Robert Hawkins

Thank you. In 2010 a particular Member of this House had pointed the Cabinet to stop blaming previous governments for their problems and certainly take decisions and responsibility. Just a moment ago, the Minister referred to the present contract in the present terms, which is the 2010 contract. So it’s still relevant. So the question is: Would the Minister supply the 2010 contract with Ruskin alongside the companion document that I’ve asked for, which is the 2012 document signed with Ruskin? Thank you.

Madam Chair, the next issue, which is ironically the previous issue, was the Minister said there was slippage. He pointed to the contractor being responsible for not meeting the objectives of the schedule, which clearly is the issue here. What type of penalties or enforcement clauses on the slippage of the scheduling do we have? What can we invoke? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions will continue to be to the Minister of Transportation regarding the Deh Cho Bridge. For clarity, did our engineers ever order Ruskin to take steps to complete the Deh Cho Bridge by the end of 2012 at Ruskin’s cost and by what authority are they instructing that direction?

The old Minister kept articulating that it would open in the fall of 2011, then he insisted it would be open in the fall of 2012 through the process. What particularly changed that we are unable to fulfill under the existing contract? It had a schedule of the previous year to be opened, and for some reason there clearly is slippage, as someone would use in the terminology here. What part of the slippage is our fault and what part of the slippage is their fault, and can we get some details as to what the slippage actually is? Because we did have a schedule on this previously; actually, a couple...

Mr. Speaker, the Minister keeps misunderstanding the issue. It’s not going back to a story long told in history. This is an active contract. So maybe that’s particularly the question that needs to be asked. In some way or some form, has the 2010 contract signed with Ruskin with the GNWT as a partner to get the bridge built, has that mysteriously dissolved in some manner and been replaced with some formal acknowledgement and information passed on to Members?

Mr. Speaker, that’s a pretty big question. You would think the Minister would know if he was certainly asking for up to $10 million as he pointed out in his Minister’s statement, so maybe I’ll try it again.

Is the department aware in any manner that our engineers - and I believe they are called associated engineers watching the project - have they ever instructed Ruskin to complete this project on schedule? Has there been any pushback or refusal from Ruskin to do so? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to speak to the Deh Cho Bridge concern and issue. Yesterday we heard the Minister speak in his Minister’s statement regarding an agreement that they’ve reached that could run us up to a capped $10 million. What stood out specifically for me was they’re confident that both parties are committed to the success of this project. Of course, I’m more confident that Ruskin has figured out how to keep draining more money out of the GNWT coffers and the territorial government continues to roll over. If I may coin it in a typical sense of partnership, I would call...

I guess my last question, and I’ll say with respect, of course, that I recognize the Minister’s last response. I mean, we really are talking about that kind of horse that’s since been gone for years as if it mattered on today’s debate. It’s well out of the barn, down the pasture, not even worth talking about. I appreciate that point.

I guess my last question in this particular regard, I suspect the Minister will answer it fine, but I suspect my last question will really be built around, was part of this a trade-off so we could get the extra access capital so we could get potential to use that...

I appreciate the answer. A couple of things, though, that popped out of that. The Minister pointed out a debate that was ongoing and you kept referring to a discussion, we had a discussion. I wouldn’t mind knowing who the debate was with and who the ongoing discussion was with. I’m not sure my memory serves me correct and I, of course, look for guidance from the Minister if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that this wasn’t brought to Regular Members as a particular option. What I’m going to do is bundle this with one other question. Where is the debate, with whom was it going on, was there or is...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 8, oral questions, on the orders of the day. Thank you.

---Unanimous consent denied