F

inal, short supplementary

, Mr

. K

rutko

.

In regard to capacity in communities, one of the biggest challenges we’re facing in our communities is finding professionals to run and maintain our communities: the SCOs, the financial officers, even bylaw officers in some cases. I know we had the Community Capacity Program where we used to train people through MACA, Housing and whatnot.

I’d like to ask the Minister: will we continue with such a program so we can have homegrown individuals who can take on these jobs in their home communities?

The whole area of capacity building has been one that has been brought forward as a concern. There are concerns regarding the number of available qualified SCOs. There is also the concern that was raised yesterday or the other day by the Member for Tu Nedhe about qualified recreation workers in the communities. We also need to have people who are qualified and certified in the area of finance.

We are working with LGANT, or Local Government Administrators of the Northwest Territories, to see what we can do. There have been a number of suggestions. One of them is to develop a pool of qualified people from which we can draw in times of

emergency or when somebody leaves without giving adequate notice.

There is also the School of Community Government, where we have done a lot of training over the years. We offer, on average, about 80 programs a year to all the communities. We have had great success in that area.

We recognize this as a problem area, and we will continue working with the communities so they’re given some comfort that we have qualified people.

The cancellation of the contracts was based on the fact that the price almost tripled, in terms of the required work that was done.

Bid bonds are sometimes required on some of the contracts they do within the Department of Transportation. We are removing the bid bonds from the re-scoping of the new tender’s work, in that we’re not going to require bid requirements on the re-tendering of this contract.

I’d like to ask the Minister why the bid bonds weren’t required on the second contract. They’re sometimes used to eliminate small companies from bidding on work — the companies in the community that sometimes can’t afford bid bonds.

I’d like to ask him why the bid bond was removed from the second tender.

In terms of the bid bonds, the re-scoping of this tender is not stated. The original tender was for five years. This tender is now for three years, with a plus-two option.

I would have to work with the department to get the specifics on the details of the bid bonding question. And I’ll be happy to sit down with the Member and discuss it further with the department, in terms of this plus the legal question.

The time for question period has expired. I will allow the Member a supplementary question.

I’ve tried asking questions. I wasn’t getting answers that satisfied me, so I asked them in the Assembly. I was looking for some straight answers. I didn’t believe I was getting them, and I didn’t believe the reasons I was given were good enough.

I’d like to ask the Minister my final question. This is a good example of how we sometimes…. The government underestimates all our projects. And when the actual prices come in, we’re surprised. But we shouldn’t be. These people do this for a living, so they obviously know what they’re doing.

I’d like to ask the Minister if he had the authority to publicly commit to an additional 20 per cent on top of the 50 per cent that’s already guaranteed Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that’s a hypothetical question, and I’m not too sure. I’d have to speak with my colleagues in terms of what the cabinet’s or the government’s position on this question here.

Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

I don’t believe I asked a hypothetical question. I’ll ask it again. Did the Minister have the authority to publicly commit an additional 20 per cent to the 50 per cent already guaranteed? That’s not hypothetical, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will see if I can get the question here. Mr. Speaker, I’m not too sure if the Member was making reference to my quote on the CBC, on the radio that I did with CBC.

In terms of the authority, certainly the Minister has some authority based on recommendations from the department. The department and the Minister will talk. The Minister will make the decision. Basically, this is an issue that needed to go back for re-tendering of the work here. That’s what we’re doing.

The time for question period has expired.

Item 9, written questions. Item 10, returns to written questions. Item 11, replies to opening address. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for the first reading of bills, Hon. Michael Miltenberger.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, February 18, 2008, I will move that Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be read for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that on Monday, February 18, 2008, I will move that Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act, be read for the first time.

I give notice that on Monday, February 18, 2008, I will move that Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Residential Tenancies Act, be read for the first time.

Finally, I give notice that on Monday, February 18, 2008, I will move that Bill 7, Securities Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 17, motions. Mr. McLeod.

Mr.

Speaker, I seek unanimous

consent to return to item 17 on the Order Paper.

We are on item 17, Mr. McLeod.

We’re on item 17? I apologize for that. I thought we were in first reading of bills. I’m way ahead of the rest of you.

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that Highway Maintenance Tender Packages CT100644 and CT100634 be produced and provided to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure for

review and analysis and that the Committee report its findings back to this House at the earliest opportunity.

The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

I want to thank my colleagues from the committee for allowing me to do this. It was short notice, and I appreciate the show of support.

I asked to put this motion in because I have some concerns with how these tender packages rolled out. I had some questions that I posed to the minister.

We talked to contractors, and they let us know some of some of the practices that go on with the tendering processes. If this is the way we may have to go in the future — if it’s a precedent-setting exercise — then maybe it’s something we have to do. If we have concerns with tenders, then we can refer them to one of the Standing Committees for review and report the findings back to the House. I think that’s something we should look at.

I just had so many questions, and I felt I wasn’t being given the answers I deserved. I had questions on how it rolled out and why it was cancelled. I’m still not convinced. I was given numbers that I didn’t think added up.

That’s why I thought I’d use this opportunity to bring this motion forward. Again, I appreciate committee’s support. This is something we may have to look at doing in the future if we have concerns with how contracts are administered.

Motion carried.