Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to the Ministerial statement made by the honourable Member Michael McLeod yesterday on improving the GNWT’s capital planning and delivery process and elimination of the Business Incentive Policy, or BIP, as we know it.
There is no doubt in my mind that the capital planning and delivery process does need to be improved, but eliminating the BIP is not the way to do that. I think that any improvements to the capital planning process and delivery should be done in consultation with those in the industry who reside and have money invested on the ground here in the North. I think they and their opinions could be a tremendous asset to undertaking such a review.
It was only a short while after the Ministerial statement was made that I had my first communication from a northern contractor on the need to retain the BIP. Mr. Speaker, the flaws in the Minister’s reasoning are confirmed by the fact that without the BIP even more contractors will move south for the lower operating costs and better networking opportunities. This would mean a loss to the NWT economy of jobs and a loss to the GNWT of the taxes, the workers’ pay and the transfer payments we get from Ottawa for the workers and their families. That is just to name a few of the benefits that would be lost.
If the BIP is gone and companies from the south can bid against our northern companies that have stayed and invested in the North, then the northern companies will be less competitive because of their higher operating costs. If the BIP is scraped, contractors will be seriously looking at relocating to the south, along with the many permanent jobs they provide in our communities.
There has to be middle ground to be found. We have already lost a lot of our capacity when the larger contractors opted to move operations to Alberta to take advantage of opportunities there. We do not want to lose our medium-sized contractors for the same reason.
Mr. Speaker, some of the changes proposed by the Minister, like making sure the capital budget is approved in time to take advantage of winter roads and barge scheduling and improving the class C estimates process, have been discussed in previous government by committees. It is good to see the government would be moving forward on those things. However, there needs to be more consultation on the ending of the BIP program. There needs to be an understanding on the part of the government of just what the actual consequences of eliminating the BIP would be, not just theorizing that by removing the BIP suddenly more contractors will be interested in tendering on government infrastructure projects.