NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, June 2, 2003

¹

1540

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.))

Lieutenant Colonel André Dufour (Director, Legislative and Regulatory Services, Department of National Defence)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

LCol André Dufour

Mr. Claude Bachand

LCol André Dufour

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

LCol André Dufour

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol André Dufour

¹

1555

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol André Dufour

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol André Dufour

Major Doug Elderkin (Directorate of Pay Policy Development, Department of National Defence)

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol André Dufour

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol André Dufour

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol André Dufour

Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Gleeson (Special Assistant, Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence)

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol Patrick Gleeson

º

1600

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

LCol Patrick Gleeson

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

LCol André Dufour

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol André Dufour

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol André Dufour

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

º

1605

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

º

1610

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Maj Doug Elderkin

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol André Dufour

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

º

1615

Mr. Leon Benoit

LCol Patrick Gleeson

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 030

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, June 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order. We are here today to consider Bill C-35, an act to amend the National Defence Act (remuneration of military judges.)

    On behalf of the committee I would like to formally welcome Lieutenant Colonel André Dufour, as well as Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Gleeson and Major Doug Elderkin.

    Gentlemen, welcome to the committee today. I understand that you came armed with an explanation of what the bill is all about. Would you like to take the floor and proceed with your explanation?

    Lieutenant Colonel André Dufour (Director, Legislative and Regulatory Services, Department of National Defence): That's correct. I will do that, thank you.

[Translation]

    Good day, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. I am pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to provide you with this overview of essential elements of Bill C-35, which was tabled in the House of Commons last May 1. I am going to provide you with an overview, and I will be going over the three parts of the bill, even if, technically speaking, its provisions are in numerical order in the text.

[English]

    In the first part I will deal with the new enabling provision that will allow Treasury Board to make regulations with retroactive effect. I'm talking about proposed subsection 12(4) and proposed section 165.22 of the National Defence Act. The second part will deal with the provision that will clarify the National Defence Act dealing with DNA warrants. Third, the amendment will also provide some consistency between the French and English versions for four provisions of the National Defence Act.

    On the first issue, let me say that in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference regarding remuneration of judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island rendered a key decision. The court held that there is a requirement to have an independent, objective, and effective mechanism to deal with the compensation of judges. In essence, the effect of that judgment was to ensure that the financial security of judges is free from any inappropriate influence on the part of the executive branch of the government.

[Translation]

    Jurisprudence has also established that there are three essential components to meet the requirements of section 11(d) of the Charter, and these are: security of tenure for judges, financial security, and the institutional independence of the tribunal.

    In 1992, following the Généreux ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, legislative and regulatory amendments were made to the National Defence Act to meet these requirements.

[English]

    In 1998, in Lauzon, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada applied the principle of the P.E.I. provincial judges decision and found that the existing system of establishing the remuneration of military judges was not adequate. The court gave one year to have the changes made.

    In 1999, to satisfy this requirement, the Military Judges Compensation Committee was established by regulation to inquire into the adequacy of the rate of pay for military judges and to make recommendations to the government.

[Translation]

    At the same time, in 1998, the Judges Act was amended to create an independent, objective and effective mechanism to settle the issue of the financial security of civil judges. The Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission was created.

    Objective factors were stipulated in the law, in order to have the commission make its recommendations based on those factors. Those same factors are to be found in the Queen's Regulations applicable to the Canadian Forces.

[English]

    The gist of the proposed subsection 12(4) of the National Defence Act is to enable Treasury Board to make regulations on the pay of military judges retroactive up to the date of the commencement of the period of review. At the present time, subsection 12(3) simply allows Treasury Board to prescribe the rate and conditions of issue of pay. In a sense, once the MJCC makes its recommendation to the government, the Minister of National Defence and the Treasury Board will then be fully authorized to prescribe the rate of pay of military judges with retroactive effect to the beginning of the review period.

