Thank you, Mr. Chair. Cabinet solidarity is an issue, but it is necessary in some cases because we can't have anarchy and we need to be working together as a government, but I do think that we need to look at a three-tier system, actually, a system that looks at low risk. For example, things like picking out Cabinet Ministers if they are out for evaluation. Is that a risk to the government as a whole? If not, then we should be opening that vote for Cabinet Minister to have a free vote. We need to look at medium risk. If there is a risk and we are not sure, then I think Cabinet as a whole needs to define, not just the Premier and say, "Can we stand on our own or do we need to vote in solidarity?"

At the highest risk, if there is integrity, if it jeopardizes the integrity of this system, of this institution, at that point I do believe that Cabinet solidarity has to be in place, but I do think that, instead of it being ad hoc and decided at the moment, which I experienced, we need to decide that as soon as we sit as Cabinet Members and decide at what point we would be looking at solidarity and when we can't. Because I do think that there were a lot of times that open vote would have been appropriate, and it was hard to not have that option. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Masi, Mr. Chair. Cabinet solidarity exists for a reason. There are times where a very sensitive issue is brought up, or how it is going to benefit the North. Obviously, in the past, it has been case-by-case, but a majority of the decisions that were made in solidarity, a lot of the decisions were made forming solidarity.

I think as we move forward, Mr. Chair, we have Members in this House with bright ideas and expertise going forward. Obviously, we need to listen to them and have an open communication dialogue.

There is a motion that is coming down, and they feel that it should be open vote as opposed to solidarity, then I will listen to them and say, "Okay, well, we can probably pursue it," but at the same time there will be repercussion at the government level, so I have to be careful on how to deal with that. Those are the discussions that we need to have.

In our former government, we didn't really have that from what I have seen in sitting in the Speaker's chair. I for one will be open to listening to the Members and accepting if there needs to be a free vote. If I get the support from Members, then I will do that, but at the same time, there will be solidarity votes on certain programs and motions. There is a reason for this. Masi.

I think Cabinet solidarity is important, but I also feel that transparency and accountability is also important, so I think that there are always exceptions to the rule. In every case, no matter in which life you live, there are always exceptions to the rule or to policy. I would make sure that the MLAs are heard, and I would listen to them and then go back to Cabinet and discuss that concern and come back with a decision of Cabinet. If we are going to have an open vote on a particular item, that is the way I would handle it. Thank you.

I am going to ask about infrastructure; no shock. Our debt is currently sitting at a $1.1 billion, and we have a cap of $1.3. That doesn't really leave us a lot left. I have sort of a two-fold question: how do you plan to raise the necessary capital to conduct the proposed infrastructure projects, such as the roads in Taltson, if that is the way that we move forward as a government? As part of that then, too, I would like to know: what you are going to do to ensure that that work and those projects, including the Giant Mine Remediation Project, that that work goes to northern and Indigenous businesses as much as possible, and is used to build capacity within the territory?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I stated in my speech, we are going to have to make some tough decisions in this government. We are opposing the $1.1 billion, and our cap is at $1.3. It is a serious issue.

We have programs that we have to evaluate. We need to look at if they are still efficient, if they are still meeting the needs and priorities of this government, through this government, but we also have programs that we need to bring in to be able to address people, and we do have capital needs. Traditionally, the federal government actually, on large infrastructure projects, actually gives up to 75 percent dollars, 75 cent dollars, and we have to come up with 25 percent.

We have used our short-term borrowing and are looking at monies and trading in to do that. It is in the best interest of people and so we move forward with that, but working in the North is critical. I have seen that with many of our infrastructure projects, so why would we even bring infrastructure projects into the Northwest Territories if all of the work is going south because all the spending goes south then. That does not make sense to me.

I am not sure if it is about the projects are too big and the capacity of northern businesses, but if that is the issue, then maybe we need to break up those projects and look at smaller projects so that northern businesses can have an advantage with that.

I also think our business, our bid process, is not working for people, and we need to look at that. I know it is 30 percent. I know it sounds really good when you say "30 percent advantage," but something is not working. We need to have flexibility within that business incentive program, and we need to actually revise it so that the jobs and the resources and the monies stay in the North. Otherwise, we are just wasting our time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I bring a very strong business acumen to this House. I have been in business for the last 45 years or more, and I think that there are other creative ways of looking at the deficit. I think that capital dollars are not being used and could be put to use in a different way. We are dealing with a lot of Aboriginal communities that have access to different means within the federal government way, but also within our own Aboriginal organizations that have been developed across Canada.

