Thank you, Minister McLeod. Final

supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.

Will the Minister agree to have his

department do a comprehensive evaluation of programs and services, the budgeting process and infrastructure needs in small communities?

I think we’ve been doing

quite a bit of that over the last couple of years as we have undertaken the New Deal initiative. We would certainly be happy to share our information with the Member. If there is anything he feels we’ve missed, we certainly can look at providing that information. It’s difficult to say that we would embark on another complete review of all the communities at this point. It’s something I would hesitate to do.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. The

honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Krutko.

The honourable Minister,

Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I’m not sure if it’s a perception that’s not quite correct out there, but there seems to be an assumption that we’ve eliminated the BIP. At this point our recommendation to Cabinet has been that we suspend a portion of the BIP and that the BIP policy will stay in place. We are recommending that a portion not apply, and that is the portion that affects the capital projects. ITI will be taking that out for further discussion. We intend to have further discussion on all our recommendations with committee, and there needs to be a further involvement from the aboriginal governments. At this point it’s a recommendation to which we expect response. Looking at the issues regarding NAFTA and MOUs with the aboriginal governments and land-claim agreements will all be part of that.

Mr. Speaker, I think that whether

tinkering with it or making major changes, we have to know what our footing is when making these changes. If there are some legal implications by making these minor changes, is that going to be perceived as an overhaul of an existing preferential policy that’s in place in the NWT? So again, have you got a legal opinion from Justice in regard to these changes, and is there a possibility we may be watering down our rights that we have by way of preferential treatment under NAFTA?

Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the

aboriginal governments would certainly let us know if they perceived this to be a watering down of their rights. Actually, I will do further exploration on it. There’s no intention to step away from any of the agreements or responsibilities. That information has yet to be compiled.

Mr. Speaker, again, I believe we do

from time to time have to look at the different

policies and procedures we have in place. If they’re not working, let’s tinker with them and try to make them work. But let’s not totally eliminate programs and services because they may not be meeting our objectives. At the end of the day the goal is to build capacity. We are having some major problems out there, especially at the community levels and even in regard to the regional levels, where you only have one major contractor in the Northwest Territories. I think we have to do a better job of inviting people to get into these businesses. I’d like to ask the Minister exactly: have you spoken to the NWT Construction Association or aboriginal organizations in regard to this change?

Mr. Speaker, I haven’t

personally spoken to any of the associations. ITI has talked to a couple of organizations. The Premier has also, I believe, had some feedback from organizations and businesses. It was mentioned in the previous address, and it’s something we feel we need to do. We need to visit, at this point, the way we’re conducting business. It’s really providing a lot of challenges. In our infrastructure committee we have provided, I think, 14 recommendations. This one’s getting a lot of attention.

Having said that, we have to recognize that just about 80 per cent of our tenders that go out are receiving less than two companies bidding on them. In fact, about 15 to 16 per cent of our tenders that went out received nobody bidding on them. We have to really look at how we’re doing business. We’re making a number of recommendations. Some things have to be further explored. ITI has been directed to go out and come back with some options on how we can revisit the BIP. The FMB and we as a committee will be talking further on looking at how we can change the capital-approval system within our own government — giving us time to have the tenders go out earlier, providing that information to potential contractors earlier — so that we have better timing meeting all the delivery schedules and everything else that’s required.

Thank you Mr.

McLeod. Final

supplementary, Mr Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my 13

years here this item has been on the agenda for every Legislature I’ve been a part of and has always been. We’ve had committees; we’ve had special committees. This thing has been worked over probably more than most public items in the Legislature. So I’d just like to ask the Minister if, before we take too many giant steps, we can maybe revisit some of that information, some of those reports, and see what those recommendations are before we make any major expenditures or capital investments going off into another area. I’d just like to ask the Minister that they look at the history of this and bring something

back and also keep the committees informed on this side of the House so we can also have input into the process.

We certainly concur with

the Member’s recommendations. We intend to look at all the information provided up to now, and a number of us would agree; we’ve looked at this a number of times now. However, we have to face the reality that there is a cry out there to deal with this issue again. There are a number of companies and organizations that don’t feel it’s time to do this, but we have to review all the information — review and hear what people have to say. We have to share it with the committee and provide all that feedback to our own infrastructure committee to look at and make the final decisions. We certainly will keep the Members of this House informed.

The honourable Member for Kam

Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on

my colleague Mr. Krutko’s questioning on BIP. I’m unsure, though, whether I should ask the Minister responsible for the

BIP or if I should ask Minister

McLeod. I guess for today’s sake I could ask Minister Michael McLeod. If the government has made this decision to move forward on the application on capital projects, I’m wondering when that will be effective, if the Minister could answer that question for me.

The honourable Minister,

Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you. That is a very

good question and a difficult one to answer. I guess it would depend on how much consultation is going to be required. Our target, from our committee, is to have a lot of these things come into play next year. We wanted to have some very good discussion with the committee about our recommendations, and we actually had hoped we would have the possibility of agreement to move our capital-approval process —that has been mentioned by the Premier — to the fall, which would allow us to start planning approval of capital projects in our fall session rather than in February or March. Some things we’d like to see happen sooner than others. For the BIP we don’t expect to have a decision for another year or so.

If it’s going to take a year, then I’m

wondering why the Minister would stand up in the House yesterday and announce it if we are going to go through the consultation process and get out there and talk to stakeholders and talk to Regular Members on this decision to effect capital projects. I’m wondering if the Minister can answer this question: has the department or the government

done any type of economic analysis to suggest what losses the government would have in the area of corporate taxes and the out-migration of people? There’s a big impact by making a decision like this, and I’m wondering if they’ve done any work in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the Member

knows full well that’s a very difficult area to measure. We will do some analysis, but whether or not we can measure the out-migration and take our best guess — I don’t know if we can go that far. We will do the analysis; that’s what we’re embarking on right now, and we will have ITI do some of that work.

As my colleague Mr. Krutko alluded

to, there have been many studies. There have been lots of reports done and efforts made to find out the cost of this and the benefits. I don’t think we need to reinvent the wheel. What I want to find out is: is this a decision to save $245,000 and a couple of positions? What’s driving this decision? I’d like to ask the Minister that question.

Mr. Speaker, our fiscal

reality, of course, is driving this. We have a huge infrastructure deficit. I think at last count, general estimations were well over $1 billion.

As Members

look at our capital budget of $140-some million, along with carry-over debt, it comes out to $200 million. It’s going to be tough to deal with that infrastructure. We have to do our business more efficiently. We have to have checks and balances in our capital process. BIP seems to have caught everybody’s eye and ear. I think we have to really look at what we’re planning to do. The Premier said fairly clearly in his budget speech that we would look at the BIP and its application to capital projects, but we’d also look at maintaining our commitment to local and northern purchasing. It’s those things we have to keep in mind. We need to have that discussion, and that’s what we plan to do.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Final

supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As long as

the cost-benefit analysis isn’t done after the fact, after this comes into effect — like the Deh Cho bridge, for example.

I’d like to get some reassurance from the Minister that before this becomes effective the government will come back to Regular Members and sit down with stakeholders in this area so we can work on this together and come up with solutions together rather than it just be implemented by the government.