Robert Hawkins

Well, I would like to ask a question and I’d hate to think we’re stifling public debate and democracy here, and shame on those who groan if we ask some questions. The petroleum products division, would they be able to talk about what resources they have here, what resources they use in human capital and certainly in the context of financial resources they spread out and to what communities? As of recently, I’ve clearly been raising the issue of gas regulation and I’ve likened it to some of the work we do under petroleum products division already. So I’m curious on the human capital we have...

I’ll thank him for that. The next question I would have is: Do we have a policy on our projects that we implement or contract or sign on where they must pay their northern suppliers or their workforce or their subs within a certain amount of time?

I don’t really have a question but I have more of a statement which is, I would hope that if the department sends their information to committee, I would hope that they would be based on, as I said earlier, it’s better and easier to gauge consumption levels than it is to, say, price levels. Because, as we know, the power bills increase but perhaps consumption has been contiguous, which demonstrates that that’s the problem. It’s not necessarily the technical money sense, although money is obviously the issue, but at least it demonstrates stewardship under these principles. If you’re short...

Okay, well, in a construction-type contract where we’re building, say, a warehouse, by way of example, just to make life simple, and the warehouse is $2 million – perhaps not unlike the one that’s proposed in Tuktoyaktuk, $1 million planning, $1 million in construction fees, or something like that. A $2 million project on a warehouse. If a southern company won this bid, what would their deposit be if they couldn’t get bonding, and if a local company out of Tuktoyaktuk wanted to do this project and they couldn’t get bonding, what type of deposit would be in that range?

I’m just trying to get a sense here is Public Works being stuck with a responsibility where the users of the system, in the sense that the users of the power who are consuming the power are not responsible, and yet Public Works gets to wear the dirty laundry and make up the shortfall. In the last three years this particular area would have been budgeted with the department. How has the consistency been for the department to be able to pay these bills without having to require to move money from other program areas, et cetera, in order to make up any particular shortfall? And if they have had...

Why on large contracts – and I’m not going to try to be too specific or we’d be here all day – do we have a policy that it’s only bond versus deposit?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we report progress.

---Carried

What type of authority do we have to provide direction on this particular one? The reason I say that is because if Public Works actually has to pick up the cost and there’s a shortfall, it looks like it’s Public Works’ fault as opposed to whoever is creating the overconsumption, or I’ll call it poor management of our assets and utilities. That said, it looks like Public Works has to be the mop-up, but what authority do they have to lean back into the departments?

In some cases do we require more in the context of the value of a bond versus a cash deposit and, if so, what are the circumstances contrived around that situation?

I guess I’m just after continuous, sort of, similarities there in the sense of continuous play. If we do this, it is one thing. But, no, I think I have enough information on this area, so no need to probe any further. Thank you.