Thank you, Minister McLeod. Any further comments?

Next, we have Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just two comments here. A lot of times, it has to do with planning. A good example is, in our riding, I am sure the Minister knows, a lot of times you have to make sure that you have all of your supplies in the first week of June or maybe even April. That way, you have all of your materials as soon as the weather is good in June to start building.

A lot of times, these contracts come out, and they are coming out in June, closing mid-July, and then you don't get your material by August. There is usually a lot of rain that time of year. I would really appreciate it if a lot of the departments started putting out contracts earlier. We get new money on the 1^st of April. By the end of April, a lot of those contracts should be out, to take advantage of our building season. I keep a close eye on what contracts come out, and I think that that would help a lot in our planning.

I know that we are having a lot of issues with climate change nowadays. We have to take that into consideration. Are the Minister and the department noticing that climate change is actually having a little bigger of an impact on our building and how we do our planning nowadays? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was a time a few Assemblies ago when the capital budget used to be debated almost at the same time as the operations budget. There was a decision made at the time to move that to October, and the reason for that was so that the departments could get their contracts out and possibly awarded before April 1^st; that way, they can have everything they needed in the community. We have seen a couple of good examples. I will use an example in one community where the contract was awarded; it took them all summer to get their material in. I think that construction started on November 1^st or 2^nd, and automatically there was a cold weather clause in the contract that kicked in, which added a few dollars onto the contract. The decision was made at the time to do the capital budget in October with the intent of having all of the contracts and all of the supplies, everything, awarded, taking advantage of the ice roads if there was an opportunity to do so, and get the material into the communities.

I think, for the most part, it has worked. There is still a bit of a challenge in trying to get some of these contracts out. Again, we need to keep reiterating with the departments that you need to get the contracts out, or there will be consequences. I think that is a message that needs to keep being preached going forward, and eventually it will just become a part of everyday business to make sure that we have all of these contracts award.

To the Member's point about climate change, I think that we have seen that in some of the delivery in the last boating season. Actually, I was just out the other day; it was June the 1^st, and already the water on the Mackenzie was the lowest that I have ever seen it in the springtime. That indicates to me that we might be facing a bit of a challenge in our supply. There are a number of different factors that come in, but I think that one of the reasons that we changed the date to debate the capital budget was to get these projects out the door and take advantage of the winter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Further, Mr. Blake?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I might just have to pass that information on about all of the planning to some of the newbies, the new Ministers there. They have been trying to make sure that everything was in place for this season, and we are down to the wire here. I was hoping to have all of that in place by the first week of April, but it just didn't happen once again. I am hoping that, for the next budget, all that should be in place.

You just mentioned earlier that our shop up at James Creek is patiently waiting. There are a lot of discussions around that, about the location, but I am hoping that we do have a solid location now. For the safety of our residents and tourists that travel the highway, we need to make sure that we are situated in the right place. I am just looking forward to this project moving ahead, then. That is all I have for now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For some of the projects that we have in some of the communities, we deal with the Aboriginal governments of the area, and sometimes they have some concerns as to which location they want something to go.

A bit of a challenge with the dynamics of the political landscape in the Northwest Territories that we deal with a lot is, I think, if we were a jurisdiction that just decided that we are going to let a contract, and it doesn't matter where the contractor is from, just award it based on low price, we could be done with it, but we try to accommodate and work with our Aboriginal governments and our Northwest Territories businesses as much as possible to try to find ways that they can procure the work, and we continue to do that. Sometimes there is a price to pay; maybe a little bit of a delay in trying to get that done. If you are trying to negotiate a contract, there is going to be a bit of a delay trying to get that done. If it is the price you have to pay for trying to accommodate Northwest Territories residents, businesses, and citizens, then it is the price we will pay.

Again, though, your point is taken, and I think that we need to work with our departments to try to get these contracts out the door as soon as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minster's response reminded me of something that used to be practiced a number of years back. I remember looking at some contracts and seeing in the description that the lowest price is not necessarily selected. I think that is important to have in there because, a lot of times, it is like they say: you get what you pay for. A lot of times, I have seen contracts that come out, which is the normal practice now, it seems the lowest price gets it, but they can't finish the work or after they get midway through, they realize, "We underbid this and now we need some add-ons here."

I have seen contracts that have been awarded that have almost doubled. I think that is something we need to take a look at and ensure that we don't always go by the lowest bid. The department already knows what they budget for each project. With a good plan with these tenders that come in, what is pretty close to what we bid should be really accepted because we have to get out of that taking the lowest bid all the time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I tend to agree with the Member. I have seen cases where they have given it to the lowest bid, and the first thing they do is come back for a change order to try to get them back up to the second-lowest bid. You are absolutely right. You get what you pay for. Sometimes, politically, it is always easiest to go with the low bid. We use an RFP process, and in some cases, I have seen RPF processes that have worked where you could look at other factors besides the price, then you can make a determination based on the information provided. I think you get a better-quality product going that route.

