EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
To me, what we’re trying to do is show transparency within the government, as what he is saying, in a sense that these things are available. I know in the past when I have actually asked his department for information about different contracts, I felt, myself, I wasn’t able to get specific information.
Before I go to the question about the possibility of a deputy minister making decisions and where does the employee go, I want to speak to some of the questions that came up when he was answering my question the first time in a sense that: how open is your department with sharing information?
Will you show different contractors how your department went through the bid process? Will you tell them how they graded among the NNI? How the final decision came about?
Is that what your department does?
And again, this is a learning process for me because I’m not a contractor and I don’t put in bids for tenders, I just listen and I’m learning the process myself from what I hear contractors and businesses say out there.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the tender processes, we disclose the total price, vendor name, location of project, and procurement method. Itemized price is not disclosed.
The name of sub-contractors is not disclosed. NNI bid analysis is disclosed. In terms of request for proposals, we disclose our vendor name, location of project, and procurement method.
Price is generally not disclosed at the time of the award, but the total price is disclosed on the power and car reports. The name of sub-contractors is not disclosed. Evaluation scores are not disclosed.
I hope that answers your question, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the information because that brought up another question.
If an Inuit owned company applies for this bid, or for a tender, or for a contract, it is company XYZ, and it is totally Inuit owned, you said that it doesn’t disclose the subcontractors.
So I could technically be a contractor in a community and say that I’m going to do the work, but I could then contract it out to some southern company and no one else would know that I would get the bid and the points for being a totally Inuit owned company. To me, that doesn’t seem fair to what happens a lot of times to our small businesses in the communities.
Could you clarify that? Is that what you are saying to me?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) I think there are processes to determine if there is abuse and penalties, and those things, but I’ll let the minister answer that one.
Maybe I could ask Alma to explain that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. Ms. Power.
Ms. Power: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The company would disclose to us in their bids who their subcontractors were.
We would not disclose that information to the other bidders when we did our letters of regret.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Power. Mr. Elliott.
That does help a lot.
Again, this is a new process for me and I think for the people who are watching it, it’s probably a good educational experience. As Minister Kusugak said the last time we were here, I must be learning lots.
I want to get back to the question. Say, for example, I work in the deputy minister’s office and I see stuff going on with sole source contracts going out to certain people, there’s a tender that needs to go out for reviewing some policy or whatever, and I’m not happy with the way that it’s being done, where do you go when your boss is the deputy minister? Do you actually go to the minister?
Again, I’m getting to the point with whistle-blowing and obviously, it has been in the newspaper in the past couple of weeks with reports about things that are going on with departments that are confidential information about employees. I just want to know where employees can go.
I presume to answer this question relative to procurement. I have to admit that frankly, I don’t think too many deputy ministers actually get involved in the procurement process themselves, most of that is done rightly by their staff.
Virtually all procurements run through the procurement office certainly in our department and gets guidance from the procurement office itself.
The contracts are relative to the type of work going on. In our business, it’s a great deal of consulting work on engineering, architecture, and construction. All of those contracts are managed by project officers and project managers.
There is a credit checks and balance system involved because every contract needs signatories by at least three or four folks, usually ending with the deputy minister depending on the value. So the deputy minister does see it.
Each one of these contracts are also signed off and registered as a financial transaction. So there are an awful lot of folks who actually see the contract details and the financial details around the contracts and are privy to the process.
So it’s highly unlikely that there would be one person involved at any level in any kind of contract award.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Lausman. (interpretation ends) I think one of the things is, where there is a sole source contract, the procedures aren’t followed through the usual process. Can you explain that process perhaps? Ms. Lausman.
Even with sole source contracts, they begin with the need for a contract.
Unless it’s a dire emergency, even sole source contracts have a sign-off as to the justification and that goes through at least three or four signatures, frequently the deputy minister because of the value.
So again, the checks and balances around all types of contracts themselves are quite expansive, so it’s very rare. In fact, I personally don’t know a case where a contract would be signed off by one individual in one department. They’re really scrutinized quite widely.
Thank you for that explanation. That again helps.
So if you were an employee who thought that the process wasn’t properly followed through and then the deputy minister does sign it, does that employee still go to the deputy minister and say, “I have a problem with you hiring.”
