National Defence Committee on Feb. 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like a clarification.

If the effect of a subamendment is to reinstate the original motion, is it in order? I am asking this question because, in the amendment, Standing Order 109 is being added, whereas the subamendment withdraws it. Shouldn't we vote on the amendment instead of making a subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I am a little confused, frankly, so I'll let the clerk speak to the position of Mr. Kelly's proposal, because it does change everything around.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Wilson]

Madame Normandin is right that, on the section that makes reference to removing Standing Order 109, you can't.... You can just vote against it. The first part amends the amendment, so that should be fine.

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

I would prefer, of course, to ultimately deal with that portion. I wouldn't want to end up voting against both amendments. I can withdraw the subamendment, and we can—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Just withdraw the “Standing Order 109” part, then.

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

We'll stick with the beginning part, about changing who caused the rent increase, and withdraw the portion that is out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I understand that you're replacing “the Minister of National Defence” with “Justin Trudeau”.

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

“The Trudeau government” would work.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Go ahead, Madame Lalonde.

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

I think I would be prepared to vote, but before I do that, again, for those who are listening and for those who are here, I really want to apologize. When you're on the defence, it's because you know that you should have voted yes for that pay increase, and you did not. It's interesting to me that what I thought was a very small amendment proposed so we can move on to the study.... We didn't have to do all this. Again, this committee is being ambushed to the detriment of working on this committee.

Again, I am prepared to vote on the subamendment, which I found extremely ridiculous, so it will be a pleasure for me to vote no.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

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

I'll vote against the subamendment, because it shows what I said earlier, that this is all for the clip. If you really care about the issue, the amendment—not the subamendment—is fine; it gets us to the issue. When you say things like what Mr. Kelly said and make some amendments like that, it just shows that it's strictly a partisan issue and that you're just trying to score points.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is everyone ready to vote on the subamendment?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The subamendment is defeated. Now we are on the amendment.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I would like to make an amendment to the amendment. I would like to delete the section after “this April”, the section that adds in “that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a comprehensive government response”. We can remove a section of it as a subamendment. That would be in order, would it not? There are three different parts in this amendment. There's the change to the front, which takes out “Minister of National Defence”, and there is also the addition of “living on base is increasing”.

I am going to move a subamendment to delete the last part of the amendment put in by Ms. Lalonde, on adding “pursuant to Standing Order 109”. It's based upon Ms. Normandin's intervention, which pointed out quite clearly that this would push this decision back 120 days, which would put us into June and is well past the date of the rent increase on April 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Just so it is clear, after “the Department of National Defence”, “this April” is taken out.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

No, it's everything after “pursuant to Standing Order 109”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Is that clear?

Madame Normandin, go ahead.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

You may find me to be a bit of a stickler when it comes to procedure, but I don't think we can use an amendment to reject an amendment. However, to solve the problem, we could split the vote on the amendment proposed by Mrs. Lalonde.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It is our view, Madame Normandin, that this is in order.

Mrs. Gallant, go ahead.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have a point of order.

In terms of what seems to be out of order, it's the third part of the amendment by Madame Lalonde, about Standing Order 109. If there is a delay, then it completely negates the purpose of the motion. The point of order is that this part of the amendment is out of order, because it changes the substance and changes the whole intent of Mr. Bezan's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's not my view. The amendment that she put forward was in order. This is an attempt to remove one section of that amendment. Your point is debate, not a point of order.

Is there any other debate on the proposal?

I see none, so we'll have a recorded vote on Mr. Bezan's desire to remove the part about how, pursuant to Standing Order 109, we request a government response.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The subamendment passes. Therefore, we are now on the amendment, whatever remains of it.

Please read the amendment to the committee.

[The Clerk]

The amendment as amended reads as follows: “Given that, rent for Canadian military personnel living on base is increasing this April, and at a time when the military is struggling to recruit and retain personnel, the committee report to the House, that the government immediately cancel all plans to increase rent on military accommodations used by the Department of National Defence this April.”

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

We'll call the vote.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

The amendment has passed.

Now we are on the motion as presented by Mr. Bezan and amended by Madame Lalonde.

Is there any debate?

I see none. We'll call the vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The motion as amended passes. We can hardly wait for concurrence.

May we call the witnesses now, or does anyone else have any little surprises?