Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for the Subcommittee on Infrastructure, Mr. Michael McLeod. It’s in relation to my statement earlier with regard to the Business Incentive Policy. More importantly, we have these policies, and we have the ability as Northerners to receive preferential treatment on different types of contracts in the North and also to be exempt from certain federal and national implications such as free trade. There is also the trade agreement between the provinces and arrangements in land-claim agreements. I think as government we have to realize that sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. It might be that in the long run we’re looking at saving money, but the problem I see is that under the free trade agreement we have certain exemptions because we’re grandfathered with the policies we have in place.
I’d like to ask the Minister: have you looked at the legal and political implications of making these changes through NAFTA, through land-claim agreements and other agreements we have in place that give us preferential treatment?
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.
