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.