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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, government announced that significant fabrication work originally scheduled to be completed in this Province related to the Hebron project had been cancelled.

I ask the Premier today: Was Nalcor a part of the decision as an equity partner, and if not, when was government made aware of this loss of work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, as equity partners we have said many times we have a right to sit at the table, and Nalcor was at the table with the partners when this decision was made. The Province was first notified that this change was being contemplated, Mr. Speaker, in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also stated that the operators will have to complete an equal amount of work within the Province or pay an equivalent amount of money to the government.

I ask the minister: Where in the benefits agreement is this outlined, and if it is contained in the agreement why do government need to make further amendments to the original contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we negotiate these benefits agreements we negotiate very specific pieces of work that have to be done here within the Province, and very specific percentages of work. I do not have the agreement with me, so I cannot give her the number within the agreement to where this section is referred. Overall, we know very clearly and have very definite goals in our benefits agreement. When it became necessary to modify the project and therefore have an effect on the amount of work that was to be done here in the Province, there is a sub-agreement that allows us then to go back in and renegotiate new benefits to replace the ones that are being lost.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister could provide those sections of the agreement to me after Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, there are often different opinions between companies and governments as to the value of expected work and how much needs to be replaced or paid out in the form of compensation when these things happen.

I ask the minister: What was the assessed value by the government of these cancelled contracts and can she disclose that amount to me?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As to the whole benefits agreement, I will certainly provide to the Leader of the Opposition the pieces of it that are not commercially sensitive once the day moves on.

The answer to the second part of her remarks is the same, Mr. Speaker. We have expertise within our department that is used on a regular basis to determine the benefits, the types of work, the person hours involved and so on. We have not released the amount of money concerning the part of the project that now needs to be redesigned because it is commercially sensitive information, particularly at this time, Mr. Speaker, when we have tenders being let.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would beg to differ with the minister; that the assessed value of cancelled contracts would be sensitive information at this point and we would certainly expect that that information could be made public.

Mr. Speaker, the value of fabrication work and materials is one aspect, but there are also the value of salaries and wages that would be paid out to employees who would have worked on these contracts as well as the spin-off effects. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was supposed to be a pre-drilling program associated with the project that would have created significant direct and indirect benefits for local drilling and supply service companies.

So, I ask the minister: What value will the proponents be expected to replace, only the material cost on the contracts or will they be expected to compensate for all of the associated salaries and benefits of displaced workers, as well as the spin-off benefits from cancelled programs like the pre-drilling program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it is only under this government that very specific commitments have ever been negotiated with regard to our offshore. Previous to this government, all previous governments did was commit to best efforts to do certain types of work. We have ironclad, fast commitments. We allow the project operators the flexibility to do the work, and to do the work properly and in a timely way, and the value that is assigned is not only with the fabrication materials but it is also with the labour that is required to do the work, Mr. Speaker. So, all of that has been taken into account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister again: Would this also pertain to any of the spin-off benefits or contracts like the pre-drilling program? Will there be compensation for the cancellation of that program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we contemplate the benefits that are associated with the project we contemplate the direct benefits. Spin off is not something that we count in the benefit to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that while a certain amount of benefit will be lost in the Hebron project with regard to the pre-drilling template, the operators will identify opportunities within the project itself to make up that value or a cheque will be made payable to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to be used in a construction project, thereby creating more employment and more work for the people of Newfoundland that has something to do with offshore oil and gas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the communities that have expressed concern with these cancelled contracts is the Town of Marystown. This is an area where the shipyard, in particular, was expecting a significant amount of the fabrication, and obviously, depending upon it.

I ask the minister: What impact will this have on communities like Marystown, in the shipyard, in particular, and its workforce? What is the estimated loss to the local economy in that area, and can they expect, as well, to be compensated for this loss of work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, some of these questions are better put to the operators to explain the scope of work, the magnitude of work, the kind of expertise that is required and the kind of services that are going to be required to do this work. All we can do, as a government, is negotiate an offshore oil and gas project with specific benefits around the kind of work that is required to construct. In this case, Mr. Speaker, modification needs to be made in order to reduce delays and proper execution.