    Let me now give the chronology of the sequence of events that occurred with the first review that was started in September 1999. As there is a requirement to conduct a review every four years, the next review period of the Military Judges Compensation Committee is due for September 1, 2003. The Military Judges Compensation Committee report is due for the end of May 2004; that is to say, no later than nine months after the commencement of the enquiry. Then the report is made public by the minister within 30 days after receiving the report. Finally, the minister must respond to the military judges compensation report within six months after receiving the report.

    Without presuming the recommendation of the Military Judges Compensation Committee, it is possible that the recommendations will be retroactive to the beginning of the review period, which is to say September 1, 2003. This process is equivalent to the process prescribed in the Judges Act. In our case, as it is not absolutely clear that Treasury Board can pay judges under current subsection 12(3) of the National Defence Act with retroactive effect, an amendment to the National Defence Act is required. Even though pay and benefits are authorized by the government, the process by which this payment is achieved with respect to military judges should be absolutely clear.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    The second series of amendments concern the power of issuing DNA warrants under the terms of the National Defence Act and clarify provisions according to which these warrants can be issued. Consequential amendments were made to the National Defence Act during the year 2000, pursuant to the amendments made to the Criminal Code of Canada.

[English]

    The NDA currently provides that the DNA warrant may be issued under sections 196.12 or 196.13. Section 196.12 is the substantive provision that permits peace officers to apply to a military judge for a DNA warrant authorizing the taking of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. On the other hand, section 196.13 offers an alternative to a peace officer to obtain a warrant by telephone or other means of telecommunication where it is impracticable for the peace officer to appear before a military judge. However, the authority for the actual issue of a warrant based on information submitted by telephone or other means is section 196.12 only, and not section 196.13. Therefore—and this is the gist of the amendment—the reference to 196.13 has been removed from many provisions in division 6.1 of the National Defence Act dealing with forensic DNA analysis.

[Translation]

    As the current provisions of the National Defence Act do not make these distinctions, the proposals included in this bill will clarify the power to issue search warrants and to bring them into line with the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning DNA analysis carried out for forensic purposes.

    Finally, the third point. Minor corrective measures will be included in the bill. They concern subsection 153(d) as well as subsections 196.17, 249.21 and 273.63; their purpose is to ensure consistency between the French and English versions of the act.

    That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Lieutenant Colonel.

    Are there questions from committee members?

    Monsieur Bachand. And I think we can be fairly informal here.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I see. I simply want to know whether, during the clause-by-clause study, we will be able to ask questions as we go along, on each of the clauses.

[English]

    The Chair: Maybe we could get all of the questions out of the way at the start of the meeting, and then just go through the individual clauses, if that's appropriate for members. Would you rather do it clause by clause?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, because my problem is that sometimes during a discussion, we may have questions to ask. So, if we can't ask questions anymore because we have reached clause 3 and decided that all of the questions were to be asked beforehand,I feel we may run into problems.

    I have no problem with asking them right away, but I would like us to be able to ask them as we go along—I don't think that this poses a big problem; as we do the clause-by-clause study, I would like us to be able to ask questions of the witnesses, who are experts on these issues.

    May I ask my question right away?

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    The Chair: Sure.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: With regard to remuneration, this concerns three judges, if I am not mistaken. I don't have much to say about that, except that as far as I can see, this is not a huge expense for the Department of National Defence.

    But concerning the samples of bodily substances, for instance... I don't know if there are any lawyers among you; we may need a lawyer to answer my question. In the civil context, can a lawyer, for instance, ask a judge over the telephone for the authorization to take samples of bodily substances? I would like to know whether this exists in civil society or whether the measure that is being introduced here today is a precedent in civil society, something that does not exist there and which will be applied only by National Defence. I don't know if you can answer that question.

    LCol André Dufour: I am going to try to answer that. The amendments included in this bill are very technical and their purpose is simply to make the provisions of the Criminal Code compatible with those of National Defence, especially since previously we had a reference to sections 196.12 and 196.13. From the perspective of legislative authority, all the bill is doing here is saying that section 196.12 is the legislative authority under which procedures can be initiated. I am thinking, for instance, of a telewarrant or the issuance of a warrant.

