PARLIAMENT of CANADA

Section Home
 
Publications - February 25, 2013
 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Meeting No. 67
 
Monday, February 25, 2013
 

The Standing Committee on National Defence met at 3:34 p.m. this day, in Room 362, East Block, the Chair, James Bezan, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Chris Alexander, James Bezan, Tarik Brahmi, Corneliu Chisu, Jack Harris, Jean-François Larose, Hon. John McKay, Christine Moore, Rick Norlock, Ted Opitz and Mark Strahl.

 

Acting Members present: Hon. Laurie Hawn for Cheryl Gallant.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Erin Shaw, Analyst. House of Commons: Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk; David-Andrés Novoa, Legislative Clerk.

 

Witnesses: Department of National Defence: Col Michael R. Gibson, Deputy Judge Advocate General of Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General; LCol André Dufour, Director, Law Military Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General; LCol Stephen Strickey, Director of Law, Military Justice Strategic, Office of the Judge Advocate General.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, December 12, 2012, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
 

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the Committee on Monday, February 11, 2013, the Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

 

The witnesses answered questions.

 

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

 

Clause 2 carried.

 

Clause 3 carried.

 

On Clause 4,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 23 on page 4.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 
Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 4 with the following:

“issue instructions or guidelines in writing to the Provost Marshal and the Military Police Complaints Commission in”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

 

Clause 4 carried on division.

 

After debate, Clause 5 carried on division.

 

On Clause 6,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 4 with the following:

“considered and determined by the Grievances Committee. The Committee’s decision is final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal to or review by any court.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

 

The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also inadmissible:

That Bill C-15, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 5 with the following:

“29.11 Except in the case of a grievance considered and determined by the Grievances Committee, the Chief of the Defence Staff is the”

 
Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 5 with the following:

“(a) decide all matters relating to a grievance, including financial matters; and

(b) deal with all matters as informally and expedi-”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

 

Clause 6 carried on division.

 

Clause 7 carried on division.

 

On Clause 8,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 5 with the following:

“provide, and make public without delay, reasons for his or her decision in respect”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

Clause 8 carried on division.

 

On Clause 9,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 44 on page 5 the following:

“(c) a grievance that has far-reaching implications for the Canadian Forces may not be delegated.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

 

Clause 9 carried on division.

 

On new Clause 9.1,

 
Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 6 the following new clause:

“9.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 29.15:

29.151 (1) When a grievance has been submitted by an officer or non-commissioned member in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection 29(3), the decision of the final authority with respect to the grievance must be given in writing to the officer or non-commissioned member within 12 months of the submission of the grievance.

(2) If the 12-month period referred to in subsection (1) has elapsed and the officer or non-commissioned member has not received the decision of the final authority with respect to the grievance, the officer or non-commissioned member may apply to the Federal Court for such relief as the Court considers appropriate.

(3) The Federal Court shall award any officer or non-commissioned member who makes an application under subsection (2) costs on a solicitor-client basis, regardless of the outcome of the application.

(4) Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply to any grievance that is required by regulation to be personally adjudicated by the Chief of the Defence Staff.”

 

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

 
Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 6 the following new clause:

“9.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 29.15:

29.151 (1) When a grievance has been submitted by an officer or non-commissioned member in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection 29(3), the decision of the final authority with respect to the grievance must be given in writing to the officer or non-commissioned member within 12 months of the submission of the grievance.

(2) If the 12-month period referred to in subsection (1) has elapsed and the officer or non-commissioned member has not received the decision of the final authority with respect to the grievance, the officer or non-commissioned member may apply to the Federal Court for such relief as the Court considers appropriate.

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

Clause 10 carried.

 

On Clause 11,

Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 6 the following:

“(1.1) Section 29.16 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) Despite subsection (3), if a matter has been referred to the Grievances Committee and the term of appointment of a member who has been participating in the consideration of the matter expires, or the member resigns, before the Grievances Committee concludes its consideration of the matter or gives a decision, the member, solely for the purpose of the Grievances Committee's concluding its consideration of the matter or giving its decision, shall continue to be considered a member of the Grievances Committee, except if removed for cause.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 
Jack Harris moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 28 on page 6 with the following:

“(1.1) Section 29.16 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) No officer or non-commissioned member may be appointed as a member of the Grievances Committee.

(1.2) Subsections 29.16(7) and (8) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(7) Members are entitled to be paid for their services the remuneration and allowances fixed by the Governor in Council.

(8) Members are entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by them in the course of their duties while absent from their ordinary place of work, if full-time members, or their ordinary place of residence, if part-time members, subject to any applicable Treasury Board directives.

(1.3) The portion of subsection 29.16(9) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(9) Members are deemed

(2) Subsection 29.16(10) of the Act is repealed.”

 

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jack Harris and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

 

By unanimous consent, an amendment of Jack Harris and Clause 11 were allowed to stand.

 

Clause 12 carried.

 

Clause 13 carried.

 

After debate, Clause 14 carried.

 

Clause 15 carried.

 

After debate, Clause 16 carried.

 

After debate, Clause 17 carried.

 

Clause 18 carried.

 

Clause 19 carried.

 

By unanimous consent, after debate, Clause 20 was allowed to stand.

 

At 5:38 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Leif-Erik Aune
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2013/03/11 11:56 a.m.
ParlVU