Evidence of meeting #97 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was families.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes. For the purposes of public understanding, my understanding is that we should at least have it read into the record so that we hear it.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
It states:
That, given that 40% of Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services (CFMWS) workers are members of a military family; given that the treatment of military families is a matter of national security; given that the CFMWS workers in Kingston, Petawawa, Ottawa, Valcartier, Montreal-St. Jean and Bagotville passed a 94% strike action mandate for fair wages, an equitable pay scale, and good, secure jobs; given that these workers have been on strike since January 15 and the employer has refused to return to the negotiation table with a fair offer; and given that the CFMWS has chosen to invest in replacement labour, private security officers and third party negotiation consultants instead of providing a fair offer, the committee express its solidarity with the UNDE's Non-Public Funds workers on strike and call on the Employer to bargain in good faith.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
I have a slight amendment that I'd like to make, and I believe staff have copies that we can circulate.
I'll move an amendment. The motion would read, “That, given that”, and then I would insert the words “civilian military workers are a critical force multiplier that supports our brave men and women in uniform”. I would insert those words. Then it's “40% of Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services (CFMWS) workers are members of a military family”. I won't read the rest of that, but at the end, I have another insertion.
In the final phrase, where it says “the committee express its solidarity with the UNDE's Non-Public Funds workers on strike and call on the”, delete the words “Employer to”, and substitute “Minister of National Defence to” and insert “come to the table, bring an end to this strike and”. Then leave the words “bargain in good faith” and add the words “with our civilian military workers”.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. That motion is in order. Is there any other debate?
Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I would like to ask for a suspension to read this amendment and discuss it with my colleagues.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay, folks. Our two minutes are up. We're back on.
Let's get going here. I don't like to see witnesses abused.
Madam Lambropoulos, I have you as our first speaker.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I have a couple of concerns here.
I'm fine with the first part of the amendment. My concern is with the second part of “and call on” and taking out “the Employer”.
The Non-Public Funds workers are in a bit of an interesting situation: The employer isn't necessarily directly the minister, but the minister does direct the employer.
If there's a way to reword that so that it's in order to say that the committee expresses its solidarity, etc., and calls on the Minister of National Defence to instruct the Employer to bring an end to this strike, that would be more appropriate, because ultimately it involves the minister—as it should, because there's a responsibility there—but it's directing the minister to the employer, who is the direct negotiator.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. That's an amendment on the amendment.
Ms. Lalonde, do you want to speak?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Yes, Mr. Chair.
For me, to argue about or to debate language for a long time, when we have a wonderful witness here.... Finally, we have a witness at this table whose recommendations we could all listen to on something that, to my understanding, is something that we're trying to push forward and that is also very important—the housing study.
I'm just wondering how comfortable we are here. I very much am aware, as I think every member here is, that when asked a question in the House, the minister did mention that he had spoken with both sides. Is there a way in which we could call on both sides to come to the table so that we're not singling out a minister but are just generalizing a call on both sides? Is there a way in which we could do this?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Well, there's a way to do it, but there has to be a will, and I don't see a lot of will here.
There's the motion, there's the amendment, and then there's the amendment to the amendment. There's nothing else, at this point.
Is there any other debate?
Seeing none, the first vote is on the subamendment, which is that the Minister of National Defence is to instruct the employer.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we're on the amendment as amended.
Do I need to read into the record the amendment as amended, or does everybody understand what we're voting on?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I would like clarification. Maybe we could read the entire motion with the amendment, please.
5:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
April 10th, 2024 / 5:20 p.m.
The Clerk
I think for the ease of everyone, I'll read the full motion with the amendments included. That includes the subamendment that was just agreed to.
The motion would read as follows:
That, given that civilian military workers are a critical force multiplier that supports our brave men and women in uniform; given that 40% of Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services (CFMWS) workers are members of a military family; given that the treatment of military families is a matter of national security; given that the CFMWS workers in Kingston, Petawawa, Ottawa, Valcartier, Montreal-St. Jean and Bagotville passed a 94% strike action mandate for fair wages, an equitable pay scale, and good, secure jobs; given that these workers have been on strike since January 15 and the employer has refused to return to the negotiation table with a fair offer; and given that the CFMWS has chosen to invest in replacement labour, private security officers and third party negotiation consultants instead of providing a fair offer, the committee express its solidarity with the UNDE's Non-Public Funds workers on strike and call on the Minister of National Defence to instruct the Employer to come to the table, bring an end to this strike, and bargain in good faith with our civilian military workers.
