Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some more questions today for the Minister of Transportation. It gets back to the subject of the Deh Cho Bridge Project. Yesterday I had mentioned the fact that the project was sold to Members of the last government on the basis of a fixed-price contract. It was also sold to Members of the last government on the basis that benefits on the return on investment to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation would accrue to the community of Fort Providence. At the 11th hour the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation didn’t have the $5 million in equity when the concession agreement was signed and in fact had to go to the contractor and another company the contractor owned, Atcon Holdings, to supplement that $5 million in equity. Now that Atcon is out of the equation, I’m just wondering what the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation is going to do to ensure that they have the $5 million in equity so that the benefits do accrue to the community of Fort Providence in the future.
The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, the Member is asking a question that should be directed to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. Our involvement and our agreement with that company requires an equity portion be invested in this project. They have so far been able to commit to a portion of it; roughly half of what the agreement was involving. They have now, as the Member has stated, no longer a partner that was covering the rest. I believe, and I would have to check with them, that they are now seeking a new partner and looking at options of how they can come up with the rest of the money, including talking to the federal government about some of the agreements they thought they had with them.
I’d like to ask the Minister who exactly the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation is responsible to and what the working relationship is between the Department of Transportation and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. How are they held accountable in their role in getting this project completed?
I’m not sure which one of the three questions he wanted me to answer in that barrage of questions he just tossed out there. The Deh Cho Corporation, of course it’s accountable first and foremost, I guess, to the owners of the company, which are the Dene and Métis in the community of Fort Providence. They have an obligation to us as a government through our agreement to build and construct and design this facility that we’re working on, which is the Deh Cho Bridge.
I’m just wondering if the Government of the Northwest Territories, given what’s happened -- the project’s been delayed for a year, the inability to raise the required equity, the troubles with the designs -- are there any plans by the Government of the Northwest Territories to re-evaluate that relationship with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation?
This project, without a doubt, has had its share of challenges. We have continually worked with all the players, all the people involved in this project, and we have reviewed the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and their responsibilities. We’ve also reviewed and looked at the contractors and sub-contractors. We’ve also at the end of last season, and we’d like to do this again, sat down and brought all the people involved with a facilitator to look at what we possibly could have done better. We’ve had some good discussions on how we can change our relationships. The short answer to the Member’s question is yes, we do it on an ongoing basis and will continue to do so.
Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
My fear is that this relationship and partnership that we’re involved with, with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, is causing the Government of the Northwest Territories to expend funds that it normally wouldn’t; i.e., our involvement in the project management now with the project. I’d like to ask the Minister what would trigger our severing of ties with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. Is it not getting a contractor in place by March 1st? What would that trigger be?
The Member’s assigning a lot of blame to the Bridge Corporation. I’m not quite as ready to do so. He’s mentioned a lot of extra costs that are being borne by the government so far. I guess there’s been a position and a portion of another position that’s dedicated to the project and maybe some of the travel. The rest of the costs that are being incurred are being absorbed by the project and the project budget. We have and will continue to see how our partner in this P3 program is working. We have to remember it’s probably the largest project we’ve had for this government and it’s one of the first in this whole country that has been involved with a P3 type of layout, and of course we’re going to encounter challenges. There is no template for us to follow. However, we still feel we’re on track and we still have the target date of November 2011 to have this project done.
The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
