Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm going to try to narrow down my questions because my colleagues have provided a number of good comments and questions. I guess my first concern is did not this, the coalition work with the original RFP and then what I've heard from the Minister is something, was different. Can you explain why the department works with the coalition to come up with RFP but then we end up in this situation? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Thank you, Minister. Ms. Gardiner.

Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Thanks for the answer. I guess, to me -- red flags. You want to learn something? You had nobody from the coalition apply for this. That, to me, is a big red flag. Have you guys taken this as an opportunity to learn something from this? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Well, we were disappointed when we did not receive a response to our RFP from the Tree of Peace or from other possible providers. Therefore, it was necessary to seek other avenues to make sure that this very important program would continue to be delivered. Therefore, we went out to NGOs that we thought would have the capacity to deal with this type of contract. Ultimately, the John Howard Society stepped forward, and that is how they ended up with the contract. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister did not answer my question, so I guess four years from now we will probably be in the same boat. It is unfortunate because we could have learned something from it. I guess I will go to my next question. What was the government's response to the coalition letter dated May 10th? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

We did receive the letter. However, we found it absolutely necessary that we move ahead. As mentioned earlier, there was a very extensive report done on the program. It did suggest several changes that we did not see as terribly significant to the overall program. At that point, obviously, there were parties that were not particularly happy with the new RFP, including the previous provider. Therefore, to make sure that the program would still be delivered, we looked to other NGOs, and as I said earlier, the John Howard Society, an organization that has existed in Canada for 150 years, stepped forward. We now have a contract with them, and we are optimistic as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister for the 150 years update. It was very important to hear that I think for the third or fourth time here. I now understand that John Howard Society is 150 years old. It has been in the Northwest Territories for 23 years. Thank you very much. However, I guess my big concern is you went out, talked to his organization, and gave them from a one-year term to a four-year term. You did not follow the same process given out to everybody else. To me, I am not worried about John Howard Society so much as the process. You basically said to the coalition that you have heard what they said, but I don't know if you listened to them. Listening to them is different than being heard. Heard, you can sit there and nod your head; listening to them is actually listening to their concerns and making a decision that benefits all parties. It is a win-win. It is a negotiation process. So it is a big concern for me.

Let's move away from the society and that. Let's go to your logic model, the evaluation. Now, the department has had a long period of time to come up with an evaluation tool. Now, we still do not have an evaluation tool in place. Will the department get an evaluation tool done right away, so that it is not after the fact, it is not a year down the road, but will be done right away, so that you can see if this program or this process that you're talking about works? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Mr. Chair, we would like to think that our decisions are evidence-based. After all, we did go out and commissioned a very extensive report on this program, which suggested certain changes, which after a good deal of consideration, were incorporated into the new RFP. We then went out, and unfortunately, there were not any bidders. Therefore, we had to look further afield to make sure the program continues. As to evaluating the program, of course we will be evaluating the program, and perhaps I could have Ms. Gardiner expand on my answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Ms. Gardiner.

Thank you, Ms. Gardiner. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister and Ms. Gardiner for the answer. Having a logic model and actually implementing something and knowing what you're looking for? It is great that you have a logic model, but you do not have an evaluation tool in place. You've developed this program. You've developed this RFP. Now, you are sitting here talking about how you are going to develop an evaluation process. If you are going to do something, you should have an evaluation process set in place before you implement this. You guys have been working on it, so it is a concern. I understand you have a logic model. My last question, because the time is running out, is there significant cost, yearly cost to this program, from what we originally proposed to the RFP? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I request that the Minister keep his answer brief, as we are running short on time. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member is quite correct. Time is running out, and that is why it was necessary for us to move quickly on this. There is an evaluation process, and we are confident that the provider will live up to expectations. If they do not, then would be in breach of the contract. Thank you.

I will allow you perhaps to answer the question briefly. Minister.