Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I committee would like to consider Tabled Document 443-18(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures) No. 2, 2019-2020; Tabled Document 444-18(3), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures) No. 2, 2019-2020; Committee Report 14-18(3), Special Committee to increase the Representation of Women in the Legislative Assembly Report; Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 1. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. We will take a very brief recess, and then begin consideration of the documents.

---SHORT RECESS

I will now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we have agreed to consider a series of documents. I suggest that, for expediency, we consider Bill 55 first. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. We will consider Bill 55: An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 1. I will ask the Member for Mackenzie Delta to introduce the bill. Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to provide opening comments on Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 1. This bill makes a number of changes to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act to implement recommendations of the independent commission to review Members' compensation and benefits, as well as other updates required prior to the upcoming general election. Specifically, the bill proposes the following:

• Repeals the provision to defer the territorial general election to a later date in the event of an overlap with a federal election;
• Exempts certain Legislative Assembly staff and constituency assistants from jury service during session;
• Ties a number of important dates to polling day as opposed to the date set for the return of the writs of election;
• Amends the timing of the appointment and term of the independent commission to review Members' compensation and benefits;
• Makes the appointment process for the Law Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms the same as the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and enables the board of management to suspend these officers with or without pay; and
• Makes provision for the affirmation of various oaths.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This concludes my opening comments on Bill 55, and I am happy to answer any questions that members may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. I understand you have witnesses, so I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Mr. Blake, you may take your place in the hot seat. Thank you, committee. I will ask Mr. Blake to introduce his witnesses for the record. Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left, I have Mike Reddy, legislative division, and my right-hand man, Mr. Tim Mercer.

Thank you. Welcome to the witnesses. I will open the floor to general comments on Bill 55 if there are any. Seeing no general comments, we can proceed to a clause-by-clause review of the bill. Committee, please open up your big grey binders. Turn to Bill 55, page 1. We will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. There are 18 clauses. I will call each one individually. If committee agrees, please respond accordingly. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 18 inclusive approved

Thank you, committee. We will now return to the bill number and title. Bill 55: An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 1. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. To the bill as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 55 is now ready for third reading?

Thank you, committee. Bill 55 is now ready for third reading. Does committee agree this concludes our consideration of Bill 55?

Thank you, committee. Thank you to the Member from Mackenzie Delta. Thank you to the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, you may escort the witnesses from the Chamber. Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 443-18(3): Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2019-2020. I will turn to the Minister of Finance for opening remarks. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to present Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2019-2020. This document proposes an increase of $78.5 million to the infrastructure budget.

These supplementary estimates include the following items:

• $122.6 million for infrastructure carry-overs from 2018-2019 to 2019-2020;
• Negative $22 million for amendments to amounts and timing of the long-term care facility projects in Hay River and Inuvik;
• Negative $13.8 million for amendments to amounts and timing of the Tlicho all-season road project; and
• Negative $6.7 million for amendments to amounts and timing of projects included in the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Plan.

That concludes my opening remarks. Mr. Chair, I would be happy to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Does committee have any general comments, noting that we will be discussing the document in detail? Mr. Testart.

Is this the appropriate time to ask questions of the Minister?

No. This is the time for general comments. We will wait until the Minister takes the witness stand with his witnesses. Are there any general comments from Mr. Testart? None? Anything from Mr. O'Reilly? Nothing? All right. I understand there are witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Minister, please take your seat at the witness table. Minister, please introduce your witnesses to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right, I have Mr. David Stewart, who is the deputy minister of Finance. To my left, I have Mr. Jaime Koe, who is our Comptroller General, Department of Finance. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now open the floor once again to general comments, this time with the witnesses at the witness table. First, Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Minister's opening remarks, he mentioned the supplementary estimates represent $122.6 million for infrastructure carry-overs. This has come up in a number of capital budget reviews, and concerns have been raised around the large amount of carry-overs. Can the Minister comment to the progress that has been made to address these concerns around carry-overs, especially large amount such as this? Thank you.