    As for the question you wanted to address to a lawyer, I haven't studied the matter, but the usual process is that a military police officer will submit a request to a military judge, if one is available. Otherwise, he is going to ask to use the telewarrant procedure, or the telephone, or some other electronic means.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. So, basically, the telephone is used to submit information; it is not used to ask the judge for authorization to take samples of bodily substances. That is what I understand from clause 196.13. It says:

196.13 (1) If a peace officer believes that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a military judge to apply for a warrant under section 196.12, the peace officer may submit an information on oath to the judge by telephone or other means of telecommunication.

    I suppose that other means could be a fax machine. Can they go so far as to use e-mail?

    LCol André Dufour: Yes, but I can assure you that the bill we are discussing today creates no new powers for National Defence. The purpose is simply to bring us into compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Code.

    As for the mechanism as such, we follow the same provisions as the ones in the Criminal Code, in sections 487.1 and 487.05 of the Criminal Code.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Fine. I have no further questions, but I would very much like to consult the Criminal Code, Mr. Chairman. So, while the witness answers other questions, I would like to examine those two sections, with your permission.

[English]

    The Chair: If the lieutenant colonel is willing to share his Criminal Code with you, Mr. Bachand, I don't see any reason why not.

    Do you have any further questions, Monsieur Bachand? No?

    Mrs. Gallant.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): How many judges are there in the military now?

    LCol André Dufour: Three.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Three. And would you please describe the existing pay grid for these judges--or is it just one flat amount for each?

    LCol André Dufour: As of April 1, 2003, there is one chief military trial judge. The pay grid is $152,869, and for our two military judges it is $147,238.

¹  (1555)  

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: How does the remuneration for the military judges compare to the provincial and federal judges?

    LCol André Dufour: That's the basis of the Military Judges Compensation Committee. There are three members appointed to review and to see what basis they should have. We have prescribed, for example, in the QR&O, the regulations, some criteria that are exactly the same as the Judges Act; that is, for example, the prevailing economic conditions in Canada, including the cost of living, the overall economic and current financial position of the federal government, the role of financial security of military judges in ensuring judicial independence, the need to attract outstanding officers as military judges, and any other objective criteria that the committee considers relevant. Those criteria are the same as in the Judges Act.

    I'm not sure if I have fully understood your question.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Are military judges paid roughly the same, more or less, as provincial and federal judges?

    LCol André Dufour: This obviously varies from province to province.

    Major Doug Elderkin (Directorate of Pay Policy Development, Department of National Defence): The committee decided to pay them off the average of provincial judges. So depending on what part of the country you're in, it could be higher or lower. Also, it is significantly lower than federal judges.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: And what about the need for military judges--are they kept fairly busy, or do we need more judges? Is it meeting the requirements at this point?

    LCol André Dufour: Obviously it depends. It varies from year to year, but they could have approximately 70 to 100 cases per year.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The MJCC, as you mentioned, conducts a review of the pay for military judges every four years. Do you have any idea of how often they review the pay grids for the non-commissioned soldiers?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: Yes, ma'am; we do it every year.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Every year. Okay, and with respect to the cases, what would you say is the crux of the majority of the cases that come before the judges? Are they disciplinary, behaviour-related?

    LCol André Dufour: Without being too general, it varies from murder to very insignificant cases. But the spectrum is mainly the code of service discipline, which is embedded in the code of service discipline. The National Defence Act is there to deal with disciplinary offences--for example, absence without leave, disobedience of lawful command. I mean, we have to deal with those types of offences in garrison or on deployment, so we have the means really to face that reality if there is a case of misconduct.

    It will be difficult for me to generalize what types of offences we have. However, an annual report that is tabled before Parliament every year by the Judge Advocate General outlines the crux of the offences and describes in general terms what they are.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Okay. And how are military judges selected?

