Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not really want to get into a debate about the policy at this time. We have dragged it around the public on two great processes, we have consulted with Members in the committee. As I said, what are we going to do? That is the question. I cannot really give you the specifics, so it is no use to debate that either. I think we should just move along and let myself and Mr. Arlooktoo do our work so that we can make a decision and then share that with the Members here, so that we can then have a substantive debate about something that is real. Right now we are still on the edge of never-never land. I want to get off that edge and do some service to the work and the concerns that Members have here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Henry, any further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Before Mr. Kakfwi responds, may I please caution the Members about being argumentative or casting any dispersions on what the Minister is saying, please, and show some respect. Thank you. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you for coming to my defence.

Mr. Henry, what was your question?

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The policy has been in place for a number of years. It has been applauded by many Members of our community. Recently, it has become the object of some criticism from certain sectors. We buy it but while we cannot measure and give detailed cost breakdown as to the benefits it has provided, we can point to some very visible changes, positive changes that this policy has brought. On the contrary, the critics have yet to bring any substantive numbers to the argument either that says here are some very clear, substantive, decisive reasons why it is to the detriment of the north and the people in the communities that this policy is still in place and should be scrapped.

So I stand on the side of small "c" conservatism on this policy, that if it has done well and is still doing some good, then there is reason to keep it in place. It is also the only shield we have in the global environment, at this time, the free-trade environment to protect our northern businesses. That is a very substantive reason to not mess with the universe the way it is unfolding.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Was that a question?

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Kakfwi.

Madam Chair. There was no question so I gather the Member's comments as to provoke me into responding and I shall be provoked. It is true, that in this case, there has been no premium. It has been no cost to this government and I applaud all those competitive northern businesses that have built themselves up without any government costs over the years doing business with BHP and other places where their services are required. I have no difficulty with that. My comments that the Member is referring to earlier, just mentioned that, as I recall, in the heat of the discussions with BHP in the summer and fall, there was some members of the public and perhaps this Legislature as I recall, that were ready to drop all conditions and say just let BHP get going with its work because if we continue insisting that our conditions be met, we will lose it all. We have the diamond evaluation facility that this government is insisting and working on right now to try to get the federal government to agree in writing that it will be located in the Northwest Territories. There are initiatives that we are doing to ensure that where possible, northern people will be hired and local labour will be used. Local and northern businesses will be utilized to the greatest extent possible. This policy gives us that assurance. As long as it does that, I would say there is a very strong public interest in keeping it in place. Those companies that do not wish to enjoy the benefits of that, they can voluntarily ask themselves to be struck off the list. We would consider that as well. If Mr. Henry wants to give me a list of those companies that he thinks, based in his constituency in Yellowknife who do not want to enjoy the benefits of BIP, perhaps there is some merit in advancing that list. We could look at it.

Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Member said that BIP costs money and I am sure that it does and we are very happy to see them spending their money, hiring northern people, local people, contracting northern and local businesses. I am very happy to see that. Better value for our dollar is reflected in that. BHP could have been a fly-in/fly-out operation, but they knew, well in advance, because of their public relations people, that they were going to have to demonstrate they were going to be good corporate citizens. That they were going to spend their money up here. So they took the initiative and we all the happier for it. "Bang for your buck", I must remind the Member, is not an acceptable phase, and he should, without great prompting retract that. It is not an acceptable phrase and I thought we agreed last year to refrain from using that in this Legislature. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Would the Member like to retract that particular phrase that he used in his comments? I kind of wondered about it myself when you said it. As the Chairperson, I understand, in some people's minds, that particular saying has quite a negative connotation.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Yes, the committee itself dictates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in the committee and I would have to concur with Mr. Kakfwi that I would take that particular phrase "bang for your buck" to be unacceptable. Mr Picco. Did you have something you wanted to say about this particular thing or are you just waiting for your turn?