Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, too, will be supporting the motion. I have a fundamental problem with the approach that's being taken by this government and it's in regard to NAFTA, the free-trade agreement, and also the agreement on internal trade; especially on the grandfather provision that deal with the different policies and procedures that exist today. By changing our existing Business Incentive Policy, does that now exclude the rest of the policies that we have negotiated, such as sole-sourcing and other policies in this government? Because that's what I'm afraid of, that's exactly what this is doing. I feel that as a government we have to ensure we protect ourselves from the larger powers that be with regard to the business community across Canada and also North America. I think it's important as a government that we do not find ourselves making these changes and not really understanding what the political implications of these policy changes are.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about the whole consultative process that was used. Especially under the Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement, it's clear that the Government of the Northwest Territories shall consult with the Gwich'in Tribal Council when developing modifications to its preferential contracting policies, procedures and approaches. Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear there's a consultative process that has to be followed. Consultation means (a) the provision of the party to be consulted, the notice of the matter to be discussed, and a significant form of detail to allow the party to prepare its views on those matters; and, (b) provisions of this reasonable period of time in which the party will be consulted and can prepare its views on the matters and provisions and an opportunity to present such views to the party obligated to consult; and, (c) to ensure full and fair consideration to the parties obligated to consult on its views that it has presented.

Mr. Speaker, I know the consultation process that we use in the government is usually we fly in, you have a meeting. That is not consultation. Consultation as it's spelled out means you have to have meaningful involvement and notice has to be given, and you have to have the allowable time to present your views and opinions. For myself, I don't believe that has happened. Especially in our land claims agreements, as a government we have different obligations by way of revisions to the existing Wildlife Act which, to date, didn't go anywhere in the four years of this government. Again, it's another land claim obligation that has been defunct by this government. So I feel that we as a government have to go back and re-look at the implication of what this Cabinet decision is and not move on it at this time because the extent of this change is so significant and not knowing what the implications will be in the long term is too great a risk.

So I suggest to the government that you hold off on any changes and that you do a thorough review and ensure that the obligations you have under the comprehensive land claim agreements are looked at, and as government we do what's best for the Northwest Territories and realize what the implications are down the road. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, too, will be supporting this motion. I was somewhat split initially, Mr. Speaker, as I'm aware of one company in my constituency that would benefit from this because they've been excluded by previous changes to this. But, Mr. Speaker, there are far too many other businesses that would be impacted negatively by this policy change, and not knowing the full impact of it would be one of the things I think we need to find out more about before proceeding to this.

I guess one can say, Mr. Speaker, this business incentive policy has always been one that has brought concerns from all sides of the table and been reviewed many times over. I can recall in the 13th Assembly when a joint committee was established to do something. At the end of the day when they reported back, they did not proceed with it. So I guess one shouldn't totally be negative on the department as they've been pushed to make changes, and now that the changes have been suggested, there's negative feelings on it and the feeling that it's not the right way.

But, Mr. Speaker, when questions were given to the department by Members of this Assembly, we felt that responses given were not accurate enough or were devoid of some information, and that just didn't lend to making good decisions on behalf of the businesses of the Northwest Territories. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of this motion as well. I am not going to make a lengthy statement because I do believe that points are very well covered in the motion itself, and my colleague from Yellowknife, Mr. Dent, outlined some major points that I wanted to say, and so has everyone else. So I don't want to go back to all the points made.

But I do want to say a few things, and one is that before I came to the Assembly, when I was campaigning, I didn't run into anybody who liked BIP. Everyone had a problem with the current BIP policy. But the fact is, now everybody is saying they want to keep the old policy. They hate the new policy. I don't know how. I mean, we have failed in our job if somehow the changes being proposed by the Minister are falling so short that they would rather have the current one that they were unanimous in not liking. So, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that should say something about the need for the Minister and this government to revisit and address some of the major concerns that have been raised. The major concerns such as encouraging and enabling store fronting was a major issue in the original policy, but now with the new policy we've even made it worse. A $1 million cap on a project is a problem for many people. Lack of monitoring and enforcing the rules and lack of resources to do that is a big problem.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest concern I have is the fact that this could have been a good-news item. We could have really done something with this policy change, we could have really made a difference. I know that the government was off on good footing by starting a consultation process at the beginning of the mandate. The people went out and they spoke about what concerns they had about the existing policy. But it appears that the Minister has not been listening. I don't know if he has been otherwise preoccupied. I can tell you, I have this thick document here of all the correspondence that our committee has exchanged with the Minister. We have met with the Minister, I have notes, pages and pages of notes of concerns that the Members raised. I believe the Members were completely willing to work on this revised policy to make the policy better. But to date, all the major concerns that we had were not addressed.

