Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question about the new love affair for the Department of Transportation for a negotiated contract, how many sole-source negotiated contracts or similar types of documents have been signed under this Minister’s watch since taking the helm of the Department of Transportation last fall? Thank you.

Clearly, we can see how thin skinned the Minister is by turning it into an issue like that. As I said to start off, my issue, quite frankly, is the process, but if it hurts his feelings, I mean, I can rephrase my question.

I have to actually admit I liked his quote, and that will be my question, which is it’s not about the competency or the fair price, but his question was: How can we guarantee these things without going through an RFP process? Mr. Speaker, that is the question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just saw her a few minutes ago; I think she’s still up there. I’d like to recognize Sandra Taylor. She’s the president of the Yellowknife Seniors’ Society. I, too, at this time, would like to recognize the wise elder Jim Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Friday, May 25, 2012, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Tabled Document 2-17(3), Commissioner’s Opening Address: march 26Creating the Conditions for Success, be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take that particular detail as the Minister had offered. What better learning experience could any particular company get from a potential contract by actually applying themselves in a constructive way by actually tendering documents to try to win? If we are talking about capacity building, bidding on contracts is one element of capacity building. That is the question, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to do a point of order on 23(i), imputes false motive. The Minister is suggesting a nefarious conduct or suggestion by me. That is not true. I also follow that up under the same issue under 23(j) and 23(k), which falls under charging an MLA with some type of falsehood, as well as insulting and bad language that causes disorder of this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, nefarious is quite a strong word. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my Member’s statement today, I was concerned about this process, about the new found love for sole sourcing, or as the sleight of hand may call it, a negotiated contract.

Mr. Speaker, my concern is strictly about the process and not about who’s getting it. Although there seems to be an undertone trying to describe it as that’s the issue, and by no means it is. Mr. Speaker, I, too, speak in favour of the virtues cited about training skilled development, local employment and Aboriginal involvement, so you won’t hear me speak against that. It’s the process. Mr...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First off, I would like to thank Member Menicoche for bringing forward this particular motion. He is quite right in the context of being concerned about our seniors. Of course, this motion speaks to the fact that we want to support and protect the seniors in future years to make sure that the Old Age Security benefit is there for them.

Mr. Speaker, doing a bit of research, I pulled up information that the parliamentary budget officer has done. He did a study called the Federal Fiscal Sustainability of Elderly Benefits. What he has noted here, in short, without quoting it...

My next question for the Minister of WSCC is: On that particular case, can you explain why if landlord/tenant issues are publicized when they go before the rental office, why family law matters are publicized, why child protection rulings are modified but still publicized and, finally, why human rights cases and law society discipline rulings publicized, why wouldn’t we publicize decisions of the NWT Appeals Tribunal through the WSCC in the context of fairness?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the little leeway you have given me on this particular problem, because it is a big problem. The justice system, the Supreme Court has noted about the potential for people using EPOs is a tool for custody battles and divorces. The last thing I will point out is the report is built around three things: increasing awareness, improve access to emergency protection and to improve protection. Nowhere in this report does it support findings that are crystal clear that say that EPOs can be abused. There is not one recommendation to say we need to make sure it is...