That’s all the questions I have for this page.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just following up on the lines with regard to the letters of support for projects. I know that the letters of support, in most cases, are subject to certain wording. Especially when looking at the socio-economic possibilities of jobs, employment opportunities and contracts, that support is subject to those types of arrangements being concluded before these contracts are entered into.
I’d like to ask the Minister: exactly how much weight do these support letters have by way of businesses ensuring there are employment opportunities for affected communities and also ensuring that businesses in those local communities are able to take advantage of these projects to formulate some sort of a joint venture?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These letters are considered a very important part of the process. In the case of the schools in Inuvik there are letters of support from the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit and all the communities, as well as all the affected MLAs. They are an important part of the process.
I had an opportunity to sit down with the former president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council with regard to an individual from Dowland. In those discussions they talked about formulating a joint venture to take advantage of this $100 million project, yet it seems like there’s been a crossing of the minds under new leadership. They’re saying that’s no longer on the table.
I’d like to ask the Minister: exactly how can you go forward approving an agreement knowing there were letters in which the intent was to formulate these partnerships? Then after you issue the contract, they basically neglect those letters of support in order to go forward on these contracts. What is the avenue in regard to ensuring that there is that weight for local and northern involvement in these types of contractual arrangements?
Mr. Chairman, the letter of support that the Member references does indicate that there was a plan or discussions underway to negotiate with Dowland for a role and arrangement with the company so that they could take advantage of opportunities both in the North and outside of the North. But our role is not to track or become involved, once again, in the internal negotiations of private companies in terms of whatever their partnership structure is going to be. What we do know is that we have letters of support from Gwich’in, Inuvialuit and all the MLAs in the community of Inuvik supporting this project.
Mr. Chair, I know for a fact that in the past there have been situations where the government found themselves caught in the middle, where they allocated a specific contractor who listed their subcontractors on that contract and neglected to give their subcontractors work, where the individual subcontractors countersued, saying: I had a contractual obligation under your contract to be your sub in this contract; I was listed, but you didn’t use me. I’d like to know: do you have a list of who the subcontractors are for this particular project, and does that include the Gwich’in Development Corporation?
Not at this point.
I wasn’t too clear on what point he’s talking about. Not on what point? Do you have the information or don’t you?
Mr. Chairman, we don’t have a list of subcontractors at this time. Once a contract is formalized and all the details are ironed out, then the main contractor will make their arrangements with their subcontractors, at which time we’ll have all that information. But at this particular time we don’t have a list of subcontractors.
Mr. Chairman, this is a negotiated contract. Negotiated contracts are a little more stringent than the tendering process. In most cases negotiated contracts ensure that there is local involvement, there is local hire, and there is local preference. In regard to those negotiated contracts, before the negotiated contract is approved by Cabinet, those aspects have to be part of a negotiated contract. So for this government to say, “Well, sorry; we don’t have that” or “We don’t know...” In order for Cabinet to approve a negotiated contract, there are certain obligations that the contractor has to meet in order to be able to have a negotiated contract signed off.
I’d like to know exactly the elements of the negotiated contract. A $100 million capital project, by way of a negotiated contract, the biggest one in this government’s history, can go by the books and not allow for that process to happen? I find it kind of odd that this government has approved a $100 million contract without following the negotiated contracting policy and guidelines. I’d like to know exactly why, in this case, that policy was not followed.
Mr. Chairman, all the appropriate policies and procedures have been followed. We are in the process of a negotiated contract process with Dowland, which is majority owned by the Inuvialuit. Once this appropriation is approved, hopefully, by this Legislature, then we will be moving forward to finalize the details. The issue of maximizing northern businesses and employment for Northerners in the contract will be clearly dealt with as well as part of that process moving forward. The initial step first, now, is to conclude the discussions here in this Legislature.
So, again, if that’s the case, why is it that a contract went out for 800 pilings in the Inuvik region for this project? A local Gwich’in company had bid on the contract. They didn’t even get a letter back to confirm that they had received their tender. If you’re talking about local preference and basically allowing for local companies to bid on these projects as subcontractors and not be notified, that tells me that this government is undermining the project by way of project management and not following contracting guidelines that are in place, where you have to identify what the local benefits are and exactly who your subcontractors are. So I’d like to know again: can we get an exact list of the subcontractors on this particular project? Exactly how far into this project are they in regard to these tenders being let, exactly who is bidding on these tenders and who can and who can’t bid on these tenders?
Our assumption is that Dowland is aware of this procedure, the process that we’re in, and has not signed any contracts with subcontractors but is probably getting pricing and quotes so they can do their own numbers.
Now, this is a major megaproject, and I think that in order to get the maximum benefit out of this project, everyone should at least have an opportunity to bid on some of these items in this contract and ensure that the BIP is being followed. We do have a negotiating policy in regard to everyone having a fair process on bidding on these types of items, regardless if it’s site development, pilings or working in regard to roofing or siding or drywalling or whatever. This is a major project.
I’d like to ask the Minister again: can they ensure that they are following their guidelines? Would the government clearly state that they want to ensure that there’s local northern involvement in this project, that it’s a very high priority of this government? Well, it is. How can you illustrate that?
