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.