Marci cho, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult motion. As far as I'm concerned, it has its positive sides and it has its negative sides. I can say that, if this motion was contemplated after a strike, I would support it 100 percent because I am 100 percent opposed to a strike, and I told that to the media. I spoke to the media. The media reached out to me and asked me the question: "What is your opinion on that?" I said a strike is probably the most awful thing that can happen to our communities. A few people in our communities who have good jobs will no longer be employed. Or they will be employed, I guess, at some point in the future, but it's going to have quite a disruption.

If this motion does not pass today, or even if this motion passes today, Cabinet can take that as advice for the House and continue on with the mediation. If this motion was put on the floor when there was a strike, I would suggest that everyone in this House would support a motion to go to binding arbitration because that would mean that mediation has failed.

We sat in the House here. We sat in committee and we have asked the government to negotiate in good faith with the union. That is what we have done. We have asked them to go to the table, to go to the table and negotiate in good faith. As they start their discussions, their mediation, at the table, Mr. Speaker, we then want to put in a tool that makes that unnecessary.

Binding arbitration would make mediation unnecessary. If we had binding arbitration in our back pocket, why would we continue to mediate? We have hired mediators, good mediators. I don't know the guy, but everybody who knows him tells me he is an excellent mediator. We are not going to give him that opportunity with this motion. Why should he continue? Why should anyone listen to him? Right? Let's give him the full opportunity. I'm sure we are paying him good money to do that. Give him the opportunity. If it fails, if we come to an impasse, then you put this kind of motion on the floor and you vote on it. Then you have people. Then you will see who is supporting a strike and who is not supporting a strike.

As it turns out now, there is information coming saying that people who vote against this motion support a strike. That is ridiculous. I don't know one person here who supports a strike, but I'm not saying the same, that everybody here is going to vote for this motion because as far as I'm concerned, we should do this if mediation fails. Not to say right now we are going to pre-empt this before they go into the last critical thing.

I find it funny that the union puts a deadline on when they are going to strike, made it very clear. "We will strike 12:01 Monday." Well, then why are they now coming to us? It is not specifically union, but why are they now saying, "We want you to remove our strike mandate by agreeing to binding arbitration"? You say, "I am going to strike," one day. The next day, you say -- no, not even the next day. In the same communication, that is what it said. "Twelve o'clock, we are going to strike. We want you to remove our mandate to strike." If that is the case, why not say, "If mediation fails, would the MLAs consider binding arbitration?" I think that would be a no-brainer. Every MLA in this House would support that type of motion.

Not every MLA wants to trip the process up halfway through or close to the end. Nobody really knows how close we are. We could be very close to an agreement. We don't know. We are not privy to that information. What we are privy to is communications. I am not happy with some of the communication that comes from the government, and I am not happy with some of the communication that comes from the union.

I do think that people shouldn't strike. I do think that the government should make an agreement with the union. It is for the betterment of the people who work for the public service. That is a big group of people. There are 4,000 people out there who are a part of the union who could be walking out on Monday. Don't walk out. Don't ask us to remove your mandate, and don't walk out. I think the lines have been drawn in the sand, as far as I am concerned.

I am concerned about a couple of things, and that is communications. When we started to engage in this process, I found it funny that the union felt that they communicated to the government that binding arbitration was something that the union had asked for. They were very detailed in what they said, that the mediator at two different tables, that two different mediators went back and forth to the government to ask for binding arbitration verbally.

If that wasn't good enough, then I think the people negotiating on behalf of the government should have said, "That is not good enough. Put it in writing," because that is what it came down to. It was not good enough. It should have been put in writing right away, or the government should have said, "Hey. These guys have come forward, and we are going to bring this up to the Minister. This is what the union has said. They are offering binding arbitration at two tables. It is verbal. What should we do?" Ask for it in writing. If I was the Minister, that is what I would say, "Ask for it in writing." That would be the first thing I would say when that came to me. I think there is something to be said about the way that communication has gone.

This is a key tool, binding arbitration. It is not in the Public Service Act, but it is a key tool. It is a tool that can be used in a worst-case scenario. That is what it should be used for. Today, if this motion does not pass, and I don't think it will, I am sitting in the committee room with the Regular Members. If this motion does not pass, this motion cannot come back to the House on Monday. When we need it most, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be able to use this motion. That is why I have a problem with it. It has put me in a quandary because, for me, I would say I should vote for this motion. I should, because this is my last chance, my last chance to actually put this motion.

It would have been nice if this motion was necessary, and I am not saying it will be, if this motion was necessary, that it comes out on Monday. If there is a strike, then this motion comes out on Monday. I think the union would have gladly pulled back the strike if this motion came out. Binding arbitration basically means that both the union members and the government will put their faith in an arbitrator, then that arbitrator will make a decision. I am still not 100 percent sure that the arbitrator is mandated to pick one of the two positions or something in the middle. I don't know 100 percent what would happen.

For me, failing the motion on arbitration does absolutely no good at all. Nothing. It does nothing. It does nothing to advance the process. I want a tool like this. This is a big tool for us, a big tool for the union, and a big tool for the government. It should be used when it is critical, not pre-emptive. I will not support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.