Again, I’m not talking about contract services for an airline for medical travel and things like that; I’m talking about individual employees. We have so many different cases where there are individual people who are employed as and you think they’re employees, but they’re actually contract workers. Again, we’re in a small territory and there’s bound to be nepotism that happens.
Now, I’m not saying that it has happened, but you know, we’re in a small territory.
If I am an employee, and again I think to me, what we want to try and do is to make sure that your employees feel that the process is being followed through, and if I’m sitting there and I don’t know who to ask, then ultimately, I’m going to be upset and frustrated thinking that I have no one to tell this to.
It might very well find out that the process was followed through properly and everything went through, but there is no process to be able to help that employee air their concern.
Again there is a difference between airing your concerns and having a real concern and then just bitching about it. I am talking about someone who has a legitimate concern about what’s happened and the process being followed.
Is there or could you commit to working towards having a process in place?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) I would caution you on using language that is considered unparliamentary, just a reminder.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: In our department, in terms of sole sourced contracts or any contracts, we do our utmost to ensure that there is no illegal activity, if I may use that, in terms of nepotism or anything else being done through any of the contracting processes.
If there are issues out there, again I haven’t been made aware of any, such as what Mr. Elliott is outlining.
If there is an issue there and it needs to be looked at, I’m sure that our department could take a look at, if there was an issue like that, how we would begin to deal with it in terms of our department.
I apologize for using that term.
What I would like to know is if the minister could commit to actually working with the Department of Human Resources. As what the Premier has said, she wants the different government departments working together, working together better, and communicating better.
If the Department of Human Resources is actually working on some type of whistle-blower legislation, to me, this seems like it could fit under it in terms of when contracts are happening, there is an out for employees to go and talk and have a process.
So instead of your department looking at the situation and coming up with your own policy, maybe working with the Department of Human Resources to have one policy that fits all government departments.
Minister Kusugak, if you want to answer the question.
Thank you for those comments.
In terms of this issue, the contracting and procurement, we do the utmost that we can to ensure that the people who receive the contracts and win the awards are done fairly and equitably.
Nothing, as far as I know, is done under the table; it’s all a very public process. It’s as fair as you can get. There is a whole process with checks and balances, and checks within checks and balances.
Our process right now works.
If we need to review those checks and balances, we will review them with those departments that we need to work with them with. Our government is a very good government in terms that we work with all departments.
We work with all departments in terms of procurement.
I am sure that my colleague and the others would be more than happy to work with us in terms of ensuring that the checks and balances are fair and equitable for everybody.
I think that when you turn the page on this thick piece of paper, you will see a lot of individuals that are under sole source. That’s where I think, once we get into the details, it will become obvious that there are a lot more questions to these sole source issues that we’re facing.
One of the things that always has stuck out in my mind with people who are either sole sourced or they’re contracted out to work in a government department is they show up on the staff list as an employee. If you are contracted by the Government of Nunavut, are you technically an employee of the Government of Nunavut?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: A very short answer to that, no, Mr. Chairman.
If they’re not technically employees of the Government of Nunavut, what happens if they make a mistake? They don’t carry a zero in their financial person and they cause a department to go into a deficit or overspend by some ungodly amount of money.
Is there any recourse for compensation or giving that back?
If there are people who are making decisions about policy and if you are a Government of Nunavut employee, then obviously, if you’re an employee, there are ways of going through a process of reviewing, sitting down with the person, evaluating the performance, and helping that person grow and become a better employee of the Government of Nunavut.
If they are a contractor, is there anything in place where that’s allowed to happen or do they just come and do their work and then leave?
There is actually a fair bit of work done around contracts for service contractors as opposed to employees and it’s very important, especially to Revenue Canada, to ensure that there is a clear separation between what is an employee and what is a contractor. Frankly, contractors are hired with very specific deliverables for a very specific timeframe. Those deliverables are checked and recorded as part of the deliverance of that contract itself.
It’s frankly much easier to deal with contractors and their performance, probably, than with a lot of staff issues, quite frankly.
The issue of where you would hire a contractor to do work, whether it’s financial or otherwise, is probably not in your strategic positions. You would hire them to fulfill a task, a certain deliverable, and the price of the contract would be based on that particular deliverable over that particular time.