I still remember the day in August when I got a call from a colleague at 10:00 in the morning to say the Minister was holding a press conference about the revised BIP policy, and asking if I was going to be there. Mr. Speaker, I say to you, in a consensus government, we're supposed to be involved in the decision-making process on an issue as big as this where we have expended government money to do consultation and to engage this much time. Yet, that announcement to change the policy happened in the middle of the summer when there was nobody in the building, without any notice to us, and then there it was.

I went to the press conference in my shorts hoping that maybe there was a big announcement to make there. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you neither the Minister nor the deputy minister could answer what the cost of this policy is at the moment. Yet in his statement, the Minister said we have to change this because the policy as it exists now is costing the government too much money. When the reporter asked him how much it was costing him, the Premier and Minister both said we don't know, but we know it's costing us money.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to change a major policy like this. It's really making a mockery out of what we are going through here, and it really is too bad, Mr. Speaker. I feel very sad about that, because I really believe that this was an opportunity missed, an opportunity with which we could have really made a real difference. I don't believe that it would be right for the Minister to forge ahead and implement this policy to be effective three days after the session is out.

I really would like to request the Minister take seriously the motion being presented here and arguments that we are making, and rescind the revision and leave it to the next Assembly to make the necessary changes. I do also want to say that some of the points that are introduced in the new policy could work for us, it's just that there are too many points that are not going to work.

Mr. Speaker, like Mr. Roland, I did have a constituent who said that they would be happy to see the new revised policy come into effect because at the moment that business does not qualify. I know that that business, in particular, probably is not happy that I'm not speaking here for the new policy, but I can tell you that I have to weigh the balance of feedback from the constituents, and I can tell you I don't have anybody else who supports this new policy. I've had hundreds of calls and letters from people who oppose this new idea.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish by reading a letter from a constituent of mine sent last week, and I think this really speaks to a lot of concerns that local businesses have. Local businesses that are here and they're here to stay, they're small businesses, they still rely on government contracts and they should be rewarded for making commitments in the North.

Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say, "As a northern supplier to the Northwest Territories, I feel that the proposed changes to the BIP will adversely affect our business. As an electrical distributor we have moved our operation to Yellowknife earlier this year to make sure we would be able to meet the intentions of the original Business Incentive Policy. After investing in a newer house, hiring two people and soon a third from Yellowknife, paying NWT taxes, using all local services, it looks like things are about to change. We have made a large investment in the NWT and are not just a storefront business. We have local inventory for the contractors, never mind the fact that we provide local competition to the Yellowknife market. This in turn saves money to the contractors that is passed on to the local consumer. We now incur all of the costs of doing business in the NWT, I don't think it would be fair to let southern businesses who have far less operating costs enjoy the same benefit as northern companies, without first stepping up to the plate and investing and making a long-term commitment to the people of the NWT."

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this letter shares the sentiment of many others, including the NWT Construction Association, who have made it known to us that the revised Business Incentive Policy not only doesn't deal with the problems of the old but it will create a whole new set of new ones and we have to change them. So I support the motion to rescind the revision and to stick with the old until we can do a better job of revising. Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I am rising to speaking in favour of the motion. My colleagues have covered a lot of ground on this, all of which I agree and concur with. I would especially like to compliment Mr. Bell on his discussion about the need to adhere to the principles of consensus, and how we need to work at making the system work.

The point that I would like to underscore, Mr. Speaker -- I'm sure it's been covered to some extent but is a very significant one to me -- is that initiatives at this time are essentially ones of economic benefit or economic influence in our society and in the way we do business. Unless we have ways to easily and reliably and consistently measure what the impact is of these kinds of initiatives, they really become very difficult ones for MLAs to take responsibility for, Mr. Speaker. How can I really know that the taxpayer or the government is getting fair measure for any kind of incentive or benefit program like this if we can't measure it?