Thank you. I will direct this to Mr. Stewart.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Well, I won't get too far into detail, but I mean some of these items are around records systems replacement and other information projects like that, roof repairs for the Legislative Assembly, so I mean it just seems like these are not all contingent on externalities like federal infrastructure agreements. What specific actions is the department or the Financial Management Board contemplating to address this? Is there any indication that the Minister can give at this time? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the deputy said, this is one of the lower amounts in the life of this Assembly, and we have had some federal money that we had to get out of the door. There are some projects, I mean if they go back April 1^st, I think we have to put in for a carry-over. If we can get them all in a fiscal year, then that would eliminate the need. I have given direction to some of the departments in my conversations with my FMB colleagues that we need to take a close look at carry-overs, and, if projects are not in the hopper, there is nothing being done to them, if they are just carrying the money over, then we may have to look at pulling that money back and using it for other projects that are quite ready to go. Again, it's not such a bad thing to have this amount of carry-over. It means that we had a lot of infrastructure investments with the federal money and all and the money that we have. It's just getting the projects out the door has been a bit of a challenge, but I think we are starting to meet that challenge, therefore the lower amount in carry-overs. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Approximately how much of this $122.6 million is federal money? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

We do not have that amount, but we will get it and pass it on to the Member. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you. You know, I think this is important to me and to others because this is money that is needed for our communities, especially for really important infrastructure projects or for citizens when it comes to making improvements to information systems, as I mentioned earlier. The Minister talked about having conversations with FMB colleagues. Is the FMB working on a clear policy direction to departments around putting parameters on carry-overs along the lines the Minister just explained, you know, if projects are not being worked on? Like what kind of formal board policies are being contemplated, if any? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nobody understands more the importance of getting infrastructure out the door in our small communities than someone who has been to every community in the Northwest Territories and heard first-hand what some of their challenges are, lived in a small community, and understands the importance of infrastructure in a small community, so I do not need to be sold on that. It's something that I always have in the back of my mind because I do recognize the importance of infrastructure in the small community. As far as direction, not yet for the actual policy, but I have given direction to my FMB colleagues that this is something that we need to have a look at. As with a lot of things in this 18^th Legislative Assembly, we need to put it in black and white, have a policy to ensure that we are doing as we say. That is something that we would have to consider. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you. To be clear, I know the Minister cares about the impact this money has on communities. That is not a doubt in my mind, and certainly, the Minister's word that he is taking this seriously, he is the one who first brought this to the floor, and I commend him for it because I think that shows clear leadership and management of government resources. However, the public service cannot go on just the words spoken in this House or even in a confidential FMB meeting. They need clear direction so that, when they carry out their budgeting exercises to review their projects, they have something to follow. I think it's important that, if we are having these conversations, that it does result in a policy that allows certainty and consistency in carry-over management to the public service. Can the Minister commit to looking at that or to making a decision whether or not policy direction is required, and, if so, can the Minister share that policy direction with the appropriate standing committee? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Like I said before, I have given clear direction, and we do have regular reporting that is done to FMB. We could work on a policy, and I could give direction to our folks to start the work on the policy. I am not sure we would have it done in the life of this Assembly, but at least it's a start, and then there will be something on paper in black and white going forward. Again, recognizing the importance of infrastructure and the carry-overs, we want to try to limit those as much as possible and try to get as many of these infrastructure projects out the door. Therefore, I will have a conversation with my officials and direct them to start working on a policy that either can be considered in the last three months of this Assembly -- I do not think it's going to be that quick -- or early in the life of the next Assembly I think would be more sensible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you to the Minister. I appreciate that, and I think it gives comfort to everyone who sees these carry-overs and is concerned. It's a step in the right direction, so thank you again to the Minister. Nothing further. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I want to ask some questions about the carry-overs, as well. The information that was provided to us, the Minister is right, the amounts, total amounts, have gone down of the carry-overs during the life of this Assembly, but the percentage of the carry-overs as a percentage of the total appropriations has actually gone up. It looks like it has actually doubled from 2015-2016, almost, or more than doubled. Can the Minister or his staff confirm that? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Stewart.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I appreciate the commitment on the part of the Minister to develop some policy guidance around this area. In developing that policy, I guess I would hate to see that departments that really have no control over contracting/procurement, that they are going to get penalized because we cannot get contracts out the door or there is some federal funding hitch or something. Can I get some assurance from the Minister that departments are not going to get penalized for things that are outside of their control? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I can assure the Member that would be part of the policy, is we do not really want to penalize the departments, and most importantly, though, we do not want to penalize the communities and those who should be getting infrastructure. I can assure the Member that, as the policy is being developed, that is something that will be taken into serious consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I appreciate that from the Minister. I guess, at the time that the Department of Infrastructure was created, it was a merging of the old Public Works and the Department of Transportation. There was some significant moving around of people. A number of jobs were lost. I am just wondering whether that merger is, in any way, related to the percentage of carry-overs that has continued to grow. Is there any link between staff reductions and our ability to procure and get the money out the door? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't believe there was. As we have said before, a lot of these projects that are coming out the door are large projects that require a lot of work, and there is a lot of engagement that needs to have taken place at project time, engagement with communities, as the deputy pointed out before.