There is a considerable effort taken to separate what is a contract for staff under the Public Service Act and what is a contract for an individual for a certain type of work. It’s quite distinct.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Lausman. (interpretation ends) Mr. Elliott, your time’s up for the time being.
The next name I have is Mr. Aupaluktuq.
Along the lines of response that Ms. Lausman has provided for us in terms of hiring to get a task done or to get a job done.
In the 2008-09 fiscal year, a number of individuals received contracts worth more than $100,000 from different governmental departments. In some cases, individuals have received more than a quarter of a million dollars in government contracts.
Will you commit to working with the Minister of Finance to implement a process where contracts are automatically audited in cases where a single individual receives more than $100,000 in contracts in any given fiscal year?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask Kathleen to give a quick response to that.
To that question, there is actually an established Central Accountability Committee that’s chaired by Finance and that committee deals with issues of this nature, which typically begin with internal audits that the Department of Finance actually generates. So we are already involved in oversight over a number of issues like that.
I also want to thank the deputy minister for providing that answer there. It is always nice to know how people always overuse the word “transparency,” especially in the government system, but basically, what it comes down to is the accountability aspect of it. I think that we are all trying to do our best to best serve the interests of Nunavut, so is the department, so is the public in keeping us informed and holding us accountable.
I’ve got a question along the lines of that just to follow up what I had asked.
A number of former government employees have been awarded contracts by the government to perform work that would normally be performed by full-time employees. Concerns have been raised that employees have an incentive to leave the government in order to return as consultants who perform the same work for more income.
Will you commit to working with the Minister of Human Resources to implement a policy whereby people who leave the government cannot be awarded government contracts or be hired to work as consultants until a certain time has passed in order to avoid that reputation of having staff leave in order to provide the same type of service as consultants?
Yes, we could, but in saying that, there are cases where an individual or individuals may leave the government and that position cannot be filled in the time. During the individual’s vacancy, the work still needs to be done. There are times and cases where, as before, we have to get the individuals back to do some contract work while the position is trying to be filled.
It is just a problem of getting qualified staff to fill those positions and most of these are very specific jobs that cannot be filled immediately, but we are trying to deal with that. We are working with the appropriate department in trying to deal with shortage of staff and working towards trying to get redundancy in departments so that if a certain staff member leaves, they don’t leave such a void.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thanks for the response.
To kind of put into perspective, another way to ask this, I believe, would be asking in this sense: how many of the government’s positions are currently being filled on a contractual basis by consultants who are not actually members of the public service?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman.
I wouldn’t be able to answer that.
Chairman: I think Mr. Kusugak, perhaps, if an employee leaves, they sometimes go with severance. While they are in severance, are they allowed to be given contracts and double-dip, for example?
Other governments have put in safeguards to prevent such activities. So is there a system in place within our contracting practices to prevent that from happening where we are paying twice over, perhaps, for the same service?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: I really wouldn’t be able to answer that, Mr. Chairman, but I think the Department of Human Resources may be better suited to answer that question. I wouldn’t know, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: We will get to Human Resources a bit later, I understand.
Are there any further questions on this section?
I don’t see any other arms. Mr. Arvaluk.
I just need clarification. On page 4 of the Government of Nunavut Contract Activity Report, Tabled Document 99 – 3(2), it says that sole source contracting practices are monitored closely. The GN believes we get the best value for our money through a competitive bidding process.
Yet, in their procurement of these contracts, the sole sourcing contract is so much higher in terms of percentage. Why is the government saying that we get the best for our money in a competitive bidding process and yet, there are a whole lot of sole sourced contracts? Why is there a contradiction there?
In that same document, it says that the volume of sole sourced contracts has decreased by 15 percent from the fiscal year 2007-08 to 2008-09.
In terms of sole source contracting though, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about most of the sole source contracting is done with specialized trades and emergency situations, such as the Pangnirtung disaster we had. We have emergency situations where sole sourcing spikes up.
We have specialized fields and specialized contracts that are let.
I hope that clarifies some of Mr. Arvaluk’s questions, but again that I can only answer in terms of our department’s sole sourcing.
Thanks for the partial answer.
My specific question was the percentage of contracts that are procured or have gone through the government. Sole sourcing is a lot higher than the competitive process.
There are a lot more contracts in sole sourcing and I know it has decreased by 15 percent, but why was it even higher than 15 percent?
