Debates of February 8, 2008 (day 3)

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about these difficult times where we have to go back to considering reductions and strategies for that, a couple of pieces of work were left unfinished, I would like to say, in the 15th Assembly. On the boards and agency review, which looked at strategically refocusing on how we do business, I’d like to know from the Premier — this is one suggestion I’m going to put out today; I’m going to give another one in the next question — would you revive this initiative and take a serious look at it? If our boards and agencies are costing us a lot of money and not providing a lot for services and programs, would he consider that as part of this reduction strategy?

One of the initiatives was looking at refocusing government — lead Minister was Mr. Miltenberger in that area. That is already a part of the equation to be reviewed.

Thank you, Premier. To continue along the theme of my suggestions and to make sure they’re included…. I got a phone call today from a constituent on two separate but similar matters, so I’ll put them both in the same question.

Mr. Speaker, some of the cost reduction ideas — and I’m glad to hear boards and agencies will be part of this — are negotiated contracts. Negotiated contracts, they’re convinced — and I think they’re right — cost us more than public tenders.

The other thing is allowing employees to use flexibility when they do things like make travel plans. For example, we tell them that they have to go travel one certain way, but we don’t allow them to find the cheapest option. And now in fiscally restrained times, we are telling them to buckle down and show initiative. Well, if we can find ways to do business cheaper, are we going to create that type of flexibility by both stopping negotiated contracts and allowing employees to find cheaper ways to do business?

Mr. Speaker, one of the other areas we have initiated in this government is the infrastructure committee, which will look at how we deliver infrastructure: the timing, the processes, negotiated contracts. There’s a policy overall, government-wide, that is used by departments. We would have to do, in a sense, a case-by-case analysis to see if in fact there was a savings. The other fact of that is, when we talk about sustainable community, it is a way of initiating economic development in our smaller communities. So that’s a balance we have to look at as well.

I was just going to call it quits until the Premier mentioned one thing, which was “if there was a savings.”

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that when you have an RFP — a request for proposal; that is, you request a proposal for a contract tender, and you get a comparison dollar figure on a product, and hopefully it’s the same kind of product they’re offering when it goes out to bid…. But when you do a negotiated contract, you have nothing to compare it to. You just sort of go in and say, “What’s the best price?” And then, “Can we live with it in our budget?”

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier initiate a process that reviews the situation of negotiating contracts and ensures that we stop it in sort of market-style communities? I’m not suggesting that in little, tiny, small communities we don’t consider the negotiated process; I’m saying in large market communities such as Yellowknife, Inuvik, Fort Smith, Hay River and even Simpson. Those types of places are large enough that they have a real economy.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a process we’ll have to look at. Right now, for example, any negotiated contract that is left, we require the department to report back on the benefits and the costing. We have looked at the fact that some of those contracts have come back at a lower cost than we would have achieved had we gone out to the public tender process. There are times when we look at it, after looking at the economic benefit…. We have to look at some of the initiatives that are underway. For example, we have two MOUs now signed in the Territory that talk about providing benefits to aboriginal organizations. So that is something that we have to take into consideration as we review this area.

The Premier brings up a good point about the benefits. But I got a call quite some time ago — not recently — from a company that does business in the North, and the majority, the lion’s share, of business that they’ve sort of worked through in their contract has gone south. So what they’ve done is set up a bit of a phantom company, so they can get a Northern image, working with aboriginal organizations. So they give a piece, but we don’t see what is really underneath the name.

If we’re going to do this process, and if you’re reviewing and you’re standing there and saying that we did a negotiated contract so this community got the benefits of that, I want to make sure we’re looking to where the benefits really went. Will you do that, Mr. Premier?