Some Members can treat this issue in jest. I treat it very seriously. They are some of the same Members that want their cake and eat it too. I want to assure my colleague, the intent of this government is to try and resolve. As I said in the earlier questioning, there has to be some affordability. When people come to the table, they have to understand that. If there is no agreement to be reached, which is a distinct possibility if we get into litigation, we can be at this for the next three or four years at a cost, I am told, at least to us, of around a million dollars a year. Heaven knows what it is going to be to the others. It would seem to me, common sense should prevail. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with this government, or future governments. If common sense prevails and all parties come to the table and deal with this thing in an equitable, affordable manner, I am convinced we can make a deal, an arrangement, or come to some conclusion on the issue. If we do not, I will have to address that issue carefully, present it to the Division Committee and the Cabinet, and it will have to be part and parcel of our overall division plan, as it relates to assets and liabilities. Thank you.
John Todd on Question 506-13(4): Division Of Potential Pay Equity Liability
In the Legislative Assembly on May 30th, 1997. See this statement in context.
Further Return To Question 506-13(4): Division Of Potential Pay Equity Liability
Question 506-13(4): Division Of Potential Pay Equity Liability
Item 6: Oral Questions
May 29th, 1997
Page 1226
John Todd Keewatin Central
See context to find out what was said next.