MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk today of being deemed a traitor, I will try to address the few more questions to the Premier with regard to the Upper Churchill deal.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources confirmed that her province will not reopen the Upper Churchill deal.

I ask the Premier today: What is the next course of action for the Province? Is there enough strength in the claim that you are professing to take this case to the Supreme Court?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, CF(L)Co did not ask the Government of Quebec to reopen the Upper Churchill contract.

What CF(L)Co has done, Mr. Speaker, was asked Hydro-Quebec to reopen the Upper Churchill contract. They have given a timeline of January 15 to get a response in writing. Mr. Speaker, they will wait until they hear formally from Hydro-Quebec. They understand clearly what options they have open to them at CF(L)Co and, as Mr. Martin has said, they will make a decision on next steps at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must be the only one in the country that is not tuned in. I think we all heard it all over the national news in the last day that it is not on, they are not prepared to open it.

I ask the minister: What is the next course of action for the Province? If there is strength in your claim, you must have a plan B. What is the plan B?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to keep going over this same ground again because the Opposition really does not get it; nor do their former supporters and members of their party and members of former governments get it.

Mr. Speaker, we did research for three years and we came to a conclusion that there was a strong case, we felt, under Quebec’s civil law on good faith. We held a meeting with CF(L)Co where orally we presented that information to them. CF(L)Co then went, got their own legal opinions, Mr. Speaker, and they have decided on a course of action. This action lies solely within the purview of CF(L)Co, Mr. Speaker, not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us talk about the information, because when I asked yesterday in the House of Assembly to have legal opinions and information tabled for the people of the public in Newfoundland and Labrador to see what was happening, I was told by the Premier that this was confidential and that it had not been shared with CF(L)Co. However, on Monday, Mr. Speaker, in Hansard, the Premier said, and I quote, "…we feel that we need to pursue this and the best way to pursue this is in good faith. The best way to pursue good faith is to have this information passed over to CF(L)Co."

So we got Monday’s version, we got Tuesday’s version, let’s hear Wednesday’s version, Minister: Do Hydro-Quebec and the people of Quebec have the information or do they not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been researching good faith for over three years. We feel that there is a very strong case where we can take issue with the Upper Churchill contract. We held a meeting - the Department of Justice had a meeting with CF(L)Co principles. They orally shared with them the information they had found.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: There is more than one way of communicating, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. Now I know they got trouble reading and I know they got trouble listening, but I am going to keep trying. There is more than one way to communicate information. Once that communication was made –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - to CF(L)Co, CF(L)Co went and got their own opinions. It is on those opinions, Mr. Speaker, that their actions are based.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that they did give CF(L)Co the information. We did not ask you if you gave it to them in writing, if you flew it to them, delivered it to them, gave it to them orally or whatever the case was. We are asking that the people of this Province have the information available to them that is now available to the people of Quebec, through the shareholders of CF(L)Co, because they have the information. We do not have any of the information. All we have to go on is a claim in a press conference made by the government and by the head of Nalcor. We have nothing to substantiate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated by the Deputy Premier, this review began in 2006 under the now Minister of Finance. We met, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions with the lawyers in Montreal. I have met with these lawyers on at least six or seven occasions. Not only have we reviewed the concept of good faith, as outlined in article 1375 of the Quebec Civil Code, but we have also looked at issues, Mr. Speaker, such as § 92(a) under recall issues, taxation issues. We have looked at the contract itself, and at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, after extensive meetings with the lawyers in Montreal, it was determined that good faith is the way to go, if CF(L)Co chooses. That is what - as indicated by the Deputy Premier, that will be their purview.

As the Opposition House Leader is aware, Mr. Speaker, in preparing a legal case there are documents which are solicitor-client privileged and opinions which are maintained for our own use. We will maintain those opinions – for what it is worth, I can state, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion there is a strong case. There is a case which stands a real possibility or probability of success, and that will –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – be up to CF(L)Co if they determine to proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems that the Minister of Health carries all the files over there these days. So maybe he has all the information that he has given to CF(L)Co, and maybe now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – he can give us the same information. The people of the Province that you claim to be standing up for.