There are still going to be cases where tenders are going to be let, and there are going to be prices coming in. As we deal with it more and more, I think you are going to see less and less of the absolute lowest price not necessarily hitting the work and having to come in and clean up after them afterwards. I think we have taken some steps to ensure that doesn't happen. I know, in some of the portfolios I have held, we have had some cases of that. We have tried to take steps to ensure that those don't happen too often. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Nakimayak.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister probably answered a lot of what I was thinking of during the last speaker. Thinking about contracts and thinking about our government over the last three-and-a-half years, it seems like we are moving towards a lot of social programs. That is great, but we also need to look at climate change, as the previous speaker mentioned. I think we are going to have to develop or become a little bit more agile. Agility within the government is probably a good thing.

Ways to work in that manner is likely partnering with industry. I think that is what we might need to do moving forward. Industry has proven themselves to be capable and sometimes not accountable. It is a hit-and-miss all the time with smaller contractors, but I think, looking forward, we need to try to form ourselves so that we can knock off these projects and look ahead. I am thinking of my region in the next couple of years with all the attention up in the Arctic and all the other Arctic states being more and more prepared, like Russia, building 15, 16 deep-sea ports and all these ice breakers.

We need to align ourselves with the federal government, as well, too, when it comes to deep-sea ports, small-craft harbours, and other infrastructure along the Arctic coast, maybe even dumping stations for ships that are traversing the Northwest Passage. Those are things that we don't see on some of these papers every day in the general public, but I am sure they are in the government's eyes and ears every day. I think that needs to show itself a little bit more and more. I know that it is hard to plan projects.

The Inuvialuit recently had some direct funding from the federal government, but it also takes the GNWT to implement the spending and the control, the maintenance and everything when it comes to that. It is great that we get direct funding, but we need to partner with the GNWT, as well. I think, no matter how much we plan ahead, we are still going to run into ice jams and forest fires and all that stuff. I think the department is doing their best. It is a harsh environment to operate in. It is not like we can jump on a plane or jump in our vehicle and fly out every day. It is actual long-term planning.

I think, when it comes to that, we need to work more closely with maybe the MLAs and maybe the Indigenous governments in the regions to better plan so that we can use our money more effectively and keep ourselves accountable as MLAs and as a government and also Indigenous governments. I think, once we challenge each other, we can become more agile. That is what I was going to say. The previous speaker asked the right questions, so I don't really have much more to say than that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. More of a comment. Nothing from the Minister. Next, we have Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I have to follow what Mr. Blake has talked about, about lowest price isn't the best option. I like what the Minister talked about with the RFP process. I think we need to be looking at the economic benefit to the Government of the Northwest Territories and the region. Sometimes, the cheapest prices might save us money with infrastructure, but income support and people not having jobs passes a barrier onto us. Would the Minister encourage the department to start looking at that type of process as we move forward? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will look at any process that will help us to improve our ability to get projects out the door, get quality contractors bidding on them, get quality prices. I think we are more than willing to look at any ways that we can help improve that. Again, I have seen cases where contracts have been given to the lowest bid, and you get exactly what you pay for.

I think, if there is value in using an RFP process more and more, then I think that is one that we need to have a look at because there is a lot of work that goes into an RFP and there is a lot of information that you have to provide. If you are going to take the time to provide the numbers and all the information that is required in an RFP, then obviously you are going to take the time to do some quality work once you are the successful bidder on the contract. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister talked about "we pay for what we get" sometimes. I have seen projects where we had to go into the company's insurance to pay for the work that's being done. What happens to those contractors who don't do a good enough job? Are they able to bid on the next project? It concerns me that we see some people who bid on contracts and don't do a great job. Then we have to have somebody else come in to do it, or we have to tap into the insurance to pay for it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I need to be perfectly clear before I respond to the next question. It is not as widespread as we are making it sound, I guess. It is not as widespread. We do have cases of situations like that. I think it is getting less and less as people become more and more accountable and we are more and more accountable for public funds. I think it is getting less and less. I think we have learned some lessons, so we have kind of tightened it up a bit.

We have to be careful, though, when folks are wanting to bid on a contract. We have to be careful. We have to be very critical because I know there might be some legal issues. We need to be very careful. I think, going through an RFP process, again, if we use that a bit more, then past performance, I think, might be something that we could look at. We need to be careful. I just wanted to make it clear that it is not widespread. We have cases. We have all seen them. I think, as this government matures, we are seeing less and less of that. That is a good sign.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.