Thank you, Madam Chair. The intent of the BIP as laid out by the Minister in another document, is a good one and that is how to keep things in the north. The issue is that of implementation and the complex system that we have created in trying to meet that goal. But no matter how we try to put additional rules in place to make sure that the policy is honoured, it seems that there are ways developed to circumvent the system that is in place. Going through one or two or sometimes three northern companies before bringing in people from the south. The whole issue of storefronting that is laid out in the work done by the committee. So the question to me is how do we make changes that are going to improve the system and can we do anything substantive given the complexity of this particular policy and the fact my community, like Mr. Roland's, and like this House is split on the issue. Some people think that BIP is very essential and should be enhanced and improved. Other people think that we could do away with it or people think that it is just corporate welfare. I think there is a clear need to maintain northern business in the north, government money in the north but how do we do that. I think that the committee that was struck came up with some good recommendations. The one issue that I think we have to make decisions on and not study any further is the one of the grandfather clause. I think we should be very clear identifying that corporations that make billion dollar profits, that are internationals, should probably not be covered under BIP. That was not the intent of the program.

My own preference, I still think there is hope for the Yukon model where they give you a tax incentive at the end once you have completed the work. That you do not have all these up front costs and structures in place trying to monitor things ahead of time. Before the contract starts is the way to go in the long run, but I do not think that we are going to be able to make substantive changes given the complex nature of this particular policy prior to division. So I think that we should seriously look at the recommendations of the committee and the ones that they reached consensus on we should concur with, and then maybe talk a bit about the ones where there was no consensus but wide clear direction. As the Minister said, I do not think it is a case of studying things, even like the grandfather clause any further. But we should say something definitive on the issue as an Assembly to provide clarity for the next 800 days because I am sure that this particular policy will be debated at length after division as well as each new territory seeks to chart its own path through this particular area. Thank you, Madam Chair.