Robert Hawkins

All right. Well, I’ll give the Minister an analogy back. We are buying a $10 million iceberg. We are buying it in the winter, parking it out and now it’s melted in July and someone says, let’s mop it up and see if we can account for our losses. Are you kidding me? It is going to melt away and no one is going to be around. We’re going to have an empty bucket because there is nothing left to soak up. To say that the fundamental decision was to go forward and basically pay $10 million, is the Minister saying to the House today, and I’m going to be frank, has the government, has this Cabinet...

Thank you. Will the Minister table the 2010 contract signed with Ruskin, along with the 2012 new agreement signed with Ruskin and then finally supply a copy to my office as soon as possible?

Madam Chair, I do appreciate the Minister’s answer, but what I took from this last answer regarding the slippage and how it has fallen behind schedule, it sounds like it is the fault of the contractor. Are we not rewarding bad work or incomplete work? That is the question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All we hear are options of somewhere between $7.2 million and $9.5 million. There has been no clear explanation as to why that money is really needed. All we hear is the platitude saying our lawyers say this, but where is the real discussion in our committees, in the Assembly about that particular discussion? Has the AIP formally been signed as the Minister pointed out? Has it formally committed us to some type of contractual obligation that we have no other choice of supporting it? Thank you.

The detail of the briefing, actually, I should let the Minister know, I actually have a copy. I have actually gone through it and out of that stemmed many, many other questions, so no need to send one to the office. I already have one, so we can save the paper and save the time.

The detail of why they’re not meeting the existing deadline of the fall under the existing contract still needs to be cleared up. 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.