Thank you, Mr. Handley. The honourable Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when the government purchases vehicles, we work with the departments that are requiring certain type of vehicle. If their facilities require a large van, because they are continually hauling 12 to 15 people around, that has to be taken into consideration. One of the other things, again, is if vehicles are to be used in the smaller, more remote communities where there are not as many services as we find here in the larger centres, that has to be taken into consideration; for example, if it's a four-wheel drive vehicle, or a two-wheel drive vehicle, and what type of work it would be required to do. So those things are taken into consideration.

As we enter this phase that we are into now around the energy issues, we have to re-look at that to see if, in fact, we change our stance, and maybe pick up a couple of these other vehicles to see if they are, in fact, a savings to us over the long run. As we know, the initial costs can be much higher than your traditional vehicles, the ones that we find on the lots today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, as I said earlier today in my Member's statement, I'm not suggesting that we get our highways or ENR folks out on the highway in Smart Cars, but it's about smart purchases. I'd like to know more about what the Minister is suggesting about what they may look at, and, as well, are they looking at a format to implement smart energy usage as part of the reasons why they qualify, or disqualify, a particular purchase on a vehicle? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would have to get a copy of the criteria to see if, in fact, we do include the size of engine. For example, when we talk about engine, if we request six cylinder engines or V8s, and things of that nature, but what we do look at is the type of work that it's going to be required to do, and the community that it will be working in. Those are some of the considerations. Where we can get away with a minivan, we have done so, and we have vehicles within the city that you can see that are of the smaller size because of their efficiency. So it's something we do take into consideration, but I will have to look at that when we do go out for some of the RFPs, to see what type of information is included in that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I would say it would be very foolish of me to challenge the fine Minister on vehicles, because, of course, his former life is a mechanic. He probably knows a lot more about them than I do, but he could probably speak passionately about V6s running better than V8s, as opposed to specific usage, but I liked what he said about using minivans. What I'm suggesting is we start using mid-sized trucks on our highways, because they are a lot smarter when you only have one person driving down our highway in them back and forth. So a mid-sized truck, or maybe a larger car, on those highways are smarter. Would the Minister look at issuing a directive that takes this into account? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for recognizing my past profession; I'm very proud of it, in the trades area. That does give me some, I guess, perspective on vehicles and their usage. A lot of the savings we can have are: the size of vehicle, the weight of the vehicle, the size of the engine, and how we use them can even play a bigger factor. So as we have in the past on the type of usage of vehicles, we will be dusting some of that off and sending it back out to departments and the people who use our vehicles, for example, idling and the driving methods they do use. But we will look at the type of use, the size of vehicle, what's most appropriate. Today there are a lot of vehicles out there that have, for example, all-wheel drive instead of four wheel drive, and they are more efficient than the bigger trucks. So we will take that into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I will state that I know there's an exception to every rule, but I'd say let's not get caught up in the exceptions, Mr. Speaker. So I'd like to hear the details as in what the Minister means we'll take this into consideration, because instead of buying full size four-by-four trucks, again I suggest that we could buy smaller vehicles to do the same job. So, again, I ask the Minister, can I hear some details as to what "consideration" means, and how can we truly show action? I appreciate he's mentioning that they're going to look at idling. So how can we see action on this much needed policy? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm not a very positive example about economies and size. When you look at my personal vehicle, I drive a suburban, and that's because I have a large family.

In fact, trying to squeeze myself and my children into a minivan would be a hazard on its own. So as a government, overall, we do need to look at the types of equipment we use, and how we use them. As I have informed this House on a number of occasions around the energy issue, we will be looking at all of our facilities, equipment we use, and look at it in the new light of being more efficient in how we do that. That work is ongoing, as we speak. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Item 7, oral questions. The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think, as Members know, we have something called the Genuine Mackenzie Valley Fur Program, and, with that program, we help trappers get their furs to market in a number of ways. We provide them with upfront money -- we call it the Grub Stake Program -- to get them started, and get their equipment refurbished at the beginning of the year. We provide advances, as well, to trappers looking to get their furs to market, but not able to wait for the sales to come in. We also provide something called the Prime Fur Bonus Program, Mr. Speaker, in that if we assess the fur as being in good condition, we're willing to

pay more than it will fetch at market. All of this costs us about $450,000 a year, I believe, and that's 2004-2005 numbers. But I think it's a valuable program, I think it's a good program. I know it's certainly the envy of all of the jurisdictions when we talk about this at the provincial/federal/territorial Ministers' meetings. Having said that, I think we need to recognize that we need to continually re-evaluate the program and ensure that it is meeting the needs of our trappers, especially given the cost of energy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Minister that this is a good program, and I know a few people that access it. My second question is, with the split of RWED and the programs that are offered now, who would make the decisions, and who would administer all the programs? Thanks a lot, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that we were very cognizant of, during the split, was to ensure that there was as little program disruption as possible on the ground in communities. For that reason, it's always been renewable resource officers administering the programs on the ground. We wanted to make sure that that point of contact remained, and that there was consistency there. So that's, in fact, what people on the ground in communities will see. The program will still be administered that way. The money is in my department, so accountability for that spending rests here. But we have an arrangement and a protocol set up with ENR, whereby we cooperate to jointly deliver these programs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.