In terms of speculating who would have gotten contracts, what kind of benefits that would have meant to other communities, is beyond the scope, I would say, Mr. Speaker, of not only the partners, but the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. What we are doing, though, is ensuring that the commitments that were made by Hebron in terms of fiscal expenditures, the monies that they were going to spend around –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: – this work in the Province, Mr. Speaker, are going to be spent here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Without going to any of the other partners, I think government should definitely know what they can be compensated for and what the economic loss will be in the Province, in particular, to areas like Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, with a different development concept, there often come potential delays or changes in development timelines. I ask the minister today: Does government expect that there will be any associated delays with the Hebron project timelines now that the configuration has been changed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told by the partners that there will be some time loss, but that would be very insignificant and there will not be any great delay to the development of the Hebron project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier in this session, we asked government to move quickly to settle a strike taking place on the Burin Peninsula that is having a significant impact on fourteen NAPE workers and the fourteen disabled clients that they assist through the supported employment program. These workers have already agreed to government’s monetary template, but are striking to stop Treasury Board’s attempt to remove them from the provincial government’s classification system.

I ask the Minister of Finance today: Are you willing to allow these workers to remain in the classification system and to end this strike before Christmas?

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.

Mr. Speaker, the employer, the government and NAPE all value the work that these work facilitators and job coaches do in Marystown, indeed, what the job coaches do in Bay St. George and in Stephenville and all over Newfoundland and Labrador. Government has been supporting employment corporations for over twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, this dispute is about compensation. The government in this particular case, because of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, government is named as the negotiator; they are not the employer. These job coaches are not employees of the public sector, they are not our employees but in this case the employer has made a very fair and generous offer in excess of 20 per cent. We feel that is more than fair and generous in the circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that even though funding is provided to a non-profit board to run these programs, that they have no involvement in settling these outstanding issues. It is government’s demand right now to remove these employees from the classification system that is provoking the strike.

I ask you, Minister: Why are you continuing to insist that fourteen employees be removed from the classification system when no other bargaining unit was asked to do the same in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there are many organizations in the Province that offer valued services which are complementary to core services that government provides. These services can best be managed and can best be delivered by community-based organizations.

Classification, Mr. Speaker, in the end result, is all about compensation. Compensation in this case has to be fair and reasonable. The employer in this case has, in fact, made an offer which most people in these very uncertain economic times would accept 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 issue is not around monetary salaries, they have already accepted that, it is really around the classification system and where that leads them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate about this is that there are a number of disabled clients who are caught in the middle and can no longer work without these facilitators being there with them everyday.

I ask the minister: Instead of causing such disruption in the lives of all of these individuals, why will government not continue to move forward leaving the agreement around classification systems in place? After all, it was you, Minister, and your government who demanded that it be there two years ago.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has said in this House on a previous occasion that government demanded this. Government did not demand this; this was something that the union had asked for.

All of these organizations that provide these complementary services which are complementary to the core services that government performs, there is a number of them: group homes, transition homes - Stella Burry, for example.

The employees of those organizations, as I have said repeatedly in this House, are not employees of government, they are not public servants. Therefore, the negotiation, the compensation is provided by the employers, not by government. They are not public servants. I know that NAPE continues to try to argue that they are, but the fact is they have not been for twenty-five years.

The offer made is fair and generous in these circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These workers still fall within the collective services bargaining act which is the responsibility of government.

Minister, while other employees have this clause in these agreements I have no idea why government is insistent in keeping these workers in the street, keeping disabled people off their jobs when you could easily fix this and allow for them to continue having this clause in their agreement.

Again, I appeal to you today: Will you not do that and settle the strike before Christmas?

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.

Mr. Speaker, some of these employment corporations are, in fact, unionized by NAPE and certified under the Labour Relations Act. In this particular case, they happen to be certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which means that government has a role, but the role is as negotiator, whereas NAPE is a negotiator for the employees, the Collective bargaining division of government is a negotiator for the employer corporation.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, 20 per cent over four years is, in these times, a fair and generous offer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, the Minister of Justice stated that a review of the probation system would be launched after significant monitoring issues were identified.

Minister, why was the individual recently apprehended in Ontario on a murder charge not being properly monitored by our probation system, and have you initiated an investigation into that particular incident?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out from the beginning that our probation officers are very professional people, well-trained and doing a great job. I have met with a number of them over the last few weeks and I am impressed with their enthusiasm, the positive outlook and their work ethic, so this review is not a disciplinary matter, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the probation officer. This is a review to examine the whole probation system to determine if there are systemic challenges or concerns in the probation system that we can work on and improve to make conditions better for the probation officers that we already have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could tell us: What is the current process for tracking down people on probation who have not reported to their probation officers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: My understanding of the system, Mr. Speaker, is that there are various methods of monitoring the person under probation. The whole purpose of probation, Mr. Speaker, is to rehabilitate the releasee and integrate that person back into society.

