National Defence Committee on April 10th, 2024

[The Clerk]

Is this going after “the Minister of National Defence”?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

It would be “urge”, and instead of “them”, we would say “the employer”.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

It would be “call on our Minister of National Defence to urge the employer”. Is that where that goes?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Let's go at that again.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

On a point of order, I'm not confident that this additional amendment is in order, because we have already voted on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No, we haven't.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

It's “urge” versus “instruct”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The ruling I made as chair is that there is a substantial difference from the previous vote on the same phrasing. She has more phrasing in the amendment and therefore it is in order.

Let's make sure we all know what we're talking about. For the purpose of clarification, I'm going to ask Mrs. Lalonde to do it again so that the clerk and the ever so humble chair understand what we're talking about.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Give me a second.

We would say, “call on the Minister of National Defence to urge the employer to bargain in good faith and come to a fair resolution.”

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are we clear on that?

[The Clerk]

I think so. I apologize.

I have a question for Madame Lalonde. You're replacing everything that comes after “Minister of National Defence” with what you've read. Is that correct?

You're deleting “to come to the table, bring an end to this strike and bargain in good faith with our civilian military workers” and replacing it with “to urge the employer to bargain in good faith and come to a fair resolution”.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Yes. It's “to bargain in good faith and come to a fair resolution.”

[The Clerk]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We all seem to know what we're talking about here. We're all on the same page.

I saw Mr. Kelly's hand up first—

I'm sorry. You're right. I apologize. Mr. Fisher was first.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much.

I say this to Ms. Mathyssen. When I heard about this motion, I was super-supportive, as all of us were on this side. We were supportive because we believe the best deals are made at the table.

However, asking a minister to interfere with collective bargaining sets a precedent. What happens if there's a change of government, and you have a government that doesn't believe in collective bargaining? Do you want that minister sitting down and instructing one way or the other?

I think this could potentially be dangerous, and it will set a precedent. I went from being super-supportive of your motion and appreciating the importance of what you were trying to accomplish to having great concern with the amended and subamended motion, to the point that I'm not even certain I can vote for the entire motion now. That would be really sad, because I support exactly what you are trying to do; I just don't support the interference.

Having a minister encourage returning to the table and having a minister encourage both sides to come together for collective bargaining and a fair bargaining agreement is exactly what I think you want to accomplish, but I honestly feel that having a minister interfere in this is not a good precedent for us to set.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I have Mr. Kelly and then Ms. Mathyssen.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I'd simply say to Mr. Fisher that he's welcome to vote against it if he doesn't agree with the principle that we hold the Minister of National Defence responsible for that, which is his responsibility as minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Mathyssen is next.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Exactly to that point, ministers do instruct the employer within the public service, and there are many things they can do as part of the negotiations.

I would be sad if everyone didn't support this motion. Let's be honest: These people have been on strike for three months. They've undergone quite a lot of intimidation. They have not received a lot of respect on the picket line. It has been very difficult for already underpaid workers, who are doing incredible work.

We haven't seen any movement. The minister has already urged and encouraged them, and we haven't seen any movement. It is incumbent upon us—as I know we all agree—to push harder, and that's what I'm asking for.

We can't continue to hope that this will all work out without further pushing and a stronger stance on this. The workers in those positions deserve that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Can we ask for a two-minute suspension?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

You don't get to determine that. I asked the chair.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chair, out of respect for what we're doing here today.... I do care. I really care about these workers, and it's interesting that we're debating this when we had a very good solution. We would not have wasted a witness's time again—