As that team of deputy ministers looks at that proposal and considers it from a business analysis perspective, to be perfectly clear, can the Premier confirm for us that if this proposal had merit and if we were to proceed with it, that in fact it is not anticipated to be, or in any way anticipated to be, a sell-off of NTPC, but in fact a partnership with the private sector through ATCO?

The Member is correct. The proposal and the discussions that have taken place today, and even reviewing this, it is a partnership approach that we are looking at and, again, we have much work to be done before we can get into that level of discussion. I should also add that we have committed to continue communications between the town council and the employees, and working through the employees through the board. We’re hoping to get some correspondence just to give them an update as well.

That was actually my next question. I was going to ask how we were going to ensure that the ongoing communications and up-to-date information is available to potentially affected parties. Certainly NTPC is a huge presence in Hay River and extremely important to our community.

In the negotiations that could take place -- I know I’m not supposed to ask hypothetical questions, but in those negotiations -- I mean, it’s quite possible that the retention of the current NTPC employees in

a merger type of arrangement could be part of the negotiations.

The discussions that we’ve had to date with the Power Corporation staff, that issue of employment came up, concern around that. One of the things I shared with the staff at the Power Corporation head office was just that we are looking towards maximizing our employment numbers, in a sense, because it only helps us overall when it comes to our status and our Formula Financing Agreement, as well. So that is always a part of the consideration as we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also, just to confirm that if at the end of this analysis process there does seem to be merit in this partnership with the private sector for the benefit of the people of the Northwest Territories, including those who already work for our present utility, that there will be an opportunity for those points and those merits that could be achieved would be brought back for a decision of this House.

The idea, the concept, the work that needs to be done and the meetings following that will definitely have to come back to Members of this Assembly as we decide what the future may hold and what the possibilities are as well.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I talked about the possibility of designating the Mackenzie River as a heritage river. I would like to ask the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources if he would consider this type of initiative and consider looking at this process to nominate the Mackenzie River under the Canadian Heritage River System.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was work done on this particular initiative back in 2003. I’ll commit to pull that file and see where it ended up, what kind of response there was. Some communities had indicated an interest to have the Mackenzie designated as a Canadian Heritage River. We already have three rivers in the Northwest Territories with such designation. I will follow up with that and then we can have further discussions.

I certainly appreciate the commitment from the Minister. Can the Minister further commit to having some further options, concrete plans in terms of coming to the Assembly in terms of the possibility of advancing a nomination should there be support for nomination of the Mackenzie River as a designated heritage river?

We’ll, as I indicated, pull the information together. I will also talk to the Premier about this may be a topic -- since the Mackenzie goes from one end of the Territory to the other -- where there may be some benefit to having some discussion, current discussion, to see what the interest is in moving on this particular initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regard to my Member’s statement, I raised the issue of conflicts between harvesters to subsistence and also government operations. In particular, the ferry operations on the Mackenzie in regard to the Nazon fishing camp, which is on the Inuvik side of the river and has been located there long before the highway was even built.

In the Gwich’in Land Claim Agreement there is a conflict resolution section, which is 12.4.13. I think it’s important that this government maybe consider reading that, because I think this government has to either resolve this dispute with the individual and try to avoid this conflict regarding traditional right to harvest, but more importantly work with the community’s renewable resource council to avoid this conflict.

I’d like to ask the Minister, in light of the letters that he’s received and I’ve received and the discussions we’ve had on this over the last couple of months, has he considered the possibility of moving where the conflict area is back to the location where the ferry always landed so that this conflict can be resolved and the Nazon family can continue to fish in their traditional fishing area, where they fished long before this ferry operation was located there?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, in all our projects and operations within Transportation and other departments across the government we always worked towards ensuring that our constituents and residents across the Territories have the benefit of operating and living their traditional and cultural lifestyle without any

disturbance. Setting up operations in this instance, such as the ferry operations, has involved a lot of people, including a lot of the elders and incorporating traditional knowledge. It’s been an area that we’ve used for operations for quite a few years. In the last while we had an instance where, I think due to certain conditions, the ferry had landed close to an individual’s camp. We also had some correspondence from the same individual raising concern that the operation was still fairly close to where she practised her cultural living. There was greater possibility that there could be a collision between our ferry and her boats, and interference with her ability to set a net. We are responding to her. We had not planned to move the operations, but we’d like to have the discussions to ensure that this doesn’t interfere with her ability to catch fish, and also that the ferry landing close to her camp was a one-time occasion and that we’ll take all steps to ensure that doesn’t happen again.

Again, Ms. Nazon is not asking that they move the complete ferry operations away from that site. We know it’s a physical fixture there. All we ask is that the Department of Transportation’s marine operations consider moving the ferry where the conflict area is down 50 feet. The ferry has four engines. It moves back and forth. Their ability to land...If you’re a captain on that vessel you shouldn’t have a problem with that. So all we’re asking is would you consider moving away from this conflict area and establishing your landing and approaching area in a more reasonable location so this conflict doesn’t exist in the future?

I think there are two issues that are tripping over each other in this situation. One is being the ferry operation utilizing the site that’s been in place since the 1980s might be somehow interfering with the individual’s traditional lifestyle practices and also an occasion where the ferry did land practically at her camp. I’m going to need to find some clarity as to what the real issue is and we’ll have our staff meet with the Member’s constituent to clarify what the actual request is and look at what the 50 feet would entail to move the landing, if that’s possible.

Like the Minister mentioned, this issue has been around for a couple years now. It’s not like it just happened yesterday. This issue has come to this House about three or four times, as long as I’ve been here. They basically requested that when the last permits were issued for the department’s marine operations with regard to landing at those locations, they requested that a study be done a number of years ago regarding this particular issue.

So I’d like to ask the Minister, in regard to the Gwich’in Land Claim Agreement 12.4.13 where it talks about these type of disputes and the mechanisms that are there to resolve it, and the

option to go to arbitration, is that what this government wants? Are they willing to follow the Land Claim Agreement in regard to this type of conflict between harvesters and developers?

I’m becoming more and more familiar with the Gwich’in land claim as the Member provides us quotes almost on a daily basis of where the issues are raising concern.

The issue may have been around for many years. I’ve only recently been brought into the fold and been asked to take a look at it. I am responding to the Member’s constituent. I’d be glad to look at the site and the proposal that the Member is bringing forward and respond accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to this issue being resolved soon. Fishing season is coming before us. I think that we’re hoping to have this, I believe in the letter it states, in July. I’d like to ask the Minister if he can have a resolution to this issue within the next two weeks, prior to the fishing season in July.

I think in this situation we certainly have to look at the long term. As I mentioned earlier, this has been a site that has been used by our department, by our ferry services for roughly 30 years. In that part of the country there is erosion of the soil, there is erosion of the riverbanks, and it has moved our landing so that it’s becoming a concern for some of the people who are utilizing the area for traditional harvesting of fish. I think we need to sit down and make sure that if we’re going to make any changes, it has to be a solution that’s going to be acceptable for many years to come. I would be prepared to do that. We are responding to the Member’s constituent. We’ll have that letter out in a day or two. However, I think a long-term solution has to be looked at. Thank you.