I believe that, with the amount of dollars that has been poured into the Northwest Territories over a little while, it has been a bit of a challenge getting a lot of these projects out the door, but I think that we have the capacity to do so. I think that, as we go forward, you will start seeing the number of carry-overs start to come down. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think that is what we all hope for. I would like to make a suggestion, then, to the Minister, that there be some way of measuring performance or the capacity aspect of the Department of Infrastructure in, basically, getting the money out the door. Is that going to be part of the consideration of developing this policy, some monitoring or tracking of capacity and our ability to get money out the door? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can commit that we will monitor all departments to ensure that they are getting projects out the door in a timely fashion, and if there is a reason for them not to have, then it will be part of the reporting process, and we will keep all those concerned up to date. I will make a commitment that we will work with all departments to ensure that projects are timely and out the door. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think that it is important to work with the departments, but we also need to be aware of what our contracting procurement capacity is within the Department of Infrastructure to get these projects out the door.

I guess that the last thing that I want to say is that in no way am I questioning the dedication or work that our employees do; I just want to make sure that we have the resources and that they have the resources to get the job done. I appreciate the commitments made by the Minister and look forward to us not having as much carry-over in future years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. No comments from the Minister. I will call a brief recess.

---SHORT RECESS

I will now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we were having general comments on the bill. Next in line, we have Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, want to talk a bit about the carry-overs. I just would like to ask the Minister if there was a way to spend this money. If this is a small amount, like the deputy said, this $122 million is one of the smaller that was carried over, even based on this $122 million of a carry-over, had that been spent, it would have a lot more buying power than it would be next year. I would like to ask the Minister if there is, aside from directives, if there is some sort of a physical plan to address the carry-overs? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. All of this money that we talk about here is earmarked for specific projects. I think I pointed out a couple of times the reason for some of those projects not getting out the door. I have directed FMB and my colleagues that we need to take a serious look at some of these carry-overs, and, if there are smaller projects that are just not being done, then we may need to look at pulling that money back and trying to reallocate it to projects that we have a better chance of getting done. I think they got the message, and it's a message that I think we need to continue to push going forward. That way, we can limit the amount of carry-overs because, if there is a chance that a particular department can lose some money that is not being spent and put it back in the kitty for other projects, then they may try to get the projects out the door a little sooner. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier during question period, an honourable Member of the House asked about what was referred to as red-flag projects, that the red-flag projects would be projects that would be ready to go out the door so that, if the departments are unable to get the projects completed and they are getting carried over, there is carry-over year after year, and just by inflation alone on a carry-over of this type we are losing a couple of million dollars, just on inflation alone. That is because we lose buying power every year. If inflation is 1.8 percent, like I think it was last time, this carry-over would cost us $2.1 million, so in order for the government to be more efficient. Of course, a key thing would be that these projects are desperately needed or other projects where money is actually being spent in the community instead of the money being carried over, I would like to ask the Minister if there is such a thing left as what used to be referred to as red-flag projects or projects that are ready to go when other projects are unable to get off the ground. I would like to ask the Minister if red-flag projects still exist. Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understand is the red-flag projects are ones that are next in line for some of the infrastructure money. Some of them could eventually turn out to be multi-year projects that would have some carry-over of their own. If you look at the amount of carry-over with the money we have now, there are some big projects here, Stanton hospital, for example. I think there is about $15 million towards that, and then there are a couple of other ones, Inuvik correctional and some other bridge rehabilitation projects and that James Creek highway camera. They are all carried over, so those are all ones that are in the hopper, and the planning is being done. If we can get all of those out the door before the end of this fiscal year, then I think we will put a dint in the amount of carry-overs that the folks in the 19^th Assembly would have to deal with. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Minister through his department could start looking at carry-overs in two allotments, one of some of the projects that he just spoke of like the hospital. I am sure nobody wants to see the money taken away from the hospital when it's almost complete, but there are also projects that have not started at all. I was wondering if the Minister could identify how much of this $122 million is on projects that have not started at all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

I would have to get the specific information, but, my initial thought, that would be a very small amount. I will try to get the information as to projects that have not been started. Because I do know, when we did go through the list with the specific departments to FMB and I had listed some of the projects, it came to a very small amount, but it still was a carry-over that we were concerned about, not including the larger carry-overs which are multi-year projects that we need to continue to fund. I will look to get that information and pass it on to Members. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next on the list, we have Mr. McNeely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My comments in regards to the carry-overs, living in a seasonally accessed area, I can see the rationale behind always having carry-overs, and I am quite satisfied to understand carry-overs. Carry-overs could be carried over for a number of reasons, seasonal access, for example. Most of our projects are accessible when the ground is frozen. Then, in summertime, most of the ground is suitable for compaction. So those are additional factors here that would substantiate carry-overs, and I am quite satisfied to receive an explanation on the justification of carry-overs, but, outside of that, I think we will always have, this government will always have carry-overs and, I think, has had, in the past, carry-overs, just because of the environment that we live in. Most of our communities are remote. Some of them are only accessible by barge.