There is one in particular that I want to give you an example of; the first finance authority that has been developed that uses leverage for building capital expenditures at a 2-percent rate over a period of time. You are able to get the dollars on 2 percent, and that is unbelievable. You are able to do it over a period of time. If you go into an agreement with them, for our communities that are mostly Aboriginal, there are lots of creative ways of using those capital dollars in a different way. We have done in that in Fort Smith with Salt River.

There are other things that I think have to be looked at. We have to evaluate all of the departments and see where the overlap is. I think that we have to start doing things creatively.

I think also that it is extremely important, very important, that all of our businesses in the North have to be considered first, before any of the contracts, tenders, or anything else is ever considered to go south. We have to be able to look after the business community and all of the resources in the Northwest Territories the way that it should be, because it is not. That is why people in our communities are upset, because they are not able to access many of these larger contracts.

We should also make sure that the Indigenous communities that have corporations that do this type of work are also considered. It is extremely important that we also make sure that the whole community and the whole business area of it is looked after together, because it is extremely important that we all benefit from that.

When our own communities are benefitting, the whole community benefits, the whole Northwest Territories benefits, and that is the way that the economy has to flow in order for us to get out of this deficit.

Thank you, and thank you for the question. I have spoken on this issue a number of times in the house, the $1.1 billion debt that we have. We were approaching the limit, and we need to go to Ottawa and make the case that we need that increased. We need to make a compelling case. The case that I always try to make is that the Government of Canada built the Trans-Canada Highway; they built the railroad from east to west; but they never came north. We still need those nation-building infrastructure investments, and we need the money to do it. I understand that they are hesitant to up our limit. They are the backstop. Nonetheless, those funds are needed.

In terms of keeping money in the North, another thing that is close to my heart, I have spoken about this a number of times, is P3 projects. We have the hospital. That was being built when we started our term here. We were given a presentation, and we were shown a list of all of the different local businesses that were benefiting from it, and then you run into one of those local business owners in the street, and they say, "Well, we didn't get anything," or "We got a couple of bucks here or there," but there was no real money to stay here. You hear stories about people flying in to do the drywall and then flying out. There needs to be northern content in P3s. There are no two ways about it. These are massive infrastructure projects using public money, and they have to benefit Northerners.

In terms of smaller infrastructure projects, there are a lot of ways that we can increase northern content. Sometimes, in the South Slave especially, and I assume in Yellowknife, as well, there are some contracts that might be $10 or $15 or $20 million. Maybe a northern company can't do that. Can they do $4 or $5 million contracts over a longer time? Maybe. We need to start looking at things like that, as well. This is low-hanging fruit when it comes to keeping money in the North.

I know that myself and one of the other Members always point out the $12 million contract that went south for 3 percent, 3 percent total, and that money just flowed over the border. That is unacceptable. This is something that the Standing Committee on Economic Development looked into, procurement, because we weren't getting any traction. I think that that is a good starting point to start looking at how to make changes in the next Assembly.

There are other interesting ways to do it as well. I think that we need to do a better job consulting with industry on how to keep money in the North. That is one thing that we just don't do. You know what? It is hard sometimes to talk to small business owners and industry. They are busy. The last thing that they want to do is talk to the government, especially when the last 50 times that they talked to the government, nothing happened. We need to make sure that industry and small businesses know that they are being heard and that they can see results from those consultations. There is a lot that we can do, and it is one of the things that I look forward to doing in the next Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Masi, Mr. Clerk. [Translation]There is major development in the Northwest Territories. Everyone talks about it, especially capital. Whether it's a hospital or a school, it is up to the government. As a government and with the federal government, we need to work together. There is some responsibility that falls under the territorial government and federal government. We need to work together in that way.

The Member from Hay River also mentioned this. We need to open our doors to each other, and we need to also take their advice. That is the only way to go forward. Not only that, but yesterday, when we met with the northern leaders, there were some elders who were there, as well, and they did say to us, "As small communities, we don't benefit in a lot of ways." As the MLAs around this table, we need to make that a priority. We were starting to talk about it last week and this week, as well.

We need to submit this to the federal government. Whoever is the Premier will take that message to the federal government. If we don't talk for ourselves, we won't get anything done. There was a person from the Sahtu region who said that, when they wait for the government to make a decision, everything falls behind. They said that finally they have decided to start to go ahead with business on their own.

