I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs some questions about the RFP for bundled implementation for the five-community water treatment plants. I know that the Minister advised us yesterday that all is in order, but I am concerned about the process that has taken place. The Minister stated in the House yesterday that “this contract for procurement is still in process. I am very reluctant to speak to something that has ongoing negotiations.”
Once an RFP is completed, the evaluation has been done and the winner declared, is it standard practice to enter into negotiation with the winning proponent?
That is correct. In the case of an RFP, if the RFP process allows for further discussion and negotiation to the highest-rated company, that can be done.
That seems a little unusual. Why would one bother to put a request for proposal together and get numbers and figures and so on if it is only going to be negotiated once the proposal has been done? It seems strange to me, as well, that if negotiations are taking place with the winning proponent, the losing proponent doesn’t have the opportunity to negotiate terms and conditions. If the Minister could elaborate, please.
Mr. Speaker, it is not at all unusual for a company to have further discussions with our government if there is an area that needs clarification or further discussion.
Clarification — yes, I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Minister. However, there are a number of things about this process that don’t smell right to me. The selected proponent was pitching this project to the five communities at least a year and a half ago, and the selected proponent helped MACA set up the proposal call document for the RFP. Is this standard procedure for a request for procedure process?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to correct the Member: we were the ones pitching the concept of bundling the project. We had serious problems attracting people to bid on these projects when they were put out on individual tenders. The costs that did come in on some of these other projects that are a concern to us were very high. We went to the communities. We sought out a company to give us a feasibility study on this concept, and we presented it to cabinet and decided to go on an open call for, first of all, a request for qualifications. We had five companies respond. We went to the next step and put out a request for proposals. There is nothing unusual about that.
It can cost the bidder for a project of this size up to $400,000 to develop a good proposal, with no guarantee of success. The process used in this case suggests to me that it was the intent of MACA to give the project to the winning proponent from the start. If that was the department’s intent, why do an RFP at all? Why not just sole-source the project in the first place, and save the other proponent the cost of developing the proposal?
There seems to be some assumption that we went into this with a decision that was already made about whom we would select. Of course, this is not at all correct. We haven’t awarded the contract; there is still more discussion ongoing. The process was fair. We had a committee, an independent evaluation ongoing. We’ve had advice from Justice, and I don’t know what more we could add to that. The company that has been informed that they weren’t ranked the highest has been given some time, and they will get a debriefing.
As for the cost, I would really beg to differ that it cost $400,000. However, there is, in the request for proposal, an allowance made for a company to get some reimbursement.
Mr. Speaker, in a couple of weeks the trapping season is going to start up in Inuvik, and that’s when all the trappers go out and do their muskrat trapping. It’s been a way of life for many years. But this year we might be running into some problems if we don’t get our gas issue taken care of and dealt with.
I’d like to direct my questions today to the Premier. I’d like to ask him what the government is doing to help mediate the fuel shortage in Inuvik.
Mr. Speaker, we have in fact been working. The Public Works and Services Petroleum Products Division has been in contact with community members as well, and Imperial Oil — their representatives, the agent — to try to come up with some information so we know where we’re starting from; and then as well making contact to get further information as to what the plans are for ensuring the community has a sufficient amount of gas and fuel for the winter season.
Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to ask the Premier. He did mention that we were in contact. But I’d like to ask him if we’ve had regular communication with NTCL, who was supposed to deliver the fuel, and Esso, who was supposed to load the fuel into the barge. Have we had contact with them as to what went wrong, and why it went wrong, and if there’s anything that…? Have they taken responsibility?
Mr. Speaker, the work that we have been doing is ensuring that there’s fuel available in the community, working with Imperial on that side. We are aware of some of the comments or the issues between NTCL and Imperial. We’ve tried to gather information on that side.
When it comes right down to it, we have a limited role that we can play. But we are concerned and we are sharing that concern that it doesn’t matter to us, as representatives, if it was a community we served or the private sector: their arrangements to get fuel or supplies to a community are their business. But they should ensure that it gets there, and if they’ve made a mistake or an error, that cross shouldn’t be passed on to the individuals.
We’re still working on the fact that they need to supply the community, and it shouldn’t be based on rationing anything.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier. We’ve already heard that the cost is being passed on to the consumers, which is unfortunate. But as a government, would we be able to truck gas in to ensure gas stations at least have their supply of gas to serve the community?
Mr. Speaker, if the companies or the delivery agent — or not the delivery agent, because the delivery agent is for Imperial, but the companies — that pump out gas in that community would make a request, we would consider that. We know in fact when there was talk of potential shortage, through the Petroleum Products Division, an offer for 400,000 litres was made. We were informed it wasn’t required.
Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Premier. He said that we were informed that that $400,000 wasn’t required. Who actually informed us them that the fuel was not required?
Mr. Speaker, a correction: it was 400,000 litres of fuel.
When it first came up, our communication between the Petroleum Products Division and Imperial was to see if, in fact, there was a shortfall that needed to be addressed. We had some volume that we felt we could allow them to use and reimburse us later. We were informed at that point that that was not necessary. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Transportation.
I don’t know how it’s going to relate, but it was certainly good news to finally sign off on the Building Canada Fund this afternoon. Some of my questions, of course, like with many of my colleagues, are on exactly how it’s going to roll out and how it’s going to play out. More specifically, say there is a project like chip sealing the remainder of Highway No. 1 and Highway No. 7. How would that fit in the scheduling and planning of allocating those funds?
Mr. Speaker, we have a lead Minister that’s dealing with the Building Canada Fund on the infrastructure side, that being Minister McLeod, so I’d ask that that be redirected to Minister Michael McLeod. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we have a two-phase process that’s identified for the initiatives under the Building Canada plan. The first phase was signed off today, and that includes the amount of money we’d be receiving through this fund and also a commitment for ongoing investment in the gas tax program. The next step will be to sign off on the financial agreement, and we expect that to start taking place. We have identified the areas that the investments will be required in, and those are the areas of transportation and municipal governments or communities.
On the municipal side we’ve started the discussion with the NWT Association of Communities to see how we can flow the dollars to the communities. It hasn’t been decided whether it will be by project or on a formula. We have to also consult with the federal government on whether these processes will be allowable.
From the transportation side the Department of Transportation will be packaging up a comprehensive list of what projects may be eligible, and that will include everything that’s in the capital plan, everything that has been brought forward as part of the strategies, Corridors for Canada, and other projects that have been identified through our own strategic plan with the 16th Assembly. That will be brought forward and shared with the Members so that we can have discussion on it. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, that’s certainly something that our communities will be very anxious to get to work on and help government with their priorities.
Just with respect to some of the commitments that were in Corridors for Canada, I believe the Deh Cho Connection was listed in there. In having that on the long-term priorities, it sounds like they have to redo another set of priorities working with the federal government. Can the Minister detail how that’s going to play out? Is it a 15-year capital plan, or is it an annual capital plan? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, in the discussions that we had earlier on with committees, it started out that there was some desire to see a long-term investment plan put together that would cover all the seven years. That’s something that’s up for consideration. However, as the Member knows, that would have to be approved on an annual basis. We’re trying to put enough information together so that we can have a good discussion on it and identify the different areas that need investments. I should also point out that there was a motion passed in this House for a couple of projects to be considered.
This whole agreement is based on investment from the federal government. It also requires investment from the Territorial government of 25 per cent. With any projects that are not on the capital plan or are coming from communities or are in one of the strategies, we’d have to have enough comfort that we can identify the 25 per cent. So those things will have to be considered and allowed for. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, of course exciting news with this announcement. Just in terms of the general public, when can we see some impacts, whether it’s municipal or transportation projects being delivered, as a result of this announcement and expenditure? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I think we’re starting to see some of that already. Today the federal government announced that they’d like to move forward with the Kakisa Bridge, something that’s in our interim appropriation, so we’re quite excited about that. I’m already getting the sense that we’re campaigning for projects in the different ridings.
Mr. Speaker, we fully expect to have and be able to have some discussion with my cabinet colleagues and also the Regular Members. Sometime in mid-March for sure, if we’re going to do anything this year, we’ll have to have them approve it in the main. That will be sometime in the third week of March. So we’ll really need to get going on these initiatives and start putting things together. Thank you.
Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to grasp the sense, as well, of how this is going to play out with our recent announcements of cutbacks, and now we’re looking at some reinvestment. Would this be classified as a reinvestment?
Mr. Speaker, of course, our capital investment is based on some of our surplus and our ability to borrow. This actually helps us in a way, that any projects that are on our capital list or on our needs are now being invested in from our side with 25-cent dollars. So it will help us. It should free up some dollars for reallocation and maybe loosen up the tight squeeze we’re in. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of Transportation. Is the construction of the Mackenzie Highway through the Mackenzie Valley and right to the Beaufort Sea a priority of this Minister and the government?