In some of the Sahtu cases, we have a combination of three communities that are accessible both by the river and by winter road, so the logistics of mobilizing in preparation for a project is critical at best here. If you miss the boat, you miss the boat. That means you are going to have to carry-over to the next seasonal suitability for the project. Those are my comments on that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Those were mostly comments. Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like most of the Members here, I also have concerns about the number of carry-overs.

Right now, the economy is slow. Everyone feels it. It has been getting slower and slower throughout our term here. People who are just trying to keep their businesses going, who are trying to keep people employed, keep telling me that there is nothing going on, and they are having trouble keeping people employed. I say, "Well, we have this coming up." "We have this long-term care facility coming up." "We have a fish plant coming up." I keep saying that, and now I question myself when I keep saying that, because these are the kinds of things that keep getting pushed back and pushed back.

This work is needed now. My concern is that, if we keep pushing it off to the 19^th Assembly and to the 20^th Assembly, we are not going to be able to complete these projects, because our financial situation is not going to get better. Everyone knows what the financial outlook for the territory is, and it is relatively bleak. What we need to do is ensure that we get these projects done now, so that we can keep people employed now, and we can get this infrastructure while we still have the cash to do it. I have a feeling that these are just getting pushed off, and eventually they are going to get dropped. A lot of these are important projects.

I just wanted to throw that in there. I won't take up too much time. No further comments. I don't expect a response. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. I will give an opportunity to the Minister, if he wishes to reply.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Member's comments, and we do agree to a certain extent. We did put out $202 million in infrastructure last year, and I share his concern about some of the work that needs to get out, though, as I said before, we won't be able to get all this work out, because, coming from an area that has seen the slowdown in the economy, I know the importance of trying to get these projects out the door. I think it is a message that I have been giving to my FMB colleagues. As much carry-overs as we have, we still spent $202 million in infrastructure, but point taken. His point is well-taken. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with the Minister. It's not widespread. I just know that I have seen some of it happen, and it is a concern for me if those contractors are able to bid on future stuff. The Minister talked about consequences to the department not getting jobs done. I guess I agree with you, but I have a concern with that. That is the employment going to that community, and so, when we are talking about consequences, is there some way that we can work with the community to be able to move forward? Because I sit there and I see the consequences, and I see these numbers, and I wonder why we are not being able to complete things. Again, the consequences are, say a trail in Fort Simpson, if that is what the territorial government is doing on the parks, it does not get done, and we take that money away, that trail does not get done. That means there is employment and enhancements there. How are we going to be able to ensure the consequences are fitting moving forward? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If they could not get a trail done in that particular community, then they do not deserve to get paid. However, we have to be careful when we look at this. Again, I was talking about the department, not the communities themselves. We will make every effort to ensure that the employment still gets into the community, but some of these smaller projects in the community and some of them are community driven, then they have the ability to get the work done there as quickly as possible. I mean, when I talk consequences, I am not talking communities. I understand the effects of employment in the communities as well as anybody in this building. I am a firm believer in trying to create employment for the citizens of the Northwest Territories. When I talk consequences, I speak of the finance Minister's dealings with his colleagues on FMB. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, and I greatly appreciate that answer from the Minister. Now I understand what he means by "consequences," so my thanks for that. In regards to forward thinking and dealing with isolated communities, whether it be winter roads or barges, has the government looked at spending money before the fiscal year; in other words, if we are looking at 2020-2021 and it's on the winter road, we do the 2019-2020 to get the stuff shipped up so that when the project is ready to go or the money, like when we get the money for the fiscal year 2020-2021, we are able to do the job? Have you guys looked at that potential? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The whole idea of having the budget cycle, capital budget cycle, in October was to give an opportunity to approve the capital budget for the following fiscal year that takes effect April 1^st. That gives them the winter to plan, and they could possibly get their materials and everything ordered that winter. I think the actual approval of the money takes effect on April 1^st, but that is not to say that they cannot start awarding the contract and spending the money before then. That is why we tried to have the capital budget in October, was to get away from having it approved April 1^st and then it takes them a couple of stuff to get all of their stuff ordered, and then it takes a couple more months to get it here, and then it's November by the time they start building, and then, as I said before, 10 percent cold weather clause kicked in and it was quite lucrative. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.