National Defence Committee on April 10th, 2024

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

It's the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's the amendment to the amendment.

[An hon. member]

It's the amended motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

All those in favour—

[The Clerk]

The subamendment amended the amendment, so now we're just on the amendment as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Oh, it's the amendment as amended.

Hang on. The subamendment passed, but that doesn't mean that the amendment passed.

[The Clerk]

That's correct, so the vote is on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's my point; we're talking about the same thing.

I'll let the clerk call the vote—not necessarily call a vote. We can still do a hand vote.

Do you want a recorded vote?

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

No, I just would like to know this: When we vote on this particular amendment, we would be voting on the amendment that has been amended. Can we bring a new amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You can bring amendments all day.

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

Perfect. We will do that. Thank you.

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

You can bring amendments all day, as I'm sure you will.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't see anything on the floor. I'm calling for the vote on the amendment to the motion.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're on the motion itself.

Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

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

I would like to bring an amendment, Mr. Chair.

My rationale again goes back to say that I had the pleasure of meeting with individuals from my community who are impacted by the strike. I did share with them that I would raise their concerns, and I felt quite confident, as we had talked about it on the motion proposed by Ms. Mathyssen. I thought it was genuine and that it served what we're trying to do, which is have both sides return to the table.

I know that the minister did meet with both sides, and for me, the language would be important, because as we determine negotiation, the government gave a mandate to go and negotiate at the table. I understand that. I am not disputing that, but I have somewhat of a situation in terms of suggesting the word “instruct”. I say this speaking generally.

Negotiation comes because we have people come to the table. Both parties have to be doing this in good faith. Both parties want to find resolution. As I said to the people who I have the pleasure of representing as the MP for Orléans, I was completely in support of Ms. Mathyssen's motion and I believe that we need to go back to the table and negotiate in good faith.

I would reflect on the language that I think would still do what we're trying to do, which is, as a committee member, to acknowledge our true support for those men and women who have been on strike for too many days, relatively speaking. At the same time, I want to see if we could find a way, and as I mentioned, to change the language from “instruct” to “encourage”. I do believe that's a way that we would preserve somewhat the rationale going forward.

Mr. Chair, with this thought, I want to see if we could suspend for a few minutes again to reflect on how we could go forward.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Just before I speak to the point of order, we've already voted on the first suggestion, so then I can move to you. I've already made my point.

Unless you have—

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

Okay, I will bring an amendment, Mr. Chair.

My amendment will be to say that....

I don't have my glasses. That is why it has been a challenging two minutes, and I apologize to the member. I'm just trying to see....

I would say that we “encourage them to bargain in good faith and come to a fair resolution”.

I want to see where it would land, and that's why I was asking for a little pause. Can you just give me a second to suspend so I can write my words so I can make sense here, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I won't suspend, but I will hold for 30 seconds while you write it out so that we all know what we're talking about.

Let's move along here, Mrs. Lalonde.

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

We would say, “and to urge them to bargain in good faith and come to a fair resolution.”

After “non-public funds workers on strike”, we would replace “urge them to bargain in good faith”, which is in the wording of Ms. Mathyssen, “and come to a fair resolution”, which is, I think, what we all are aiming to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The question is always is whether that is substantially different from the one that has just been voted on. My view is that it is, because you're not just changing a word; you're changing an entire phrasing—a couple of phrasings, actually.

That is what's now before the committee. Is there any debate on that?

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I have a point of order.

I would like it read back, because it was a little disjointed as we went through it. Could the clerk please read the sentence?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead.

[The Clerk]

My understanding is—and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, Mrs. Lalonde—that in the last sentence, starting with the third line in English, it would be, “solidarity with the UNDE's Non-Public Funds workers on strike and to urge them to bargain in good faith and come to a fair resolution.”

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

I didn't hear her in making the amendment. I thought she was starting the amendment after the amendment we made, which included the Minister of National Defence, but she is in fact deleting that—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm thinking that the clerk does not have it right.

I don't think you were deleting the phrasing on the Minister of National Defence.