Evidence of meeting #24 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I want to support what was just said. The reality is that in changing the words the way we have, we're not putting enough pressure, I think, on moving something that's so very important. The men and women who serve this country deserve the respect shown by making sure that the next step for them, especially when they're released in such a sad way, is that they get what they deserve. Having those two levels not work together functionally is very unfortunate for everyday people.
This amendment lightens the responsibility. It doesn't follow through with the spirit of the intention here, which is to ask for us, as a committee, to accept the recommendations of the two reports and to make sure we're in a dialogue with this minister on moving forward.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you so much. I'm happy to respond to that.
As I mentioned, I understand that the ombudsman has submitted this report. As you all know, up until very recently, I sat on the veterans affairs committee as well. As the mother of two sons currently serving, no one takes that commitment to service to heart as much as a family member. Yes, I understand the question of the transition and those being medically released is being looked at by the veterans affairs committee in a study on service to veterans, and I believe that report will be tabled at some point. I know that it is a part, but I'd like to get to where I'm going and to the rationale regarding my amendment.
In the spirit of that is why I brought forward the amendment, and to say that we acknowledge the ombudsman's report. It was an incredibly powerful report. I know it has been submitted. I'm looking forward to seeing what the response is on it. It was in that spirit that I put forward the amendment.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'd like to move a subamendment that we would add onto the revised motion that the government respond to the committee on this motion.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Yes, that the last part be added in. I think it is imperative that we hear from the government on how they're going to handle the ombudsman's recommendations. There are only four of them. We heard quite well from the ombudsman, Mr. Walbourne, what needs to happen. I think all of us around this table agree with those recommendations of having a concierge service and of having one-stop shopping through a portal, as well as through the IPSCs. It is imperative that we support him rather than give a government an out from telling us what they're going to do to support our men and women in uniform.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Could I ask that you read out your suggestion?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Procedurally, before we go to this, you can't add a subamendment to the amendment, according to the clerk. You can't expand it. She can withdraw it, and we can go back to the amendment.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to accept that friendly amendment on behalf of the member.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
We're going to work this out, but procedurally you have to withdraw your amendment and the subamendment, and then redo your amendment, and then we'll read it back. Does that make sense?
Your subamendment's dead. It's out of order. It doesn't work.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Philippe Grenier-Michaud
Basically, we have a main motion by Ms. Gallant. We have an amendment moved by Ms. Romanado to narrow the scope of the main motion. Mr. Bezan is trying to move a subamendment expanding the scope of the amendment.
Procedurally, the best way to proceed would be to withdraw Ms. Romanado's amendment with the unanimous consent of the committee, and to resubmit a new amendment, including Mr. Bezan's intent to make sure that the main motion can be amended with the agreement of the majority of the committee.
1 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Let me just say this on amendments. I'm referring to chapter 20, page 1055 of O'Brien and Bosc. In the diagram there it says:
Proposed generally to improve the wording of a motion. (No notice required unless the committee decides otherwise; debatable and amendable.)
If you look at it, it's not changing the intent. The committee is the master of its own domain. If we can come to a friendly decision, you don't have to rule it out of order. It can be accepted, and we can continue on.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I have a point of order.
If there's unanimous consent of the committee to change the wording, there should be no reason why we can't just—
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Yes it is, thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's already a mechanism in place, and I'm just trying to get confirmation, where the minister has to report back on the recommendations from the ombudsman, correct? No?
1 p.m.
Conservative