Debates of March 31, 2004 (day 12)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, further to my statement today, my question goes to the Minister of RWED. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this could have been done much better, that we could be providing the necessary housing for the professionals in the community, but if it was done the right way and if there was plenty of planning going on we could have involved the local businesses. Instead we are in a situation where we have a three-month deadline for the barge in June, and we have to find the cheapest way possible. So, Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world I expect these seven Cabinet Ministers to come to the table, they have an issue to discuss, something like waiving the BIP or switching from stick built to mobile homes, I expect that those seven Ministers bring their personal expertise depending on their backgrounds, and then their government expertise. I am not hearing that from the Minister of RWED. I want to know what he is prepared to bring to the table tomorrow so that it is not just a rerun of the same exercise, but that they would really do a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis about sending these works out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 125-15(3): Cost Benefit Analysis Of The BIP

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank the Member for her continued support of northern business. I think that’s very important, and I think it is important for the entire government and this legislature to make sure that that is a priority.

----Applause

The Member does know that the genesis for this program was in the last Assembly. Much of this work and much of the program was quite far down the pipe. So the decision to engage in stick built versus mobile homes was not the nature of our discussions. Our discussion surrounded how to move forward since this decision had been made on rolling out the program and moving to the tender phase of this project.

I will acknowledge, we don’t have a comprehensive picture of how much, and the value of the BIP. We don’t know what it costs us, we presume that there is a premium surrounding the BIP and related to the BIP when it is applied to projects, but we don’t know what that is. I have proposed that April 1st this year, tomorrow, we start to track this cost through our new contracts registry, we track if for a year. At the end of a year we can have an informed discussion about this premium, we will be able to document it. I think at that point we will be in a much better position to do the type of cost benefit analysis that the Member is asking for. I think the Member has a very valid concern in asking for this information. I would love to be able to provide it. I have to tell her, Mr. Speaker, that I can’t do so for a year. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 125-15(3): Cost Benefit Analysis Of The BIP

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer action from the Ministers rather than gratitude. There is something strange that happens in this House. When the Cabinet Ministers get elected they are inflicted instantly with a case of amnesia.

---Laughter

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bell doesn’t have to do a year of study. He knows all of the issues inside out, upside down pertaining to this. He talked about this. And you know what? He doesn’t need a year of registry study, he could just go out there and talk to the people. I know he got a call this morning, I got a call from a business in town who have been providing mobile homes and he tells me I cannot compete with factory costs. I buy lumber from here, I hire electricians from here, I hire plumbers here. I want to ask the Minister, what is the value of that? Thank you.

Minister of RWED, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 125-15(3): Cost Benefit Analysis Of The BIP

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do appreciate that it costs more to locate business in the North, the overhead is more expensive, it costs more to use northern plumbers, to use northern electricians if you are in the construction business. We do appreciate it, we do think it is very important. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, the difficult challenge put to Cabinet was to deliver the most cost-effective housing in small communities who desperately need it, and for that, in weighing the balance we chose that at this point and in this instance that was the utmost priority and that is why we chose to waive the BIP. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 125-15(3): Cost Benefit Analysis Of The BIP

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have been provided with a package of information that we understand was used by Cabinet. There is a figure of how much it costs to buy a mobile home somewhere, something like $65,000, and they put five percent premium, 10 percent premium, 15 percent premium. I really was under the impression that Cabinet operates with better information than this. Mr. Speaker, the government has already engaged in the exemption of BIP on two major projects, and I cannot believe that they do this without taking into consideration the cost of it. Mr. Speaker, the cost savings might be about $10,000 per mobile home, and it is still possible to deliver these mobile units, but buy local. Would the Minister bring that issue to the table? Thank you.

Minister of RWED, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 125-15(3): Cost Benefit Analysis Of The BIP

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, certainly, and I know the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation presented us with some information. We have acknowledged that it was done on the best-case or worst-case scenario basis. We can’t know what the true cost would have been because we don’t know what the outcome of the tender would be. But I will certainly bring forward the points that the Member has made here today to our discussion at Cabinet. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 125-15(3): Cost Benefit Analysis Of The BIP

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister bring to the table, as Minister responsible for the policy as well as maximizing economic benefits for the money that government spends, information that would counterbalance the apparent saving that we are going to get from buying from a factory in Edmonton, such as the taxes we are going to get, the consumer spending, the contributions that the businesses make, the transfer payments we get from Ottawa? Would the Minister get his people to crunch numbers and do a real cost benefit analysis rather than going for the cheapest? Thank you.

Minister of RWED, Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 125-15(3): Cost Benefit Analysis Of The BIP

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will certainly provide and have provided on an aggregate basis GDP in the Northwest Territories, and we can give an estimate of the value of the economy in the Northwest Territories. What becomes very difficult is to determine the incremental loss if one contract goes south as opposed to north. It is very difficult to then make the determination about what kind of a ripple effect that has. When people leave the Northwest Territories, what is the loss of tax? All of these types of things end up being done in the hypothetical. I think we could certainly put together information as far as the value of the economy in the North for our discussion tomorrow. Thank you.