My question is: because they couldn’t fulfill jobs for whatever reason, that’s why they had to get a contractor just to do a service, especially service work?
I am not so worried about building a bridge in Pangnirtung, that’s an exception.
I am talking about IT technology. I think it has a whole lot of contracts for individual people who could have easily been, I think, hired by the government as employees of the government rather than contractors.
Why is the practice continued rather than employing staff to do these things?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Arvaluk responded to some of those issues.
One of the bigger issues is we have severe staff shortages. We have experts required in the different fields that are not available here or within departments. We have emergency situations that arise.
There are a number of contributing factors to this throughout the government.
Our department, believe me, would rather be not sole sourcing if it can.
But I would like to ask Kathleen if she could add to those comments, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow her.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. Ms. Lausman.
I do want to respond to the question around IT because I think that one is quite important.
There is an awful lot of expert IT skill sets required, actually, within Nunavut.
Rather than sole source, what the government has done is issued standing offer agreements to a number of what are called body shots. What they do is they provide expert consulting for different types of IT expertise, whether it’s business analyst or project managers, experts in different software and different hardware systems.
Those, in fact, are tendered and are procured with transparency.
It’s certainly not a sole source, but it does bring in consulting individuals to deal with specific IT issues over a specific period of time.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Lausman. (interpretation) Are there any further questions?
Thank you for allowing me to ask more questions.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that the Department of Health and Social Services issued 186 sole source contracts in 2008-09. This accounted for over 42 percent of the total number of sole source contracts.
As Minister of Community and Government Services, are you satisfied that the Department of Health and Social Services is following proper government procurement and contracting practices with respect to sole sourcing?
I think that question is better asked of the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services.
In terms of giving out these 186 sole source contracts and 42 percent of the total sole source contracts for the Government of Nunavut, your department has no role in this.
It’s strictly Health and Social Services that is totally responsible for writing up the description of the job like you said, assigning the dollar value, reviewing whether it is Inuit owned or not Inuit owned, and you have nothing to do with that.
We don’t participate in the other departments’ sole sourcing.
That is done by their departments, Mr. Chairman.
We will have a chance to have different departments come before us.
I guess it’s a good thing I asked that question because now it leads me to ask you: when you answered the question about sole sourcing, following proper procedures, following a proper job description or viable outcomes, and then evaluating those outcomes back to the dollar value spent, were you answering that just for your department in terms of your process and the way you do it, not the overall government?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: In terms of sole sourcing contracts, yes.
Mr. Elliott, any further questions?
I don’t see any further arms on this one. (interpretation) Are there any questions for government-wide issues?
No one has their hand up for that one.
Thank you, Mr. Kusugak.
I give you the opportunity to make any closing comments.
I would like to thank the members for their questions and at this time, I will just show my appreciation, Mr. Chairman.
When we are dealing with contracts, we try to be transparent and open to the public out there. We have to give everybody an opportunity. That’s why I and my staff work hard to make sure that there is fairness in dealing with contracts in Nunavut.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us an opportunity.
Those were government-wide issues and I thank you for responding to those questions.
At this time, we will have to deal with your department. You can now ask questions specifically regarding Community and Government Services.
(interpretation ends) To the Department of CGS solely, are there any other questions?
There are a number of contracts outstanding or to be completed, for example, in Pond Inlet that we have yet to build an arena.
The foundation, I think, is being worked on now and that the rest will come in during the sealift.
We have been informed that federal monies for stimulus programs may stop some time in the near future.
Will these contracts be completed while the money is still available from the federal government?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Minister Kusugak.
In terms of the arena in Pond Inlet, those dollars are already committed, Mr. Chairman, and our department is not aware of any funding that’s going to stop.
I’m not aware of that, Mr. Chairman. As for his arena, those funds are committed and it will be built.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I’m using Pond Inlet as an example.
There must be other infrastructure programs in other communities that are in the same boat literally, I guess.
So 75 percent of the fed’s money that is going towards that arena is secured with the Government of Nunavut already. Is that the answer?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: I think, Mr. Chairman, there are funds that we have from the federal government, the Building Canada Fund, municipal and recreational infrastructure funds, and stimulus funds.
As far as I know, those funds are not going to be cut short and that they will run through due process, Mr. Chairman.