Evidence of meeting #12 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was union.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
NDP
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Thank you. Wow. You're making it difficult for me, aren't you?
I believe we had clause 10 carry as amended on division. Was that correct?
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 11)
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Now, let me introduce clause 11 and amendment G-10, which presents no conflicts that I can see.
Madam Sims.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Once again, I will say we have a great deal of concern around the low level required for decertification, and I'm hoping my colleagues will bring an amendment. I can't move a subamendment here for obvious reasons, but I'm hoping they will look at a higher watermark for decertification.
Thank you.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you. I'm surprised by the comments, because when this was reversed, it was seen as a challenge, so I think the fairer way forward is an alignment of both certification and decertification. This motion does just that. It aligns minimum in-place support thresholds that must be claimed with application with the related requirements.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to make a quick comment.
I support Ms. Simms' remarks. I think the government should be careful about the minimum level required to start a decertification process. It has major consequences on people's lives, whether on their salaries, their insurance or their pensions. So I think the 50% level should be the standard.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
I see no speakers on amendment G-10.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 12)
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
On clause 12, amendment G-11 is in line conflict with amendment NDP-19. If amendment G-11 carries, amendment NDP-19 cannot be proceeded with.
Is there any discussion?
Madam Sims.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
My apologies again. That's on amendment G-12 and we're only....
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
You know what? I keep getting the clause and the amendment number confused, and I just want to make sure I don't miss my moment.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair. Again it's the alignment of the certification and decertification. I don't think it needs a whole bunch of additional explanation, because we have talked about it.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
My point is the same: that as much as we appreciate the watermark for the certification vote, we really feel there should be a different watermark to decertify, and it needs to really meet that higher level. In the same way, as you know, reconsideration of a motion that passes before committees in the world that I've lived in usually requires a lot higher landmark than did the motion that was put through first.
I really would urge my colleagues to come forward with something to address this before we get to the report stage.