Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know these words don’t get uttered too often in Yellowknife, but would the Minister be willing to come with me to my riding to visit some of my local

manufacturers in the next little while? I did highlight the jewellery by Hau Huynh and certainly I’m sure he’s well aware of CanArctic. Would he be willing to make time to go visit and see on-the-ground manufacturing, at least here in Yellowknife? And I’m sure other Members would expect somewhat similar. Could he do that?

I’m always willing to visit constituencies as long as it doesn’t involve a large amount of money.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a procurement question with respect to this government’s policy. I have to create a bit of a scenario to premise this question on.

The Government of the Northwest Territories goes to public tender for a service and product. Three bids come in that are within a very small percentage of each other, which would indicate that would probably be the market value. Then we find out that the Government of the Northwest Territories only budgeted $700,000 for $1 million worth of product and work. So the Government of the Northwest Territories, the department, then goes back to the drawing board and realizes that they were wrong in their estimate and instead of talking to the person who was low bid on the first round, they go back to tender for exactly the same product and service again, and potentially the same people bid again.

This is a problem in our procurement system. I’m not really sure who should answer that question. But my question is, would it not be reasonable and fair to have a discussion with the person who was the low bid?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d have to get the details of what’s going on there and work with the Member to what area and work with the appropriate department on that. We do have our policies in place when it comes to our procurement and manner of tenders and RFPs and so on. I’d have to work with the appropriate Minister and the Member.

Companies go to a lot of work and expense to bid on government contracts.

They’re obviously happy when they see the results posted and they are low bid. Then to find out that the government has substantially under budgeted for the contract that they have bid on, only to go back out to tender again for exactly the same product and service puts the people who bid on that contract originally in a very untenable situation. What would the Premier suggest to improve our procurement policy to prevent that from happening?

I’m aware of a situation that is under review right now that we will have to look at. But the process would be, and we have in quite a number of cases found out, that when we’ve gone out for tender or RFP, that the numbers come in substantially higher than we’d budgeted. Departments then would have to decide if they go back to the drawing board and change the original request; either construction or equipment or material that’s being requested or they go to negotiate with the low bid to see if they can work within that environment. Usually something does change before it goes back out, but I’m aware that this particular situation is under review.

This is premised on a scenario that I have suggested and it is a real situation, but it comes to the larger issue of is it not inherently not fair to ask people to compete and then have their numbers known, have them be low bid, and then go back out to tender again for exactly the same thing. It puts people in a very untenable situation as bidders. I don’t think it’s really living up to a very high standard of procurement for this government. I would like to ask the Premier, could they make it a policy rather than doing that, to go back to the low bidder and have that discussion? To make it a matter of policy.

I believe with the procurement policies in place there is usually a requirement for change to happen. It is to go out so that scenario doesn’t occur. As I understand, we are reviewing the situation and can inform the Member as to how things turn out.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this case I believe the only thing that is contemplated to be changed is the date by which the product needs to be delivered, which isn’t a very significant change to the scope of the tender and the scope of the work, in my opinion. I guess I would just like to see this government try to see things through the eyes of the contractor and try to be as fair as possible.

The other little added note on this one is that when people do run into these situations they should be allowed to go to their MLAs and they should be able

to have their MLA bring this forward to the government and to the Minister and not fear any reprisal for doing so. I would trust that this is a principle that this Premier and this government would also concur with.

In this particular case, although the Member has put out a scenario, we have to be careful in how I respond to this area. There is a review being done in a similar situation. The fact that the Members raise their issues here, there would be no reprisal from departments to anyone who would go to their Members for some help raising issues to our departments. We’ll make sure that’s the case.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I spoke earlier in my Member’s statement about a constituency meeting I had last night. We had 27 constituents show up at the meeting. The discussion centred around a few of the big issues that we’ve been talking about here in the House since we’ve been back. Most of the discussion, though, centred around board reform. I have a few questions for the lead Minister in charge of the Refocusing Government committee, Mr. Miltenberger, in regard to board reform. In fact, some boards may need some aspect of reform, however, I want to get an understanding from the Minister why the Government of the Northwest Territories feels that the regional model for these boards is necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The lead Minister on Refocusing Government, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The regional service board model that the Tlicho Government has subscribed to and that we’ve worked with over the last decade or so with them on seems to have applicability in other regions. We started the process of board reform on that basis. We’ve proceeded to do the work and we’re continuing to do the work, and we’ll continue to pull together the information on this approach, on the feedback that we’re receiving, on the information that we’re gathering from the regions. Then we’ll have a milestone date in April where we’re going to look at how applicable that model is. The underlying issue of board reform has been subscribed to, from what I’ve heard, from everywhere I’ve been. There may be questions on the regional service board model, which is the purpose of the April 1st milestone date to allow us to

take a look at where we are and decide how we move forward from there.

When the government goes out to, and they call it consultation, the way I see it, there’s no accountability for the Government of the Northwest Territories because they have nothing to back up their plans. They have no research, no data, no costs, no HR plans or anything of the like. I’d like to ask the Minister why it is the government’s intent to cause such anxiety across our land every time they make an announcement. The board reform is the latest example. I’d like to ask the Minister why we are causing our residents so much anxiety and anger that they’re feeling.

We embarked upon this arduous journey that we’ve laid out to 2010-2011. We recognized there was work to be done. We were moving forward with the concept and initial plan. We had a lot of work to do and we continue to have a lot of work to do. April gets us about a third of the way down the track in terms of 2010-2011. It’s a milestone date. We’ve been engaging with the communities. We’ve been engaging with the boards and regions. We’re doing the work to pull together the information as we go, recognizing that there are complexities here in the North Slave that are going to take probably even more time than there would in the rest of the Territory. We’re doing it, we believe, in a measured way. In April, seven weeks hence, we’re going to gather around and look at where we go with the whole issue of board reform as it was initially contemplated. How do we adjust? If we adjust, how do we adjust? What other steps do we need to take?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister probably wouldn’t want me mentioning the way this government’s operating in the same light as a certain Prime Minister operates, but one of the things that’s coming out here is the fact that I understand Mr. Miltenberger is the lead Minister, but the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, and the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation have been eerily silent on the issue of board reform. That’s causing people a great deal of concern. If they’re not going to stand up and protect the institutions that are out there, who is going to?

This is a government-wide initiative. It is an initiative that was sanctioned by Cabinet. I was given the lead role on this. Cabinet has been involved and has been apprised every step of the way. We’ve agreed to the April 1st date. The Ministers haven’t been eerily

silent. I’ve been given the lead on this. The Ministers have spoken when the issue’s been raised with them. But in terms of moving the process, I have been given that task and I’ve been

doing my best to carry that task forward. Once we get to April, we’ll all be collectively regrouping.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.