Mr. Speaker, if he has looked at all the contracts, and he has looked at all the clauses, maybe he could tell us what precedents exist with regard to the 1994 Quebec Civil Code that will allow us to have some real legal claim in this situation. We know the Premier said outside the House the other day they do exist. Nobody can seem to find them. So maybe the minister can tell us what they are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I know that the extensive research conducted by the Liberal Opposition has failed to indicate - or to find a Supreme Court of Canada case. In 1992, called the Bank of Montreal versus Hydro-Quebec, where the duty to act in good faith is recognized. Mr. Speaker, in article 1375 it specifically recognized in this case at the Supreme Court of Canada - and there was a previous case called Houle which deals with this.

So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Opposition, before they start spouting about things they know nothing of, should conduct proper research. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that she should consult her colleague next to her and get some good advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My learned colleague gives me great advice everyday, I say to you, minister. Great advice everyday, I say to you, minister, but what we did not hear from you is what precedence exists since 1994 when the Civil Code of Quebec was changed. Maybe, minister, if you have all of that information there and they do exist, as the Premier said in the foyer, well, maybe you can present those cases to us in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

One of the experts, or one of the lawyers we have retained in this case is a Quebec jurist by the name of Jean-Louis Baudouin who is considered to be the leading expert in Quebec on civil contract obligations. He has written a book called Les Obligations.

Subsequent to the 1994 civil code, Justice Baudouin outlines in his book - or the revised version of his book - again, the concept of good faith, and how article 1375 now recognizes that. He refers to the same cases I talked about earlier. Again, I do not mean to give lectures to the member opposite but she has to understand how the law works, or she should let a lawyer answer, but, Mr. Speaker, precedent contributes to statute and statute can then lead to further development of the law.

We have to be creative. What do the Liberals want us to do, sit there and do nothing about this contract which is stuck in our craw since 1969, a contract that was brought in by your government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here we go again! When there are no answers, let’s get the theatrics going. Let’s do the rant. Come on, Mr. Speaker, there is not one living, breathing soul in this Province who does not want redress on the Upper Churchill. There is not one living, breathing soul, Mr. Speaker, who does not want to get more money out of this contract if they could get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to pose her question.

MS JONES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question and see if he can answer it without the theatrics. They do not want to give the people of the Province any legal opinions orally, written, or any explanations or anything to substantiate the claim that they are making in the public, although they are prepared to give it to everyone else.

I ask him today: Is he prepared to table the letter that was sent to Hydro-Quebec and is he also prepared to table any information that was given to CF(L)Co by the provincial government so it can be disclosed to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are no documents that were presented to CF(L)Co, so there is nothing to table. The second thing is, Mr. Speaker, we did not send a letter to Hydro-Quebec. CF(L)Co sent the letter to Hydro-Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and if they want the letter than they should ask CF(L)Co for the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They do not read briefing notes; they do not write anything down. So I guess it is hard to get a paper trail over there.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my next questions are for the Minister of Labour. There is currently a strike taking place on the Burin Peninsula that is having a significant impact on fourteen NAPE workers and fourteen clients who are disabled that they assist through the Support Employment Program. Mr. Speaker, this strike involves unionized workers and they are striking simply because Treasury Board and the government opposite is attempting to strip their contracts and remove them from the provincial government classification system, which was a commitment they made to these workers two years ago.

I ask the minister today: Why is government reneging on this commitment and why are you not prepared to sign onto the commitment you made to these workers two years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think all of us, the employer corporation down in Burin, the union, the government, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are obviously concerned about the people with disabilities who have been adversely impacted by the fact that the support workers have gone on strike.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, government is not the employer here. The employees are employees of the Burin Marystown Community Training and Employment Board. Government is simply the negotiator. NAPE in this case is the bargaining agent for the employees and because this union happened to be certified, because NAPE happened to be certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, government is named as the bargaining agent for the employer. So government is the negotiator here. In this particular case, the employer has offered a 20 per cent wage increase over four years. I think that most people would agree that in this very uncertain economic time, in this economic climate, this is an offer that is more than fair and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that these workers do fall under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, therefore, as a minister in a government you have a responsibility here to negotiate with them.

Mr. Speaker, if the government claims that they are concerned, why are you refusing to move away from the demand that you have on the table right now, which is to remove them from the classification system, a clause that your government, when you were the minister, insisted be in their contract two years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government’s classification system – I emphasize again that the employees are employees of the Burin Marystown employment corporation; they are not public sector employees. I know the president of NAPE has indicated that in The Telegram today; I know it has been mentioned in the media today. The employees work for the employer corporation; they are not public sector employees.

