Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 358

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I noticed it was not the backbenchers who said no but the minister himself who does not want to answer any questions.

This puts an entirely different light on the situation. If we have a tentative agreement hammered out between PSAC and the Government of Canada, what are we doing here talking about back to work legislation? Why are we not talking about final offer selection arbitration or something that will—

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member asked if there would be consent to have questions and comments to the minister for 10 minutes.

I have just verified with the minister that it certainly would be acceptable to him, to give him an opportunity to further expand on the answers he gave a while ago. For our part we would be agreeable to that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I again ask the question. First, is the hon. member for Wetaskiwin prepared to reiterate his request because he has the floor. If so, are members prepared to give consent to have a 10 minute period of questions and comments to the minister? Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this. We have a party that says it stands for the working class, that it is going to be the champions of the working class. Yet, it has turned down an opportunity to question the very minister who is in charge of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

This puts a totally different light on the situation. We have a situation where we are trying to legislate people back to work who are at work. I cannot think of a more ridiculous situation to find ourselves in. God knows we did not put ourselves in this mess. We have been advocating final offer selection arbitration as a means to settle disputes without having to go through the pain and the agony of having to legislate people back to work.

We find ourselves in a position where we have to acquiesce and legislate people back to work. The minister all the while has been coming up with an agreement. He has had it for at least two hours and did not bother to tell us about it. How do we know that he has not had this agreement for longer than two hours? He tells us it has been two hours but we have no way of knowing that.

Lo and behold when the government agrees that we can question the minister, the Bloc says no. It is unbelievable.

[An hon. member]

It is a credibility problem.

[An hon. member]

What do you know about credibility?

[An hon. member]

Pay attention. You will learn something about credibility. Why are we here tonight?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has the floor.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind a little help. I am getting tremendous encouragement from my colleagues and even some good words of advice.

We are going to have to completely rethink our position on this. Things have completely changed from this morning when we started debating this. If I were the House leader, I would be saying that all bets are off at this moment. Things have changed completely.

No wonder they say that Treasury Board does not bargain in good faith. It does not deal with us in good faith.

I would like one more time to ask if there would be unanimous consent for questions and comments of the minister.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will do that in a moment. There is a point of order from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if there has been a misunderstanding of the request that was made by the hon. member from the Bloc from the Reform Party. Given some of the commotion that was taking place at the time he made the request, I would again ask for unanimous consent that the minister be permitted to take questions for a defined period, 10 minutes or more. I ask that that be put to the House once again.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is more than happy to keep putting this question to the House. Might I remind hon. members that on the motion by the minister that has been moved, assuming it is carried, the House will go into committee of the whole later on this bill. I have no doubt that the minister will be in the committee of the whole and will be here to answer members' questions in committee of the whole. I stress that that is still a possibility and I remind the House of that.

I will put the question to the House again. Is there unanimous consent that there be a 10 minute period of questions and comments to the minister?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing.

I know when we get into committee of the whole we will get an opportunity to speak on our amendments and to question the minister. The time spent between now and when we do go into committee of the whole may be a total waste of effort. If we were to get some clarification from the minister at this point, if he were to be forthright with us, we may be able to save ourselves a whole lot of effort and time, if we were just able to ask the minister some questions.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am sorry and I am not challenging the Chair in any way but I do not know who said no. It is my understanding that the Liberals would like to allow the minister to—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair does not wish to ever put itself in the position of identifying who in the House has said no. When hon. members seek consent, they may wish to accuse others of having said no. It is not for the Chair to intervene in this matter. The Chair put the question as I have done four times this evening already on this issue. On every occasion I have heard a no and I have never said where I heard it from, and I will not. Other members may say so. I will not.

I heard a no and that was the end of it. The Chair tries to be very attentive in these matters because we know that on occasion we have been in trouble for having tried to put something through when there has not been consent. I am very cognizant of the wishes of hon. members in this regard. There have been nos. I would prefer not to get into any of that discussion.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just for old time's sake, I would like to make my favourite point, the need for a permanent dispute settlement mechanism rather than going through the agony of legislating people back to work. Let us face it. If we go through with this exercise and legislate these parties back to work, parties who may or not be in a strike situation any longer, we still have done nothing whatsoever about their contract. We still have to have some sort of mechanism to deal with their contract. Therefore, we need to have final offer selection arbitration.

Having gotten in that commercial message, I would ask one more time, maybe third time lucky, if we could have a 10 minute question and comment period with the President of the Treasury Board.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for a 10 minute question or comment period to the minister?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we start, is the hon. member for Wetaskiwin finished his remarks or will it go back to him at the conclusion of the 10 minute period?

[Some hon. members]

Back to him.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions and comments to the minister.