Robert Hawkins

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.

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

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.