Mr. Speaker, the Premier’s special statement highlighted the Mackenzie Valley Highway right up to the Arctic coast. It’s been the priority of this department, it’s been the priority of this government for a long time, and I think it’s been a priority of the people of Nunakput.
Mr. Speaker, what is the role of the federal government with respect to the construction of new roads in the N.W.T? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, since the 1980s the Territorial government has assumed responsibility for the highways. It’s always been our point and the point of this government that the responsibility for new highway infrastructure is the federal government’s responsibility, and this government is working very closely with the federal government in terms of seeking out new infrastructure in the Northwest Territories. I’m going to continue to lead that with the federal government. However, we are working on possible partnerships in terms of infrastructure that would benefit all people of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, given that the road to the Arctic coast is a priority of this government, the federal government has the responsibility for new roads in the N.W.T. Now we have access to federal infrastructure funds for N.W.T. transportation and municipal projects. Can the Minister please commit to looking at work that we could include under the agreement to initiate the priority of a section of my access road into source 177? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the members of the standing committee and honourable colleagues on this side, Members of the House, working with stakeholders and businesses, people in all areas of the Northwest Territories so that we have access, opportunities to talk about funding and working in partnership. I commit that this department will do its best in terms of working with all stakeholders in ensuring that funding, if possible, can be available through the type of agreements that we have. Minister Michael McLeod signed this afternoon with the federal government in terms of ensuring that investment down the Mackenzie Valley is well spent by this government.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my Member’s statement, we are currently faced with $135 million in budget reductions over the next two years. My question is to the Premier. I believe the departments have been tasked by cabinet to identify areas for reduction. What criteria were provided to the departments to assist them in identifying areas for reduction? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we went through an exercise of allocation and, as well, giving guidelines as to what could be considered for savings or for reallocation or reinvestment. Some of the criteria of our programs — mandatory delivery programs, or what we’re legislated to do — is something that would have to be reviewed by every department. For the other areas, for example, we sat down in the 16th Assembly and came up with our vision, goals and priorities. Along with that, we’ve turned those into the strategic investment initiatives and highlighted a number of areas for reinvestment. The departments were informed that they were to look at other areas that were outside of the reinvestment as a potential area as well. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, how do these criteria affect the critical positions in this government such as those of nurses? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the departments are well aware of the challenges in delivering the services to our communities large and small. They are having a difficult time meeting the demands. As the Member has highlighted, the nursing side has always been a challenge in our communities. So the departments, as they’ve come through that scenario, again were mandated to deliver programs at levels in communities that still have to be met through this exercise. As we go through this exercise, Health has its overall target to meet, but it also has to look at the delivery it is mandated to deliver for people in the North. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, in the announcement of the reductions there was reference to reinvestment. If the government is looking for $135 million, how much will actually be reinvested back into the public service? How will it be done, and what criteria for reinvestment will be used? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the reduction scenario and areas where we need to find permanent savings is in the area of $60 million. The target for reinvestment, putting back into the strategic areas, as we’ve highlighted in the 16th Legislative Assembly, is targeted at $75 million. We’re going to have to start at a smaller pace because we realize that we won’t be able to achieve the savings, number one, and enough savings to reinvest, number two. So it will start off at a smaller pace and grow for the life of this Assembly as we continue to reinvest. Thank you.
Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker, $135 million is a lot of money. It’s going to be hard to find these dollars. What will happen if we don’t reach the targets that have been set by this government?
Mr. Speaker, if we don’t change the course we’re on today, before the end of the life of this government we will be in a dire situation. We would not be able to carry forward the business as laid out. We have to remind ourselves sometimes that we are spending $1.2 billion for 43,000 people in the Northwest Territories.
There’s got to be a way. We’re starting to do that exercise, and we’ll be more so in the second year of government, re-focusing and looking at how we spend that money and what the results are for that investment. I think we have to consider it as an investment. It’s not just an expenditure; it’s an investment in the people of the Northwest Territories. If we don’t change that, we will, in fact, be in a situation where we won’t be able to continue on with capital projects. We’ll have to reduce those. We’ll have to take a serious look at all the delivery programs we have.
Mr. Speaker, I’ve got some questions today for the Minister of Human Resources. It gets back to my Member’s statement from earlier today where I talked of it taking months to fill vacant positions within the G.N.W.T. public service. Also, some grievances that I’m aware of are two and a half years in duration.
I’d like to ask the Minister what standards are in place in the department in terms of time frames to make sure the positions are filled in a timely and efficient manner and that grievances are addressed.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to staffing, we have some guidelines that we adhere to. With regard to grievances or arbitration, it depends on at what level the union submits their grievances.