The hon. member, as a lawyer, and a former Attorney General would know full well that these methods include visitation through probation officers, visitation to the houses, the homes of the individuals, electronic surveillance, and so on. When someone slips through the probation system or is unaccountable for, an arrest warrant is issued. After all other attempts are made, Mr. Speaker, an arrest warrant is issued and the police are contacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in May of this year, we asked the former Minister of Justice questions regarding inadequate monitoring and workload facing our probation officers when we had another tragic death that occurred in this Province as a result of someone who was not complying with his probation orders.

The former minister, in May of this year, said at that time in this House that he would undertake a review of the system. Here we are now in December and another minister is saying they are going to do the review. Was the review done six months ago, and if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, following the reference of the hon. the Opposition House Leader, a number of things happened in the system to address some of the adjustments that were needed in probations with regard to hiring new people, moving people around, spreading caseloads and that sort of thing. So, a lot of things happened as a result of that.

Mr. Speaker, this probation - violations of probation happen every day. All the probation officers in the world are not going to prevent probation violations. You go down to the Atlantic Place any time, any day of the week, Mr. Speaker, the docket is filled with probation violations. It is the nature of the business. Our attempt is to try to reduce it and integrate people back into society, but we are never going to completely eliminate violations of probation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect to the minister’s answer, I would say the job that the Justice department has to do is to make sure that our probation system is working properly, not say that we are going to be accepting of things that do not work out.

I ask the minister: Since May of this year, when the former minister undertook to the do the review, has there been any specific investments in monitoring bracelets? Have any new probation officers been hired in this Province, and if so, how many, and how much?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, there are thirty-six adult probation officers in this Province, including three temporary ones. At the end of the November, an additional adult probation officer was hired in Grand Falls-Windsor to help alleviate the caseloads up there. Prior to this hiring, he had been assisting with cases in Grand Falls-Windsor.

The caseload average is between fifty and sixty, Mr. Speaker. Numbers vary from region to region. Gander office has two officers, and some realignment of caseloads have been made in Central Newfoundland, because you can use the office up there to move in that particular locale.

Mr. Speaker, this review is made in response, as the member mentioned, to an incident that happened recently. Mr. Speaker, this government is in the business of responding. It responded to the Lamer Inquiry, it responded to the Cameron Inquiry, it responded to Decades of Darkness, it responded then, it is responding now and will respond in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are well aware that government responded to the Lamer Inquiry, but it was not this government, it was the former Liberal Administration that responded with the Lamer Inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my last question for the minister. Minister, on Friday past, you committed to doing a review of the probation system. I ask you at this time, Minister: Would you commit to having this review done arm’s-length from the Department of Justice rather than just having an internal review?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member this is not an internal review. There will be an external reviewer appointed. We do not have the name yet, but it will be hopefully in the next few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been two failed attempts at contracting out used tire collection, transportation and processing recycling functions with private operators. While talks have apparently gone nowhere, the cost of storing tires has escalated and actual recovery of used tires has decreased.

During the Estimates in May 2008, and again, during the Estimates in May 2009, the Minister of Environment stated that an announcement was imminent on the used tire program, and we have heard nothing since.

I ask the minister: What is the status of that deal you were going to announce over a year-and-a-half ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct; there have been two failed attempts to tires and they have happened while that government was in power. That is why it is so important that when we do this, we do it right and take our time and do it right.

This is a problem that all jurisdictions are dealing with throughout North America. New Brunswick have their problems; Nova Scotia just recently announced tire derived aggregate. As you know, we just recently announced a new CEO for the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board and when he was in to have the first meeting with me, I asked that this be top priority.

We are working on a solution to the problem. There are a few roadblocks along the way, but it is very important that we do this right so we do not end up with the two failed attempts that the previous government ended up with.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I guess I just got the announcement, and I will get to the question I am going to ask in this year’s Estimates.

The Auditor General noted that since the inception of the Used Tire Recycling Program, the MMSB has spent close to all the money in storage costs. Storage costs are increasing each year and there are questions as to whether the tire recycling program may pay out more money than it collects in revenues.

I ask the minister: Is government planning to raise existing tire levies to afford the rising cost of storing tires?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the fee that is paid for tires is not only for storing tires. Yes, $900,000 is spent towards storing tires, but that is also for the unloading, the proper storage according to fire codes, as well as having twenty-four hour security on-site at the Placentia site.