    LCol André Dufour: There is a committee, and they are appointed under commission of the minister by the Governor in Council. They have in fact a way of appointing the right candidate. Maybe Lieutenant Colonel Gleeson, who is in charge of military justice, may go further.

    Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Gleeson (Special Assistant, Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence): Colonel Dufour has done a fairly good job of describing it. It is a Governor-in-Council appointment and there is a committee selection process that's analogous to the civilian process for civilian federal judges. So similar process recommendations are made to the minister. Recommendations are in turn made to the Governor in Council, who then makes an appointment.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The only inquiry I'm familiar with in our riding is the Somalia inquiry. Do any of you have any idea what abruptly drew that to a halt? Was it some sort of—

    The Chair: Mrs. Gallant, that question is not something these gentlemen could answer. It's quite beyond the topic that's under consideration today.

    Do you have any other questions?

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: How large a pool are the military judges chosen from? How many applicants or how many people would qualify to be chosen? How many would you draw on?

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: The requirements are set out in the National Defence Act. You need to be an officer with ten years at the bar of a province to be eligible for an appointment as a military judge. The pool is then open, obviously, to all serving officers in the JAG branch, which is in the vicinity of 160 regular force and reserve force officers.

    The pool would also extend to all officers in the Canadian Forces who meet those criteria. In other words, there are members of the Canadian Forces who have law degrees who aren't necessarily members of the JAG branch. So the pool would be in the 150 to 200 range, I guess, ultimately, if you look at all of those individual officers.

º  (1600)  

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: So they do definitely have to be a serving member of the military, though?

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: That's correct. Yes, they do.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Gallant.

    Monsieur Bertrand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I only have a few brief questions, Lieutenant-Colonel Dufour. Do the three judges that are appointed have the rank of general?

    LCol André Dufour: No. The chief military justice has the rank of colonel and the other judges have the rank of lieutenant-colonel. So, there is only one major-general among the lawyers, and that is the judge advocate general who is in charge of the organization of military justice and responsible for the proper management of legal services.

[English]

    The Chair: Are there any other questions from members?

    Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, also, I'd like to welcome you and Mr. Price back from NATO. I guess Mr. Price is not here, but I hope you had an enjoyable trip.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It was a very worthwhile trip, as always. You've been there yourself many times, Mr. Chair.

    The only question I have is on the retroactivity, which is really the crux of the bill. Why is it necessary to have this retroactive year after year? Why can't the work be done ahead of time so that before the new fiscal year starts the rate of pay is set?

    LCol André Dufour: Obviously the first committee started in 1999, and we had the benchmark, which was that date.

    The Judges Act is the same--their requirement to do it every four years. Obviously the review takes time, and it has to apply for a period of reference that is back in time. And this is the best way, because of the nine months for the MGCC to basically do its work and for the minister to consider the MGCC recommendations. All of that has to be done, and once this is done we are very late with respect to any remuneration that applied back in time.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Why can't you start the process earlier, so that it is complete before the deadline?

    LCol André Dufour: Basically because we started with one reference point, at September 1, 1999, and there is a requirement, by regulation, to do it every four years.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: That could be easily changed. We're changing legislation here. It would have been just as easy, or easier possibly to change that date in legislation so there'd be no need for retroactivity.

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: The difficulty with doing that is you then lose your comparison, because you're comparing for a pay rate that's going to come into effect at some point in the future, but your comparatives would be pay rates that exist today, and this, I assume, would be a difficulty the committee would have.

    So if you start the work eight or nine months in advance, or a year in advance, you're dealing with data and information from other jurisdictions that's obviously current to that date and not current to the time period you're actually looking at, which would be 12 months into the future. So that certainly would be one of the challenges you would face in doing that.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: In other jurisdictions you're comparing to, do they set the rate of pay every year? Isn't it based on a formula, if there's a cost-of-living increase? Why would that prevent you from just starting the process earlier? You'd know what the pay is for that last year, anyway.