We will of course commit to following the policies and procedures that are going to maximize northern business and employment opportunities. As the contract proceeds, that information will become available, and that will be the evidence that we’d be supplying to the Member, keeping in mind, of course, that the main contractor is a northern owned business with a majority ownership by Inuvialuit as a starting point. We will follow through, as the Member has asked.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Time is up. We will go to the next person on my list. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if I could defer a question until later.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up on a couple of things. First of all, Mr. Aumond, in responding to Mrs. Groenewegen, referred to a clause in the contract that was attached to the letter of award that states that the funds and go-aheads were pending approval or appropriation of funds by the House. I don’t recall seeing a reference to that, actually, or the attachment to that letter of award. Was that a draft contract that was attached, or was something specific there that we could see?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would have been included. You would have seen something in the letter of award about it being consistent with the tender documents attached. The tender documents would form the contract. It’s a standard clause that we include in all our contracts. There has to be a sufficient uncommitted balance in the appropriation in order to fulfill and continue on with the contract.
Okay; thank you. I understand it wasn’t a full contract, but the tender documents would have included that contract, then.
Mr. Chair, the tender documents do form the contract.
The second thing I wanted to follow up on was — let’s put it this way — the potential increasing conflict we have with the resolution of self-governance negotiations: MLAs that may end up being in a difficult position of basically serving two governments, one officially and one unofficially, when they are beneficiaries of those governments. I’m not levying accusations here or anything. I’m trying to highlight what’s potentially a new and increasing situation we have here.
To me, even a letter of recommendation from an individual — in this case our Premier, who was a beneficiary of the Inuvialuit…. This was an Inuvialuit company. When we’re dealing with something that potentially can directly benefit the beneficiaries, it’s placing an MLA in that position in a very difficult situation. I think our public expects rigour here to make sure that we deal with potential conflicts of interest. I’m just wondering if the Minister would think this does highlight a need for a review of our conflict of interest guidelines, given the settlement of self-government negotiations that are bound to put more and more of our MLAs in that sort of extraordinary level of potential for conflict of interest — serving two masters, so to speak.
I understand in this case the Premier, the Minister of Finance at the time, removed himself during discussions after he had written a letter of recommendation. But I’m just thinking that this is a sticky bunch of incidents or parameters in this situation, and perhaps it’s something that could be reviewed as potential for improving the process.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there was any interest to get an opinion from the conflict commissioner, I would suggest we’d have to very clearly articulate the question so that we could get some indication as to the clear question that the Member would want put to the conflict commissioner for his advice. I would suggest at this point that when negotiated contracts are in the mix or being considered…. Right now a letter of support from the appropriate MLA or MLAs is a part of the process. With a negotiated contract, if an MLA happens also to be a Minister, then once that letter’s written, the involved Minister, when that issue comes to the table for discussion, would declare their interest and leave the room. If there are further checks and balances that may be required in the opinion of the committee, then I’m sure we would all benefit from that clarity.
I certainly agree with the Minister on this. For clarity, perhaps I could say a hypothetical situation, where we have a Minister of Finance who is also a direct beneficiary, potentially, who could benefit from a project being awarded or negotiated with a company….
Interjection.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The discussion about this capital plan that’s before the House has now turned directly to a line of questioning about the credibility of a Member of Cabinet and the process. Questions about the conflict of interest process letters are better held at another table if we’re going to go and see an overall piece. That’s the Legislative Assembly as a whole, not just Cabinet, who would deal with that piece of it.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that again, with this line of questioning, under 23(i), I believe it is, the motive is being planted. I know the Member himself has stated that he’s not intending to do this, but by a line of questioning following other lines of questioning in this House, in a sense saying, where’s the information…. Well, all Members know the information was given. A full package was given to Members, so asking a question saying, “I don’t have it” is not correct. It’s there; it’s in front of Members. All Members of this Assembly have it.
Now, the process itself on this piece. Cabinet has gone out and sought that information, and we followed the process and the rules. Whether it’s a Member for the Dene, the Gwich’in or the Inuvialuit, it’s considered a broad class of citizen. That question has also been directed with.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this line of questioning is not following the capital plan itself. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. I’ll take your point of order under advisement and provide my ruling at a later time or a later date.
The next person on our list is Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister of Finance has kindly offered to provide some additional information on this matter before us right now, so I have a motion, if it could be distributed.
Please proceed, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that this committee defer further consideration of the activity “Education and Culture” under the Department of Education, Culture and Employment — Capital Estimates 2009–2010 on pages 7-7 and 7-8 at this time.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The motion is on the floor and is being distributed now. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
Committee motion carried.
We’re going to defer pages 7-7 and 7-8. By extension, we will also be deferring page 7-2. Shall we move on to the next department, committee?
Agreed.
The next department is the Department of Transportation. We’re going to defer until after consideration of the Activity Summary page 8-2, so we’ll move on to 8-4. Page 8-4, Department of Transportation, Activity Summary, Airports, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $17.103 million. Agreed?
Department of Transportation, Activity Summary, Airports, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $17.103 million, approved.
Next is Transportation, Activity Summary, Marine, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $645,000. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the Coast Guard regulations that we operate under for marine vessels and also the types of weight that can be carried on specific ferries, I know that the pipeline companies are looking at their transportation option of moving goods and services by highway. In regard to crossings I know there were some questions asked about the Peel River ferry having the capacity to take on some of these heavier loads that we’re probably going to see during the construction of the pipeline.
I would like to ask exactly what this government is doing to ensure we do have the capacity to replace that ferry so it can carry heavier loads and also that companies see that the public’s safety is taken into account and we follow federal Coast Guard regulations. I’d like to ask: exactly what are we doing in regard to movement of goods and services and the safety of people on our marine vessels?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to refer that question to Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Neudorf.
