Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we totally agree; the strike and the disruption in service at the Fort Simpson/Liard River ferry crossing is an important one. It's an issue, up to now, that has been an issue between the employer and the employees, over wages. Our government has been monitoring the situation. The issue about replacement workers is something that is regulated through the Canadian Labour Code, which is a federal regulation, and it allows for replacement workers. It's a legal position. Our own government does not have legislation preventing the use of replacement workers, and we would encourage both sides to sit down and have a discussion and negotiation over this issue that's keeping them apart.

Early on in discussions, a conciliator was brought in, and it was decided, at that time, by the conciliator, that the two sides were quite a ways apart, and there was no room for him to play a role in this.

Recently, the federal Minister of Labour decided to bring in a mediator, and the mediator is working towards bringing both sides to the table. We did receive notice, however, today that the contractor will be ceasing operation of the ferry as of tonight. So we are looking at the situation. We've tried hard to encourage both sides to come to the table. The Premier has indicated yesterday that he will be contacting the Minister of Labour to try to get them to do everything in their power to get both sides to come to a satisfactory arrangement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I believe the government's position, and government's preparation, on this issue may have implications for the bridge in Fort Providence. I know, for a fact, that when there were concerns raised about whether government might have less power, in case there was some kind of a dispute, we were assured that we have written in legislation that it is a public road, and the government will have control over that. So I would like to know if the Minister can indicate as to whether in the government's contract with the contractor, do you have any provisions as to what the government's power is in situations like this? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the provisions that we have in our contract is that the contractor will provide a service for a certain set amount of hours during the day, and support for that service. If there is a disruption to that, or if there's a breach to that, or abandonment of that contract for that service, we are in a position to do a number of things, including taking over the service ourselves, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Going by the media reporting, the things are getting very tense there, and there are some really serious allegations of safety infractions. I understand that much of the equipment that this contractor is using is owned by the government. So I believe that this government has a lot more power and influence than it realizes. I understand the labour issue is with the federal government, but in terms of what this government can do, we need to take action right away. Why does he not take over the service of running the ferry while these two parties decide whether they're going to get back to the table or not? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize, first of all, that we're still bound by a contract that we have with a company out of Fort Simpson. Part of the equipment that is being provided, first of all, is the camp, the garage and the ferry itself. Those things are built into the contract. We provide it to the contractor. It's not a situation where we are providing directly to the employees. With regard to infractions, we have received those complaints. We are dealing with the Department of Justice. We brought them forward to investigate these complaints, and to ensure that there is adequate security, or the RCMP is providing security at the picket lines, and also there is a security person that works for the contractor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I understand the different jurisdictions of labour law; I

understand the obligations to allow contractors to carry on business, and all the codes and all this. I think the important thing is, when do we know, as public legislators, that it is necessary for the government to step in? When do we know that? Now we have a contractor...

Thank you, Ms. Lee. I'll allow the Minister to answer that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we have to decide a number of things, and one of them has to be consideration of whether or not the contract has been abandoned. We will provide the information to the Members on what we're going to do in terms of next steps, as soon as we decide what we are going to do. We have a number of options that we have to look at: the issues around it; whether or not it will put us in a liability situation; whether we are in a position to move forward on a lot of these issues. We have people who are investigating that now, and we will be getting together, as a Cabinet, to discuss this and decide on what option we want to move forward with. Once we do that, we'll provide that information to all the Members here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 7, oral questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of initiatives that we have undertaken in order to get more money into the pockets of northerners. Mr. Speaker, earlier on I was talking about devolution and resource revenue sharing. That is number one. That is what is going to make us self-sufficient, is if we get to keep a fair share of resource revenues for our people. Then we can do the kinds of things that Alaska is doing now in terms of dividends and rebates back to its people. That is number one in my mind.

Second is, we have been successful in negotiating some amounts of money. For example, in my sessional statement, I made reference to the $35 million that we are turning over to local leaders in the communities, or proposing to turn over to them, to be used on things of highest priority for them. They are the ones who every day see the working poor and others who have needs. They will decide on the priorities.

Third, Mr. Speaker, another one we have spoken about and included in the sessional statement is the initiatives we have on energy conservation. We are strongly in favour of conservation as a way of cutting down costs. There are some immediate things that can be done in the short term to have people achieve savings this winter, even as we enter the winter.

We will follow very closely on what the federal government is doing on their heating rebate program. In the longer term, we are strongly supportive of hydro development as a way of fixing our costs at a more reasonable level than we can have on a heating rebate program. In the longer term, we are strongly supportive of hydro development as a way of fixing our costs at a more reasonable level than we could have on other fuel.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on with the number of initiatives we are undertaking in order to keep the costs down for our residents. I agree with the Member that it is the working poor, those who are right on the edge, who don't have a lot of spare money, who are hurt most by these bigger, global events that tend to make our costs to go up even in the North. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen -- and again, I have been here for two years now -- any evidence that we are any closer to a resource revenue agreement today than we were five years ago. It's the same thing with devolution. I think we are on the back burner in Ottawa. I think the $500 million socioeconomic money is a smokescreen from Ottawa to cloud everybody's judgement and to put devolution and resource revenue on the back burner where they think it belongs. I don't think we have done enough on that, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier if he has had any discussion with the other two northern Premiers on the notion of scrapping the GST. That alone, Mr. Speaker, would put $3,000 to $4,000 back into the pockets of every northerner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The $35 million may be a smokescreen, but it's a pretty nice smokescreen for that value. The same with the $500 million the federal government has committed for socioeconomic impact if the pipeline moves ahead.

With regard to the GST, there have been discussions around the table with the other two Premiers on that. I have to say that there isn't a lot of appetite for that one, either with the other Premiers or with the federal government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the obvious question is, why not? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.