When we look at all of this in the Northwest Territories, a lot of Aboriginal governments, we need to open our doors to them and work closely with them. We have federal government funding, territorial government, like the P3 projects. We could work well together easily in that way. When we look at the Northwest Territories, we need to take a good look at our resources and how we can all help each other and work with each other. Today we have a new hospital that we spent $300 million on, and we need a lot of our people working there.

Even right in Behchoko, my community, we need more of our people working in these positions. We are always hiring from the South. When we look around, we see a lot of non-Dene people working in our communities. We need to change that as well and the way that we handle the contracts. We need to hire our people, and train our people. We need to include that, as well. Also, the BIP program is not working well, and when a contract is given, they are given a certain percentage. The Member from Hay River was on that, and I am thankful for him for giving that information. He does not agree with the BIP program, as well. We need to change that policy. I think that is the only way we're going to see changes in the Northwest Territories.

It is up to us as individuals, as a government. We need to change those policies. What are we afraid of? This government is going to change after today. We need to change those policies. What are we afraid of? This government is going to change after today. We need to face our people and get their advice, as well. I think it's important that we hear the communities, as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. [End of translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question to pose to all the possible Premiers here. Once elected as Premier, how will you ensure that our economic chapters of our Gwich'in and Inuvialuit land claims are honoured when it comes to negotiated contracts? Over the last number of years, it seemed that some departments were reluctant to negotiate certain contracts with my constituents, while in the past, our government used to negotiate up to 50 percent of the total cost of contracts in my riding. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If it's in your agreements, then it should be honoured. I really believe that, many times, there are certain things that are put into agreements and the actual implementations by any government, whether it be territorial or federal, are never honoured. I truly believe that they should be honoured.

Masi. [Translation] We have, as a government, we are the government, and if you settled with a self-government agreement, you are considered a government. I am sure that we can review that. We have a lot of economic development and businesses in our community. Sometimes, those contracts are not given to the community, but we also have negotiated contracts, as well. We have to give opportunities to the communities, and we're not doing that. Sometimes our departments, when they look at all the paperwork, even for example, the Tlicho self-government, they are considered government. Chapter 26 states this in their Constitution. It also states in there how negotiated contacts will be in place. When we talk about this, they always say that we're not able to do this and that. When you take a look at it as a whole, we need to review some of these policies that are in place that were already in place. Since 1992, 2005, some of them have already a self-government in place, some have an Aboriginal government in place, and they have these in their agreement.

As the Government of Northwest Territories we put our name in there on that agreement, and we are in agreement, but now, we're saying no to their agreements. We need to have an open mind and fresh eyes to review this, the agreement that is already in place. Even here, my friend, what is he talking about? We need to take a good look at it carefully. As Ministers and MLAs, we all need to take a good look at it. I am sure that we can review this. Right now, I am seeing there are no changes, but the administration tells us that we could do this and cannot do this, but we, as the elected MLAs, need to listen to our communities.

I am thankful for his question, and he knows what is going on in the communities, and I see that myself in my community. He's speaking up for his community. We need to make some changes for things to change in the community. We have four years that we can make changes, and we are supposed to be giving our staff directions, not the administration telling us what to do. Thank you. [End of translation]

I will start by saying, if we have agreements in place, we need to honour our agreements. If we are not honouring our agreements, then we should be held to task for that. That's not okay.

It is more than just the agreements for me. I know that, in the last four years as a Cabinet Minister, we have talked about negotiated contacts quite a bit. Some Ministers said no negotiated contacts is fair, and other Ministers said, as many as possible. We need to be careful with that.

I don't believe in negotiated contacts with private businesses, in all honesty. I believe, though, in negotiated contacts with Indigenous and community governments because I believe in community development. It's not only about the Indigenous governments that have agreements. It is about building the capacity of all Indigenous governments so that they can actually become on the path toward self-government, and it stays in the community. If you support a negotiated contact with an Indigenous government, that money stays within their community. It stays in their region, and they tend to hire their own workers. I have seen exceptions when they didn't have the expertise and they had to go inter-jurisdictional, but they tried to keep as much in their community as possible.

So, again, if we're really taking this truth and reconciliation, about UNDRIP, about self-determination, about self-government, then we need to be willing to open the doors to support our Indigenous governments so that they can succeed as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.