The classification is essentially all about compensation. There are many issues that were discussed as part of negotiations, but it came down to compensation. Classification, in effect, is all about compensation. In this particular case the employer corporation has offered 20 per cent over four years, which most people in this Province would consider most fair and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is rather unfortunate. These workers are paid only between $9 and $10 an hour for the work that they do. There are fourteen people with disabilities today whose lives have been disrupted because government is refusing to back away from one clause in this agreement.

I say to you, Minister: It is your responsibility; it is your obligation. Will you not now agree to leave the clause in the contract, the very clause that not just your government negotiated, but you as a minister signed on to two years ago and let these people get back to work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the letter that the hon. member refers to is a letter that was signed not by me, as the President of the Treasury Board, it was signed by the chair of the Burin Marystown employment corporation.

Mr. Speaker, there are twenty employment corporations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who do very valuable work. What they do is they hire people as job support or work facilitators who work in turn with people who have disabilities and they in turn work in the workplace and they are supported.

Government is very supportive of these employment corporations. Three of them are unionized - one in Stephenville, one in Port aux Basques, and the one down in Burin. Government is supportive. We provide funding. Services Canada provides funding to enable these employment corporations to operate. Government provides funding to hire the workers and that funding has increased this year by an extra $600,000 –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - so more people can be served by the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, this past summer the citizens of the Province formed a committee called: Save Our People Action Committee. It was formed to help save lives of people who are travelling on our highways in Newfoundland and Labrador and reduce the number of moose-vehicle accidents that are occurring.

I ask you today, Minister: Why have you not taken any steps to act on the recommendations that they have put forward to you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say, and I am sure I speak on all members of the House of Assembly, that our deepest sympathies go to those who have lost their lives in moose-vehicle accidents and, of course, we are deeply concerned for those who have been injured in such accidents as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have done extensive research on this issue. In fact, back in 2004 there was a comprehensive, strategic document that was prepared that outlined six items. The Department of Environment and Conservation in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and Works, we have acted on all six of those recommendations, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to conduct research and continue to ensure that we have reduced the number of moose-vehicle accidents in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that every person in this Province have been affected by an accident on a highway with a moose; either with someone they know or someone they love or themselves.

Mr. Speaker, many of these people feel that whatever actions the minister claims she has taken is not adequate. This week I presented petitions of 26,000 people in this House of Assembly that feel that not enough is being done.

I ask the minister again today: Will she take this issue seriously? Will she start acting on the recommendations that have been put forward by this committee? In the meantime, I ask her to table the full document of 2004 and outline the actions government has taken so far.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Opposition member. I am sure every one of us has been impacted in one way or another; some, more severely than others. Again, our deepest sympathies go out to these people.

In terms of the information that was in the report, I can list the six actions for you: The first one was to have a high impact public awareness campaign. Our government did do that back in 2003. We have the Be Moose Aware campaigns through NTV. We have the moose hotline. We have the placemats through the TCH and so on and so forth. One of the other ones was talking about targeted driver education that of course ties into the public awareness. Enhance the highway signage and brush cutting were the other two. Certainly, my colleague from Transportation and Works can eloquently speak to those. Population monitoring, we do on a frequent basis. We do censuses, hunter trends, we do population modelling, and six is improving reporting on accidents, which we do and we recently produced a map which we can further work towards reducing these accidents. We can speak more to that this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing wrong with a public awareness campaign around this issue and it should be and it should be a strong one with great messaging, but obviously the actions taken by the government alone is not satisfying the public nor is it reducing the number of accidents on our highways or the number of fatalities on our highways because of moose-vehicle accidents.

I ask you today, Minister: Are you prepared to take the recommendations of this committee seriously and move forward with implementing some of them within very short order?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as a government we take this issue very seriously. This is people’s lives involved here and it is something that we definitely take very seriously.

In terms of some of the actions that are taking place, and certainly my colleague can speak to this, there has been a major emphasis on brush cutting, and any of you who drive on the highway you know that this is very effective at least, in my mind, it is very effective. There has also been increased signage. There has been increased public awareness.

