the comments of my colleague, Mr. Alexander, would actually be reasonable if, in fact, the experience of this grievance board had been different. To suggest the reason they are all military is that they are the ones most qualified flies in the face of the fact that we're talking here about the grievance board.
There are thousands of people throughout the country and in the federal public service already with experience in managing grievances, dealing with human resource issues, dealing with benefits, applying benefits, interpreting policies and legislation, who could well have been appointed if the government was taking the view this was a board that was open to them and was intended to be an external review board. It seems clear that anybody who isn't in the military is being—Mr. Alexander uses the word “discrimination”—discriminated against by the actions of this government.
So this wouldn't be moved if it wasn't necessary, and it certainly appears it is, given the actions of this government. We don't see any indication that they are going to change.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I think this amendment is supportable primarily because the grievance board deals with concerns that actually operate outside of the military, i.e., wages, pensions, benefits, and all that sort of stuff. I think the more soldiers are treated in the same fashion as civilians, in that area at least, then the better off we are. I think it will generate a more consistent application of decision-making across the spectrum of decisions and the various forms of people who end up working for us in one way or another.
I think Mr. Harris's amendment is supportable.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 11 agreed to on division)
(On clause 75)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We're back to clause 75. We have on the floor amendment G-2, moved by Mr. Alexander. Are there any further comments on it?
Ms. Moore, you have the floor.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Since you want us to deal with them separately, I will briefly discuss section 98 of the National Defence Act because, in this case as well, I believe that—
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Chair, on a point of order, on that amendment, just to avoid confusion, I've underlined in pen section 98. This is a drafting issue to replace a particular line with another line, a list of numbers. The only one that's different is 98. That's added into the list in line 2.
Conservative
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Once again, the spectrum is broad. It can concern something not very important or something quite serious. I find it hard to accept that. This states: "malingers or feigns or produces disease or infirmity."
I have seen a number of cases. For example, body piercings are prohibited in the Canadian Forces. Members may not have them according to disciplinary rules. I have seen people with body piercings that had become infected. Consequently, they had to be absent from work in order to take antibiotics. They were subsequently charged under section 98 and elected summary trial. Since this was a minor offence, they were merely sentenced to a fine, but that was nevertheless under section 98.
People will be charged with quite minor offences under section 98. I also know of people who have been absent from work as a result of a sunburn. They had shaved off all their hair and suffered a sunburn that had slowed down the service.
Other behaviour related to injuries suffered during very long courses is often not discouraged by commanding officers. I have previously spoken about this. It frequently occurs that someone becomes injured three or four days before the end of a master corporal training course. A military member with a sprained ankle who obeys medical orders not to walk will miss the final exercises and fail the course. Military members will often ask personnel to tighten bandages so that they can walk, even if it means paying a fine.
Unfortunately, commanding officers do not necessarily discourage members from disobeying medical orders or aggravating injuries. They prefer that members not retake their training courses, in which a great deal of money has been invested. This behaviour is not widely discouraged.
I understand that we are talking about an entirely different kind of offence when someone deliberately cuts someone else's arm to prevent him or her from serving. As was the case a little earlier, I believe this does not seem logical in certain cases. Consider the example of someone who has disregarded medical orders and has aggravated a sprained ankle.
Consider as well the example of a 16-year-old military member who has a body piercing that has become infected and therefore has to be absent from work. I believe it is somewhat excessive not to include that in clause 75, particularly considering that, if someone cuts someone else's arm to prevent him or her from serving, that person will be sentenced only to a fine.
I believe there is a logic in the punishments that will be imposed, as a result of which we can readily include this in the Conservatives' amendment in clause 75. The logic behind the punishments will determine whether or not it applies.
That was the comment I had to make on section 98.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Are there any other comments?
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're back to the main motion.
Conservative
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Now the purpose of the subamendment I want to move is to add section 100 to the Conservatives' amendment.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the time here. The meeting was set from 3:30 to 5:30, so....