Robert Hawkins

Maybe I can’t make it any more clear from this side of the House, which is what’s wrong with our contract in this particular regard? We keep asking why doesn’t the department, and use our legal division in the justice system to implement and force this contractor to comply with the contract. The simple ask is this: What’s the problem with our contract that we’re being held hostage by paying more?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation’s reply to one of my questions was that it wasn’t going to cost any more money. I think my colleague Mr. Dolynny tried to bring up that issue a little more clearly, but we didn’t get any clear answer. My next question for the Minister of Transportation is: What’s the point of having a negotiated contract when we’re asking for somewhere between $7.2 million and $9.5 million more, and explain to maybe the House why that isn’t actually costing more money, because it sure sounds like real money and new money to the taxpayer?

Mr. Speaker, maybe can I get some understanding of why they would refuse to comply with our direction provided by our engineer at the particular time? I think it is cited in March. Is he saying if our associated engineers instructed Ruskin to comply with a schedule, why would they refuse to comply with the schedule? What grounds would they have with the ability to refuse a contractual schedule? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions as well will be about the Deh Cho Bridge, similar to my colleague. They will be directed to the Minister of Transportation. Has Ruskin ever failed to comply with directions from our engineers to comply with a particular schedule? Thank you.

I figured the Minister was going to answer yes in some capacity, so I’m fine with his answer.

What actually has worked to our advantage, in this particular case, for turning back the Opportunities Fund? I thought it was actually working quite well as a vehicle for lending money at a rate of 10 percent. I’m not going to question the context or phraseology of our good Finance folks, but I’m just wondering where the political discussion or the emphasis on the investment vehicle. At 10 percent return I thought that would be considered a good one. Maybe if the Minister could help me understand that particular thing, because it seemed to be an excellent vehicle for making cash for this...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up quickly regarding the matter Member Dolynny had brought out. I’m just trying to understand perhaps the context of the bill of goods that we were sold by taking this particular option of returning the $135 million, or $134 million, it doesn’t really matter. Potatoes, potatoes at this particular case because it’s all gone. But what was the bill of goods sold to us, that this was in our benefit that we had money that cost us a 1.45 interest rate versus now we’re using a market rate of 3.5. I mean, there must have been some reasoning why turning it...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These words will sound familiar to the Minister, but what’s the point of having a contract if the Minister isn’t going to be responsible? Therefore, the question simply is: Who is responsible for the failure of the implementation of this contract? We need a name and someone to take responsibility. I’m sure that sounds familiar.

I’m trying to get a sense of who is actually in the driver’s seat of this particular problem. The Minister has just said if we don’t meet the fall deadline, it’s going to cost us $9 million. He says we have to pay potentially up to $10 million to make sure we comply. I’m confused that the negotiated contract isn’t being implemented. Did Ruskin agree, if we paid more money, they would comply with the original direction provided by Associated Engineers to comply with the fall deadline, again, if we paid more money?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m still missing the answer of why they would refuse to follow instructions provided by our particular engineers. It almost sounds like, if I’m understanding this correctly, that it’s costing us more money because we are complying with the will of Ruskin. Is this approach costing us more money, as mentioned in the press release, up to $10 million? Why aren’t we enforcing our legally obligated contract which we negotiated with them earlier? Thank you.