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: There are two elements here. One is that there is a cost-of-living increase if it's recommended by the committee on an annual basis, and most I think judiciaries have that cost-of-living provision. But this is now to look at their overall compensation package, and that occurs every four years, I think, in every system. I don't think there's a judicial review system in the country that doesn't look at it on a four-year basis.

    What this scheme does is no different from what you'll find in the Judges Act with respect to federally appointed judges. Again, they recognize the reality of your having to start the process at some point, and you want to deal with data that's relevant at the point you start the process.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, why not make that point? If others are governed by four-year contracts as well, or the wage is set over a four-year period, even if there is some lag time, at least it takes into account the difficulty of having to have it retroactive all the time.

    I'm a little concerned about having retroactive legislation. I know there is other retroactive legislation, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to go. It makes it difficult, certainly, to forecast.

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: I think certainly in the federal compensation field, retroactivity is the norm. That's the way compensation is done. Major Elderkin might speak to that; he's the compensation expert.

    But again, I don't think you'll find anything unusual in the notion that you want to ensure the government has the flexibility. If in fact the committee recommends it...and there may not be any recommendation for a retroactive effect at all, but if the recommendation is made, you simply want to make sure that the authority exists. If the government is satisfied with my recommendation, you simply want to ensure that this flexibility is there. That's what is trying to be achieved through this bill. It is simply to introduce that flexibility to respond to the recommendation if and when it's made.

    Maj Doug Elderkin: The process we're dealing with now takes approximately a year, and it's based on the information we have at a given time. We're mandated every four years, so at some point in time we have to start. You take all the data in the computation, the process goes through, it makes a recommendation to Parliament. The government may not accept it, in which case there's a series of negotiations, worst case, and then you're back to the drawing board.

    The judges in the meantime are still waiting. So there has to be some mechanism to make some adjustment as of a point in time. We have it for everybody in the public service, including the military.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: The pay levels you're comparing to, though, are all set on a four-year...

    Maj Doug Elderkin: Right now what happens is during the interim four years there's an automatic mechanism, the industrial aggregate index. This is the same index that's used for the federal judges. That's just to provide them in your increases.

    Then what happens is the whole system is looked at, presentations, discussions are held to see whether or not that still is adequate. Perhaps in the system out in the world, things have gone all kaphooey and suddenly the benchmark is of no relevance. What happens is it allows the committee to look at it in the overall context of society and come out with recommendations. It may come back and say “status quo, away you go”.

    For instance, on the last go-around, it took us a considerable amount of time to go through it the first time and it was well over a year. Of course, the judges shouldn't be penalized, so it was brought into place just like everybody else in the military, to have a timely pay raise without being unduly penalized.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: This is for three judges. And how many people are on the committee?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: Three, sir.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Are they their people within the military?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: No, sir.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: They're outsiders all of them, appointed through order in council?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: Correct.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: And how much do they get paid for this year's work?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: Last time, sir, they had contracts at $700 per day, up to a maximum of $25,000 per person. I understand from my previous colleague that it was well within budget.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, I feel like I haven't had a good explanation as to why you couldn't start the process earlier. I understand it takes a year. Why not start it a year before the deadline to make sure it's complete before the old compensation level expires?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: Well, the act says every four years. At the end of the four years the committee sits, looks at all the information during the four years, and then makes its recommendation—as opposed to a three-year cycle.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I wonder if this legislation is dealing with this in the appropriate way, or if we shouldn't just be looking at starting the process earlier.

    The other thing is, these are order-in-council appointments. To your knowledge and to your recollection, have the three judges ever been scrutinized by the defence committee? We have the authority, certainly, to scrutinize any order-in-council appointments of the military.

º  (1610)  

    Maj Doug Elderkin: The committee was only appointed once, sir. The last time was in 1999, and at that time it was a ministerial appointment. It was intended to be a GIC appointment .

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I wasn't actually talking about that. I was talking about the appointment of the judges themselves.

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: To my knowledge, they have not been scrutinized by this committee.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: The reason I ask, of course, is that the Canadian Alliance has proposed that all Supreme Court justices should be scrutinized by a parliamentary committee to ensure their people are the best in the job.

