Mr. Speaker, a final offer has been made. My honourable colleague has a copy of the final offer. I did send a letter to all the Members of the Legislative Assembly today, outlining my response to the concerns raised by the UNW and their ongoing serial, the best thing since sliced bread. We have tried to respond in a professional and comprehensive way to answer some of the requests or concerns that they have outlined. As I said consistently, the final offer is on the table. We have said to them, we are prepared to go back to the table

provided they understand there is a limited amount of freedom here in terms of discussions and we will go back to the table provided the PSA negotiator understands we are negotiating a new job evaluation system. The door is open, and we are prepared to sit down with them. However, if they are not prepared to do that, I said again, publicly today and I notice that we are getting some considerable support out there from the membership, that they should put this final offer, which I think is a reasonable one, to the Members to vote on and we will live with the consequences of that and our actions accordingly. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, here we have an example of the government using tax payers' dollars to mount their own propaganda campaign on how great this offer is and the UNW negotiating through their collective bargaining process which has been in this democratic country of Canada since the 1920s where you appoint a union negotiating team to negotiate your contract in this case the GNWT wants to take it directly to the employee. I think people see that for what it is. I am wondering, after this final offer is on the table, that Mr. Todd has talked about, is he still prepared to go to the next process in the collective bargaining, which is the mediation process? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an obligation and a responsibility to advise our employees and this House with all the information that we have provided the UNW in the negotiations, and that is what we have done. Nothing else, nothing more. You can pepper it any way you want, but that is what we have done. We have not used rhetoric. We have not used irrational statements. We have tried to be as concise, fair and as reasonable as possible. I said in the House to the same question that Mr. Picco or somebody asked earlier last week, are you prepared to go to mediation? Anytime.

Thank you. Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are all entitled to our opinion. He has one and I have one. Mr. Speaker, the final offer is on the table, so what is then, the next step, Mr. Todd? Has he given them a date to get back on this final offer? Has he given them a week or two weeks? Is it just sitting there or is he going to continue the same rhetoric of asking to go to their bargaining unit, to their members? Thank you.

Mr. Todd.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, to say that I would hope that people did not see my comments as rhetoric, that they would see it as factual information that we are placing before the membership, this House and the public. We are waiting for the union. It is the union's next move. We have laid the final offer on the table in a fair, reasonable and professional way, and we are waiting to hear from the union whether they are prepared to move to mediation. I have said publicly last week, two-minutes ago, and I will say again, we are ready to go to mediation if that is what they so wish. I do not see it as rhetoric. I see it as information.

Oral questions. Final supplementary, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In all the verbiage that has been used during this negotiation session, the impasse is being lost. The impasse is the job classification system. I am wondering, is the Minister or the government willing to look at their job classification system as introduced and to see if there is some type of middle ground that can be reached with this verbiage? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Todd.

Verbiage. I thought again, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the tone be civilized and professional. I thought what we were doing was providing valuable information, so that people can make a valid judgment on whether the offer that we present to our employees is fair and reasonable. With respect to my honourable colleague's question with respect to the Hay Plan Evaluation - I believe that was his question - we have consistently said and asked the union to be our partners in this process and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, they did sign with us a memorandum of understanding that they were prepared to do that. They signed a memorandum of understanding that they were prepared to do that and then, at a later date, chose not to participate. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Miltenberger.

Two questions. The Minister responsible for the Financial Management Board, Mr. Todd.

The Minister at the national level has indicated that he may, in fact, take the offer off the table at the national level because of some of the court cases that are underway right now. I have said publicly that the offer we have on the table stays. I would hope again, and I hope I am being direct here and not using idle rhetoric and, in fact, I am making a sincere commitment. I would hope that the UNW would see, in their wisdom, that this is the final offer and that they have an obligation and a responsibility to put it out to the membership. At this time, I have no intentions, along with my Cabinet colleague of taking the offer off the table. It is there, and we hope at some point we will get to a vote and hopefully, at the end of the day, our members and our constituents, will see the merits in this and vote, hopefully, favourably for it. Thank you.

Thank you. Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. I have to rule the question out of order. Mr. Miltenberger, you have a final supplementary.

Mr. Todd.

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like to answer the question this way. The short answer is, yes, that is what we intend to do. I fundamentally believe that we have an opportunity to solve a problem that has been outstanding for nine to ten-years. Some of it is inherited and we have made a concerted and sincere effort to find the money to resolve it.

I believe that what the government tabled is fair and reasonable and our employees should get the opportunity to vote on this issue because, at the end of the day, if we do not, it gets into a long protracted court battle. It could go on for another ten years.

What I am saying to everybody out there is here is an opportunity for us to settle the dispute. It is fair. We think it is. We think we made a considered effort to change the job evaluation process. It is not a complaint. For whatever reason, the UNW chose not to participate after they signed a memorandum of understanding. I would hope, at the end of the day, they would give our employees and our constituents the opportunity to vote on this reasonable and fair settlement, so we can conclude this long, outstanding and important issue that has faced our employees. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Erasmus.