Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had an exchange earlier with the Minister of Transportation that the only one element that I think was left out of this particular issue was timeliness of his response to complying with my request. The issue is that this bridge contract has been tendered. If you read the details, it looks like it’s been awarded, but has the contract been signed? So timeliness of his response to my office is significantly critical on this issue to ensure a contract isn’t dotted. If we find out that the contract did not fully fulfil its original intent and it’s already been signed, it may be too late.
Madam Speaker, would the Minister commit to have that information I requested before the end of the week to ensure we haven’t missed the timing window? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. When DOT awards a contract, obviously they are going to go back to the company that won the contract and do a technical review of the information that was provided in the tender documents to ensure the due diligence is done to ensure the work can be performed as stated in the tender, and in the case of the electrical contract for the bridge, that was done. We haven’t had Can-Traffic do work for us before, so we were extra diligent on trying to find out and get the references, and do that technical review before that contract was awarded. Madam Speaker, any information the Member requires, we will do our best to get that information to him.
Also, I am aware that Can-Traffic did indeed provide Appendix B as part of their bid package to the Department of Transportation. Thank you.
What I’m asking is, will this information all be sent to my office. It can be blacked out hiding proprietary information. I understand that. But there needs to be proof that they complied with the requirement as stated out in the tender, which is to demonstrate that they have northern content. That is the critical issue, to make sure that information is conveyed before the final contract has been signed. Thank you.
If the Member wants to get us a list of exactly what it is he requires, the contract has been signed. We’re more than happy to provide him with whatever information we can provide him with. On Appendix B, it speaks to the company’s ability to do the work. It talks about who they would bring in as their subcontractors. It talks about their ability to get the job done in dollar values. That’s proprietary information and that’s not something we would normally share with anybody. That’s how they won the contract, that’s how they are going to do the work. Certainly, we can provide it, but we’d have to black out names of companies and dollar amounts. Appendix B wouldn’t be much to look at with all that information blacked out.
They could have complied with the award by leaving those pages blank, as well, by submitting them. That could have been an essence of how they complied with the greater contract.
The issue is simply I cannot take good faith on this. I am looking for information that proves they complied with the requirements and my e-mail dated February 13th asks for that information. I am not sure I need to resend it. Thank you. That’s my question. Will the Minister reconsider my e-mail sent February 13th? Thank you
Again, we will run this past our lawyers and we will find out if we can provide that level of detail to the Member. Whatever we can provide to the Member, we will give to the Member. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Just a caution to Members, for the benefit of the public listening in on this, referring to documents/letters/e-mails that are not before the House, it doesn’t lend itself to people understanding what you’re talking about, so I’d ask Members not to do that. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
I’ll take it as notice, the answer.