    So it had only been once, and those appointments weren't scrutinized by the committee then.

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: To the best of my knowledge, sir, no.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, thanks.

    The Chair: Mrs. Gallant.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Major Elderkin, with respect to pay, are the criteria the same, for example, for the firefighters and the non-commissioned officers as for the judges, for remunerative pay as well as pension plans?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: No, ma'am.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: So they're not compared to what the private sector is paid in the various categories?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: For general service officers and NCMs, we benchmark them to the public service, and we do complete comparisons of occupations we can identify with, whereas judges are benchmarked to the provincial court judges' salaries. That was recommended last time by the committee and what was accepted to derive the rate of pay for judges.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: So for firefighters and corporals in their various roles, it's not exactly aligned to the private sector.

    Maj Doug Elderkin: It's directly aligned to the public service.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With similar positions?

    Maj Doug Elderkin: There are 42 occupations in NCM trades that we can actually reach in and say... for infantry we can't, but for firefighters we can, and again, it's based on an average.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Well, that was it.

    It still bothers me that we don't understand why exactly the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded. Perhaps we can call the appropriate witnesses at some point in the future to solve that mystery.

    The Chair: You can raise these issues, Mrs. Gallant, at the steering committee. You're fully within your purview as a member of Parliament to do that.

    Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a question on the DNA sample. Are the changes in this bill strictly translation issues? What are the other changes beyond that?

    LCol André Dufour: The only change in substance currently in the act... The references are made to section 196.12 and 196.13. The authority should be only under section 196.12. So we have removed in clause 6 all references to section 196.13.

    This is the only amendment we are making in this bill.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Why was section 196.13 removed?

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: It's not actually removed. There's simply some confusion as to whether or not the warrant-issuing authority is under section 196.12 or section 196.13. The authority for all warrants under this division comes out of section 196.12. So we want to remove the references to section 196.13 in other clauses to ensure there's no confusion or there's no belief that section 196.13 is a warrant-issuing authority.

    It's simply a process provision. It says if you can't do it by way of an appearance before a judge, you can do it by telephone or a telecommunications device. It's still the same warrant that's issued under section 196.12. That's all we've done there. We've simply tried to ensure there's no confusion as to where the authority to issue the warrant is coming from.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Why was that done? Why was it in there before, where it could be issued under other sections?

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: Why was it there? I can't answer that question.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It was an error before.

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: It certainly created some confusion. I think the intent always was that section 196.12 was the warrant-issuing authority, but the way the cross-reference was made to section 196.13, which was the tele-warrant, the telephone call or the fax, it caused some people to believe that there was actually a separate warrant being issued.

    If you go and look at the scheme, that's not the case. It's one warrant being issued; it's just two means of obtaining the warrant.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Was there a particular case?

    LCol Patrick Gleeson: No, this was just reviewing the scheme and saying this doesn't really seem to jibe very well right now. So that's all there was.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: All right.

    The Chair: Any questions from this side of the committee?

    Okay, perhaps we could get right into clause-by-clause then.

    (Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall I report the bill without amendment to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay, and because there were no amendments, we don't need a reprint. We saved a tree.

    An hon. member: Well done, Mr. Chairman.

    An hon. member: Well done.

    The Chair: Okay, on behalf of the committee members, I'd like to thank our—

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I'm sorry, just before finishing, can we bring amendments on the third reading in the House?

    The Chair: Only reasoned amendments that would send it back to this committee.

    Mr. Bachand, I'm glad you returned the Lieutenant Colonel's Criminal Code, so we don't have to charge you with theft of a Criminal Code.

    Again, on behalf of the members of this committee, I'd like to thank you, gentlemen, for being here today, and for allowing yourselves to be subjected to questions from committee members. I hope you didn't find it too harrowing. We appreciate your being here, and we'll perhaps see you again at some point.

    I don't think we have any other business to conduct, and we have a vote on, so the committee is adjourned.