One of the things that we often do as well is speak to other jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally, and this is no different under our Administration than when the Liberals were in power because I know that there was some work being done, talking to other Administrations and jurisdictions at that time. The one key thing that comes out of that finding is the number one thing that you can do to attempt to reduce moose-vehicle accidents is have a very valid and effective public awareness campaign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that the House of Commons were debating potential NAFO amendments that could have a significant impact on our fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am certain that all members in this House share the same concerns as it relates to these possible changes. Last week, that debate was suddenly halted by the federal government.

Given that the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland has always been the sea, I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Have you spoken with your federal counterpart on this issue and have you been given any indication as to why this debate was suspended last Tuesday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the items, certainly, that I have been briefed on since I come into this portfolio is the exact item that the hon. member has brought attention to.

Let me outline for him, Mr. Speaker, some of the actions that have been taken. Former minister, Minister Hedderson, made three representations in Ottawa on this particular convention. The Premier has contacted Prime Minister Harper. Our stand is very clear on this. We are not in agreement with this convention. We fear that it will jeopardize jurisdiction of our rights with inside the 200-mile limit and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to advocate that stand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that information, but again, I would ask the Minister of Fisheries: Have we been given any indication as to why it was suspended on last Tuesday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear what our stand is on that. I have outlined what actions have been taken by the former Minister of Fisheries, by our Premier. Our stand is very clear. Mr. Speaker, the answer to his question is, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, at a fisheries symposium in Bonavista last week an FFAW representative stated, and I quote: "Our costal communities are in trouble. They are dying." Those words are of great concern to all people in rural Newfoundland. Many of these people are in my district. An example is the Town of Englee. Their plant has not seen any activity for five years.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Are you willing to reinstate the licences that were attached to this historical operation at Englee?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me outline –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me outline a few facts for the new member in terms of what this government has done. Our budget, Mr. Speaker, for the Fisheries and Aquaculture department, $34 million; more than the other three Atlantic Provinces combined.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: We have committed an $800,000 commitment to an MOU that would involve three partners: the fisheries union, the processors, and government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this member does not have to talk to any of us about what our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador is. We know what the commitment is and the importance of the fishery to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. He has been quizzed on the issue of the job coaches for people with intellectual disabilities being on strike, and I want to get some clarification from him.

Two years ago when they were in negotiations, these same people with their union and the board they work for, the Treasury Board insisted on there being included with a contract a letter saying that this group would be covered by the new classification plan. The same minister was there at that time, and as I understand it, the same people with Treasury Board are all there.

So I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will he please give us a rationale for why all these same people who insisted on inserting themselves into the process and insisted on this letter around classification are now saying it should be taken back?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are twenty of these employment corporations. Three of them have been unionized by NAPE, two have been unionized under the – or they have been certified by the labour relations agency under the Collective Bargaining Act. Government has no involvement in the negotiations of those contracts, but in this particular case in Burin, NAPE was certified by the labour relations agency under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. As a result of that, government is the negotiator. NAPE is a negotiator for the employees, but government is designated as the negotiator for the employer.

Any letters that were given were not given by government. These are not public sector employees. They are not employees of government. These job coaches are employees of the employment corporation and it is the chair of the corporation that has provided this letter to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Wait now, Mr. Speaker, I am really confused, because I thought I heard the minister say to the Leader of the Opposition earlier that government was not involved in the negotiations, that it was the board and NAPE who were involved in negotiations. Now he is saying government was involved, as indeed they were.

I am going to ask the minister then, as the Minister of Finance dealing with a situation where you have workers who are covered by the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, will he not step in? He is responsible for Treasury Board as the minister of the portfolio he is in, and he was two years ago as well. Will he step in and tell Treasury Board to take back this demand for the concession of removing this letter from the contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know this is confusing but the unions that are certified under the Labour Relations Act, government has no involvement. Some employer out there, some union organized and the employer – it would be under the Labour Relations Act. Government, of course, would have no involvement in those negotiations.

In this particular case, for some reason the Burin employment corporation got certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which makes Treasury Board or makes government the negotiator. We are not the employer, we are merely the negotiator. We play the same role as NAPE plays for the employees; we negotiate on behalf of the employer, NAPE negotiates on behalf of the employee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!