National Defence Committee on April 10th, 2024

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

What about asking the Minister of National Defence to come to the table and encourage fair bargaining? I don't think we want a situation in which the minister says, “Solve this.”

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

While I appreciate that Ms. Lalonde actually said to not have the minister come to the table, this has the minister instructing the employer to come to the table to bargain fairly, so you're actually contradicting—

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

That's not the wording that I heard, though—to come to the table and work toward a fair bargaining agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No, the—

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

It's to bring an end to the strike.

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

Yes. It's to bargain in good faith.

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

To bargain in good faith and to encourage both sides to work towards that is language that I think I could live with, but I don't think the wording, as it sits right now, is something that....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

Mr. Fillmore, please go ahead.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Could Ms. Mathyssen tell the committee members in what way Mr. Kelly's amendment improves her intent? Maybe we could go through those items one at a time and understand why we're fussing around with this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Mathyssen, do you want to respond to that?

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

While I'm sure Mr. Kelly could talk about it himself, it's my belief that, yes, the employer is the direct negotiator, which is why I asked for that subamendment. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the minister is responsible for those employees and they fall under the minister's purview. Therefore, he is responsible.

I'm sure Mr. Kelly could add to that if he wishes.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Then I'll switch to Mr. Kelly.

For example, Mr. Kelly, in the very first highlighted yellow section, you've inserted a long sentence discussing “civilian military workers”, and later in that same passage, CFMWS is referenced. It doesn't just seem redundant; it is redundant. Maybe you could help us understand the intention of that particular part of your amendment.

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

I think the amendments all pretty much speak for themselves. I wasn't planning to debate this at length. I'm prepared to allow this to go to a vote and let the chips fall where they may. If he doesn't like the amendment, he's welcome to vote against it, and we'll vote for it unamended.

Just as Ms. Mathyssen said, the point is that the Minister of National Defence is the person ultimately responsible, and he should be named in this motion. That's why I proposed the amendment. Again, if he thinks the first part of the amendment is redundant or if he doesn't agree with that portion of the sentence, he's welcome to vote against it on that basis.

That's why we added it. We believe that civilian military workers are a critical force multiplier and should be recognized in this motion. We think the Minister of National Defence is ultimately responsible for this dispute due to his failure to solve it in the time that has already passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other commentary?

Ms. Lalonde, please go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I was wondering if we could consider a language change to the words—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If we change the language, it's an amendment.

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

I would first like to propose a small amendment to see how my colleagues would feel.

Instead of “to instruct”, could we say, “to encourage”?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We already voted on this amendment, but it's still in order to, in effect, move “to encourage” as a subamendment on the subamendment.

Are you moving that, Ms. Lalonde?

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

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate on that point?

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're coming back to the subamendment on the amendment.

Oh, no; we've done the subamendment, so we're on your amendment as amended.

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

Chair, out of respect for the witness, might it be prudent of us to excuse her if she—

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

We might get back to her.

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

Okay, good. We can carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I do wish members had thought about their concern for the witness before we started this—not that the chair mentioned it at the beginning of the meeting.

Anyway, if I am correct that we are at the point of no further debate on the subamendment, then we are asking for a vote.

Those in favour of the subamendment—