MEMBER’S STATEMENT ON
GNWT POLICY OF PUBLIC TENDER
MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Monday morning I was contacted by a constituent who was very concerned about a recent Department of Health public tender. Their business received a fax Friday afternoon from Inuvik Health to which they only noticed Monday morning and, by the way, Mr. Speaker, it closes this Thursday. To understand this situation and appreciate the complexity, I will describe it this way.
The tender was faxed to this office Friday, May 14th. The fax was examined on Monday morning, May 17th, and the tender closes on May 20th. Simply put, this business is only allowed four business days to reasonably respond to a complex tender. So is it reasonable, or is it fishy, Mr. Speaker? I’ll let the public decide on how this process will roll out.
However, if the problems stop there I’m sure we can simply chalk this up as an oops or an oversight. But when you read the tender document, a chill of unfairness starts to roll down your spine. When you read the details of the 13 pages of request on the tender document you will see that they use one name of a local competitor against another here. The Department of Health uses the spreadsheet of a local business, which can only cause you to wonder who actually wrote this tender, but if it only stopped there, the story would probably end. But, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health then uses specific product numbers from this one local business in their public tender, which really can only be attained from this private business. So how is that fair competition?
As opposed to using industry standards and product names that everyone knows and understands, like Johnson and Johnson and Phillips as an example, they decide to use product numbers, descriptions and product names you can only guess came from one company. Mr. Speaker, if you get into the product description now, the wording is very vague and ambiguous, which causes you to be forced to guess on what the Department of Health reads.
So if you’re a northern business and you want to compete on this public tender, you actually have to call your local competition to ask them for pricing so you can compete. Is that fair? I would definitely say not. Mr. Speaker, again, it causes me to wonder what’s going on.
Mr. Speaker, this process is kind of a strange stage of many things that arise and surface as to what is really going on. Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Health and Social Services is forced with only one option which, I brought to her attention, is to cancel the tender, issue it fairly and make sure northern competitors aren’t competing each other in such an unfair, blatantly biased manner, which I think brings disrespect to this government and it can be corrected today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
MEMBER’S STATEMENT ON
PROPOSED CHANGES TO SUPPLEMENTARY HEALTH BENEFITS POLICY
MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak today about the proposed changes to the supplementary health benefits. I’ll begin by stating that I am encouraged that Premier Roland and Cabinet Ministers actually were listening to what Regular Members and the public were saying about the proposed changes.
We’re looking now at a joint working group formed between Cabinet and Regular Members to come up with a plan to move this forward and I appreciate Cabinet wanting to work through the issues with Regular Members. I’m hoping for positive results from this effort. In the spirit of consensus government we do need to work together.
However, I do remain sceptical of the timelines. We have an opportunity before us to get this right and make decisions based on solid analysis. As a government we cannot afford to deliver a haphazard, inferior product for our residents. It will be up to us to ensure that it does get done right.
Having the ability to move the implementation date until after Members come back here in October will give us the opportunity to question the Cabinet. For me this is very important as it will give us the ability to ask more questions on behalf of our constituents. September 30th was solely a political date intended at avoiding another round of questions. I want to thank those Cabinet Members who agreed with having some flexibility.
Over 3,000 Northwest Territories residents signed one petition or another voicing their displeasure with the actions of government in regard to this policy. We had over 150 protesters in front of the Legislative Assembly. A motion passed unanimously in the recent Elders Parliament. A motion passed at the recently held NWTAC. Hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls from concerned residents. And finally the government has listened.
Politics is a serious business. I recall a former political science professor of mine stating that in politics there are two things you cannot fool around with. The first is health care and the second is education. If you must do so, it will require much finesse and diplomacy. To date we haven’t done this. Can we not find a way forward without unnecessarily infuriating the public? The first step in this process is listening to people.
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted
MR. RAMSAY: In her handling of the issue, the Health Minister has shown a propensity to be narrow minded and not listen to the arguments put forward by Members on this side of the House, and I want to go on record today as saying she has got to improve her listening skills. Thankfully some of her Cabinet colleagues understand what consensus government means and what it means to listen to the Regular Members of this House and the public of the Northwest Territories. I want to thank them for that.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Share with your friends: |