On the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, how can I be assured that the business community, the business owners and distributors are genuinely receiving something that enables them to continue business in the North that would otherwise potentially make it impossible or at best very marginal for them to be here? So that's essentially the only point that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, was that it's so important, it's of growing importance to the taxpayers who are seeing this across the country to be able to measure what we do to be able to know how significant it is and to know what kind of value we're getting for it.

This is something that has been absent in the old BIP. I don't see much evidence of it at all in the new one, and until some kind of mechanism comes along that all sides in this debate can agree on, we can't get by with arbitrary yardsticks or criteria here. We have to have measuring sticks that all sides can agree to use. This is going to be an impossible piece of work to really assess its impact. So until we have that piece of work in hand, Mr. Speaker, this initiative will not receive my support. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Nitah.

Mahsi, Mr. Nitah. To the motion. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Antoine.

That wasn't its purpose.

Mahsi, Mr. Minister. To the motion. To conclude the debate on the matter before the House, the mover of the motion, Mrs. Groenewegen, you will have the final comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, after my colleagues spoke I thought there could barely be another topic to touch on, but now after hearing the Minister speak before the voting on this motion I could stand up here for a long time and respond to some of the things he said because they, in many cases, are pulling information out of the air which cannot be substantiated.

We talk about the cost and the premium. The reason why we asked for the moratorium for one year so we could collect good data was so that we could see what the premium was on having the business incentive policy. To just add an arbitrary five or ten percent onto the amount of contracts that have been issued by this government is really quite reckless.

When it comes to Northwest Territories communities bidding with each other and they're both 'BIPed,' I mean, I would submit to the Minister that many times there is no premium paid at all because there's already a competitive process that addresses that. What the business incentive policy was intended to do...and I commend the architects of the business incentive policy. I think it was a good policy when it was put together a number of years ago and I think it's served a useful purpose and I think it will continue to. We keep talking about not knowing what the business incentive policy costs us. I would like to, Mr. Speaker, suggest that we don't know what the negative impact of these revisions is going to cost our business community. I would say that there's been very little attention paid to what the ramifications are of these changes that the Minister is suggesting.

I don't know how we are going to undo the damage from that. We talked about our internal trade agreement and the fact that the agreement that we have in place right now was grandfathered. When we start playing around with that and changing that I'm not sure that we can ever have a hope of going back to the original policy that we had.

So I would say that the public consultation that the Minister refers to where his department went out and solicited comments from the community, I would like the Minister to look at this side of the House and the constituents that we represent and the overwhelming concerns that have been raised to him. We represent constituents. We represent business communities. We represent people who have contacted us and, as Ms. Lee said, the contact with our offices on this particular issue has been very substantive.

So I'm really quite amazed at the Minister's reluctance to listen to the Members on this side of the House and to not just do what he committed to do, and that was to collect information for one year. Some of the Members have touched on the message that comes to us with respect to whether consensus government actually works or not. We were quite heartened when we met with the Minister earlier this year and explained our concerns and were granted the concession that he would collect the information for us and would provide that too so we could make an informed decision. All of a sudden this absolute reversal and we've wondered about what the motive could possibly be for it. Now we hear that it is a cost-saving measure. I would again submit that we have no idea what this is going to cost.

I want to raise this subject, Mr. Speaker, with the sub-trades, the $1 million cap on the construction companies. A lot of business that has developed in the North as a result of this business incentive policy was as a result of the more level playing field that was created between companies that provide electrical, mechanical, those types of sub-trade services on construction projects. By putting this $1 million cap on there, I think we are really putting at risk a lot of the sub-trades that have developed and grown up in the North and who have significant overhead and significant payrolls and contribute very greatly to the business community in their respective communities.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else we can say to the Minister about this. It sounds as if his mind is made up. But this will become an election issue, Mr. Speaker, and I would respectfully request that the honourable Minister, in the days between now and October 15th, consider this again and I would also ask the Premier to allow the Cabinet to have a free vote on this and I would like a recorded vote on this because I believe the business community is watching. They'll be very interested in knowing who in this House supports this business incentive policy which definitely supports the economy of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Debate on the motion has been concluded and a recorded vote has been requested by the honourable Member moving the motion. Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

Recorded Vote

Thank you. All those opposed to the motion, please stand. Thank you. All those abstaining from the motion, please stand.

Thank you. The vote on the motion is concluded. We'll just wait for the results. The results of the vote: those in favour, 11; those opposed, zero; those abstaining, seven. The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Minister Ootes.