Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will have to examine the procurement guidelines to determine whether we are able to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I take that as a commitment that the Minister will undertake that examination? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
I will undertake that examination.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My next question is about the evaluation and monitoring process for this contract. Could the Minister please describe how this program will be monitored and how it will be evaluated or not this program but the revamped program delivered by this contractor? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if I could defer that question to Ms. Gardiner. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Gardiner.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently, there is a logic model that was already developed for the pilot project. We are currently evaluating that based on our experiences and our lessons learned from the previous evaluation to make sure that the outcomes that we are measuring are appropriate and reflect what we have learned during the pilot. That logic model isn't complete as of yet, but we are expecting in the next few weeks to have that with the benefit of some expertise in program evaluation, and when we have a formal plan for when that evaluation will be, we can provide it. Other than that, we will have a structure in place in terms of reporting on statistics for the program. Part of the changes we made was in the administration of the program, and we recognized a need for additional information, and about participants' progress through the program, and that will be part of our evaluation outcomes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Recognizing the time, I will allow one more question. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My follow-up question is whether the Minister will be able to share that evaluation criteria, and at what point the program will be evaluated using it? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I could be prepared to share that criteria. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank my colleague who asked some of the questions that I had here, but I just want to understand how this agreement was reached. This was the Department of Justice approaching John Howard directly. Is that how? Again, thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Yes, after there were no responses, positive responses to the RFP, we did approach certain NGOs, and amongst those was the John Howard Society. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The Minister's statement refers to an agreement with the John Howard Society. Is this like a letter of intent, or has an actual contract been signed? What's the status of this arrangement? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. An actual contract has been entered into. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am not sure if my colleague from Yellowknife Centre asked this question or not, but can we actually get a copy of the contract that has been signed, then, even if it has to be provided on a confidential basis to the Regular MLAs? I would like to be able to compare that against what was called for in the RFP, and what the original New Day program was doing. Can he provide a copy of that contract on a confidential basis to the Regular MLAs? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert, to the contract?
Thank you. I think I will need to speak to the procurement office before I make any obligations in that regard. I, myself, have not seen the contract. I'm not certain whether there are certain elements in it that are confidential or proprietary, so that's my answer. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. When does the Minister think he will be able to get back to the Regular MLAs on the availability on the contract being shared with us? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert,
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I could commit to give the Members a response by the end of next week.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I would hope for something a little bit quicker, but I will take the Minister's word. Can the Minister tell us how long this contract runs for? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can advise that the contract runs until March 31, 2021. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, that is a lot longer than I would have expected to hear. Can the Minister tell us: is there any sort of probationary period or ability for the department to back out of this arrangement? Indeed, the contractor, if things are not going the way either party expected, is there an escape clause in the contract, and when would it be triggered, or could it be triggered? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert,
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not aware of any escape clause. One of the things that NGOs generally want is a long period of the contract in length to last for a significant amount of time so they can have certainty in their plans going forward. Of course, contracts can be amended if both sides agree at any time, but I am not aware of any "out" clause but again, I have not seen the contract myself. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes I guess I will go on record as having expressing some concern about this. As I understand, the RFP was for a one-year term, and now this is, I guess for four years. That is a significant departure from what the RFP had called for. Does anybody have any explanation of how we went from a one-year to a four-year arrangement? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert,
As I mentioned earlier, NGOs such as the John Howard Society generally want the stability of a long-term contract, so that's why this period of time was agreed upon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Did the department look at the option of actually reissuing the RFP for a longer period of time, or making other changes to the RFP rather than to enter into some sort of a negotiated arrangement? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert,
Yes. Of course, with the RFP, we were always aware of constraints on time that we needed to have something in place by July 1st. There initially was, of course, no applicants to our RFP. We then went out to NGOs. We are speaking to the John Howard Society, and it was their wish should they decide to take this up, which they did, that they be given a lengthy contract so that they would have some certainty for the future. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Again, I will express some concern here that the Regular MLAs, we actually asked for the program to be reinstated for a full year, and the most the Minister would commit to was six months; and then, all of a sudden, it jumps from a one-year RFP to a four-year contract. That's a very significant change in course, so I will just leave it at that for now. The reason why I am going to ask this next question is, I understand, I have worked for NGOs. All of them sort of go through ups and downs over the years, but there have been some recent changes at the John Howard Society in terms of their leadership that might raise some issues around their capacity to deliver on a program like this. How can the Minister provide some reassurance that the minimum qualifications for this organization, or the ability to deliver on this, any minimum qualifications have been met, and that this organization actually has the capacity to deliver this very important program? Thank you.