You also have to remember too, Mr. Speaker, that some of this money goes toward collecting tires at over 600 locations in this Province so that when the plan is announced, all of the tires will be in one location. It will be a great start for the new operator who will be using these tires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, there has been frustration expressed over the lack of programs to recycle tires from ATVs, forklifts and others off-road equipment. Although government has made an exemption for tires, or that is my understanding, to be sent to landfills, many landfill operators do not accept them.

I ask the minister: Has government made a decision on how to deal with those tires?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, while considering the tire plan for the future, we are also considering all options for ATV tires and off the road tires, or OTR tires. Once that plan is released, that will include those two types of tires as well.

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 would like to follow up with our Minister of Tourism on the questions on Thursday. In February of this year the Province released a long-term tourism strategy entitled: Uncommon Potential - A Vision for Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism, which resulted in a changed mandate for our four destination marketing organizations.

Mr. Speaker, this change in mandate resulted in the elimination of a position of marketing co-ordinator on the Northern Peninsula, which I referred to on Thursday. In a news release on the weekend, the Executive Director of the WDMO stated that the contractual position was not renewed because the WDMO was forced to decide what it could afford and what its mandate is.

I would ask the minister today: Why was it necessary to change the mandate of the western DMO, thus resulting in the elimination of this position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Last year we put in $175,000 to the western DMO to offer professional marketing advice to all sorts of groups in the Western Region, and I hope I get a follow-up question because I have to get into a couple of e-mails that were sent to me on the weekend reminding us of what a great job we are doing, in particular in his area of the Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it was a year ago today that the Burin-Marystown Community Training and Employment Board and its job coach employees reached an agreement and notified government of the agreement within the ultimatum deadline announced by the then Minister of Finance for reaching settlements under the 20 per cent wage offer of 2008. Mr. Speaker, they presented an agreement in good faith, based on the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act under which the workers are certified.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why a year later his government has not ratified the agreement reached by the board who employs these workers and the union that represents them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the union in Marystown-Burin is certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Under that act, the only difference under that act is that government is a negotiator; we are still not the employer. Negotiations have taken place. They have gone on for a long time. The employer has made an offer, which I indicated earlier, is an offer that most people would think would be fair and generous, and that offer is available to the union to accept on behalf of the employees that they represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a disingenuous answer by the minister when he knows there is a request by them to have the letter with regard to classification taken out of the agreement that was made back last December. So, it is really and truly a disingenuous answer.

Mr. Speaker, the workers in question are a group of predominantly female workers in rural Newfoundland who earn little more than minimum wage and provide support to persons with disabilities who are also being greatly disadvantaged by this strike and who are now also sitting at home instead of working. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has shown great concern for people with disabilities, especially through his sincere support of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, if he will look into this issue and give leadership in getting this stalemate resolved for the good of the workers and their clients?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do have, as do all members of Cabinet and caucus, the greatest empathy for people with disabilities, as do all members of this hon. House. This is a matter that we have certainly looked at in great detail; that Cabinet has considered in great detail. It is unfortunate, the circumstances that have taken place, particularly at this time of the year, which is a very difficult time of the year. However, the offer that has been made is consistent with the template that was put forward, and it is not just simply a template. It is an offer that was made by this government during very, very difficult times. When the world economy was very uncertain, where we did not know where it was going. It is an offer of 20 per cent, which compounded works out to be 21.5 per cent; which by any national standards, right across the country, is a very, very generous offer. So it is not something - it is not a decision that we have taken lightly. It is always difficult when it affects innocent parties, for want of a better term, but it is a decision that we stand by and that we have certainly very seriously considered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is playing a game with these workers and their employer. On the one hand, they are demanding that the workers give up items that other public sector workers were asked to give up, half their sick leave, market adjustment and extended earning loss. On the other hand, the government is saying that the workers are not really public sector workers – and the minister insists on making that statement – and should not be eligible for classification. The government cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

So again, I ask the Premier, right now in this season of hope, the season that we call Christmas, if he will do the right thing and get government back to the table and get this dispute resolved before Christmas comes, because this is disgraceful what is going on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP can say it over and over and over again, but the people who work with these organizations out there in society – and there are many of them who perform a valued service, which government supports, and government supports it by providing these organizations with funds. The work they do is of great value, and in many cases the services they perform are better managed and delivered by a local community organization, but they are not, and I have said this over and over again, they are not public service employees. That is the difference here, but in this case the employer has offered 20 per cent which is a more than fair and generous wage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!