Yes, I would like to bring in some witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me today on my left, the deputy minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. On my right, the executive director of Resources and Economic Development within the department. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we could maybe stick to the seven recommendations and go through line by line and, if that is acceptable to the rest of the Members here, that is the process we will follow?

Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening remarks, I believe it is time to make decisions and we have done extensive consultation. We have some options. We can do away with the policy. We can leave it as it is or we can come forward with some changes and some amendments. I should let the Members know here that we, at least as a Minister and with my colleague Mr. Arlooktoo, we have yet to finalize our position. I think we are prepared to go to Cabinet with our recommendations in the very near future and to share that with the Legislature at the earliest instance. So I am prepared to meet with my officials and Mr. Arlooktoo and go forward to Cabinet with my recommendations at this time and, of course, taking very seriously the recommendations that were made by the working group. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well it is correct, what the Minister says. It is time to make some decisions but I

am still a bit in the dark as to what exactly this particular program and thrust of the government costs? How much of the territorial budget is devoted to the BIP? I would like to be able to get an answer to that as a starter. Second question I have is, the Minister himself has pointed out that many of the objectives of this policy have been met and I agree with him. Competitiveness was an issue back in the 1980s and early 90s so that northern companies could get the contracts and then to ensure that there was maximum northern content and maximum northern labour. If that has been achieved, and it has been achieved, can any contracts in future not stipulate that it should have a northern labour content and a northern materials content? So perhaps the Minister could address those questions for me.

Mr. Chairman, as we have said on numerous occasions we are not able to quantify it in the manner that the Member is seeking. I think we know that there are extensive benefits that are a result of this policy and he would have to accept it on good faith that the benefits far exceed the costs. It is beneficial to leave this policy in place to ensure continuity of the benefits. It is my view that the government has a vested interest in maintaining this policy, unless it is clearly demonstrated that it is detrimental to the economic development of the north and that the policy is obstructionist and is a direct detriment to the further development of our economy. One of the reasons is that in the internal treaty agreement with other jurisdictions in this country, all jurisdictions have sought to have certain exemptions made. Otherwise, free trade prevails. In our case, the one exemption we have is this business incentive policy. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. Some of us do remember, those of us that have grown up in small communities, this fly- in/fly-out operation has long since been identified and dealt with. We now have hotels in our little communities where we did not have them before. We have construction companies where we did not have them before. We have people working in our communities where no one would hire them before. So there is some real visible benefits that we see. The government, for instance, took a very strong position in regard to the recent BHP proposal. We said, and drew a line in the sand that said, you hire our people, you give business to our companies or we are not prepared to support you at all. I am not certain that every Member of this Legislature was behind us on that strong stance. We delivered and maybe some of the companies from Yellowknife and Hay River would not be providing services to BHP had it not been for us. Maybe they would have got it anyway, but perhaps they would have just been a fly-in/fly-out operation, which was the way it seemed oriented to go in the first place.

In any case, perhaps there is even a way that BIP would not need to apply to certain places if there is felt to be no longer a need for it. So I would have to suggest to the Members that, do I need to have it quantified before I insist that it continue to apply? In the small communities, I would say not. Every time I go into a small community, I see the benefits of it. Thank you.

Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a piece of information, a document that had been received when we had discussed this previously last year. When I saw that document I was very pleasantly surprised by the degree of competitiveness of northern companies whereby I think that we need to dispel the myth that the business incentive policy comes into effect on every purchase made by this government. I would like the Minister or his staff to confirm for me that many times when prices and bids are sought, what in fact happens is that in some instances, northern companies are actually less and in other instances, they may only be a small percentage over a southern contractor, in which case the full percentage advantage of the business incentive policy never comes into play. In fact it is much smaller, it is more of an insurance type thing. In fact, if the Members were aware of how many times that it is not actually an added cost, they would be pleasantly surprised. Could the Minister confirm that is indeed the case?

I am going to ask Mr. Andrew Gamble to respond to that question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I was fairly alarmed when this was previously discussed to hear Members taking the total capital expenditures and O and M expenditures of this government and arbitrarily tacking on an additional 10 or 15 percent and coming up and touting that as the cost of the business incentive policy. So I wanted clarification on that because, in fact, that is not a very accurate way of assessing what the business incentive policy costs this government. I believe the Minister may have already, in some part, responded to this but as was stated, no one usually makes a move unless the consequences are contemplated and the cost of such a move is measured. So at this time, when we have got our economy to the level of maturity and growth that we have got it to, I feel that it would be reckless to make any significant changes to this business incentive policy that might cause a detrimental impact to business in the north.

I would like the Minister's assurance that this will not be the case. This will not happen until such time as this has been fully considered. Having said that though, I do agree that we have been talking about this far too long. We need to get on to other matters. I would just like the Minister's assurance that there will not be any rash moves or changes made that could have a detrimental impact on northern business.

Mr. Chairman, it is time to be very politically sensitive to concerns to Members from all parts of the north, so this is no time to be abrupt or sudden or dramatic in the changes that we propose, especially in regard to policies that affect the business community and the economic well-being of our business community. So I can assure the Members that whatever we go forward to Cabinet with, shall surely be a well measured, calculated, well thought out move. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue, or one of the issues that I would like the Minister to address, is the recommendations of the working group in this report. The one specifically where there was consensus among the Members, the MLAs, Cabinet and Ordinary Members. Is the intent to take those ones and act on them? The ones where there were consensus? Or are you just going to take them into consideration?