Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On the issue of claims, can we get some details as to what claims they keep referring to? I often hear there are comments of claims, but maybe they can spell it out. What claims are they actually talking about that are our responsibility or should be Ruskin’s responsibility? That’s the type of dialogue we need to find out. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Neudorf.
Any project is going to have some claims as part of it or disagreements between the owner and the contractor in terms of information available on how the work proceeds. This is like any other project where there were some changes required to the project, and we did move forward with some change orders. There were also some disputes that could have resulted in claims. The contractor had indicated that they were preparing claims related to delays in the project. Those types of things. We would dispute that. We in fact had our own damages claims against them because the project was late, and that would make us incur additional expenses, as we have outlined here before. A decision was made, as the Minister indicated, rather than spending years trying to fight those, resolve those in court, our best decision would be to actually focus on the project at hand, and try to get the project done. We entered into this agreement-in-principle with the contractor so that can get done and at the same time it will allow us to focus on the work going ahead, and not on all the claims in the past.
First off, I’m really grateful for the deputy minister’s comment, which is like any other project, there are claims. It’s not unusual that projects like this have claims or disagreements. It’s probably considered a standard of any particular major project to have claims. Why wouldn’t we continue on with the project and sort the claims out like in normal circumstances that happen in most other projects?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If the Member will recollect, there were two tracks. The one track is the one he’s asking about right now. Why don’t we just sort of move on and sort out the project, and then when it’s all over we’ll spend months, maybe years in court in litigation over claims, or the tact and approach that we are taking which is, let’s nail down the deal, let’s nail down a timeline that’s three months out and a dollar figure that’s going to take all those other extraneous, complicating issues off the table. Those are the two tracks. We’ve moved on one of getting the project done in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories, limiting our political exposure and not expending probably well in excess of the $10 million that we’re now here asking for to conclude this project.
My question, of course, is: Would delays caused by the construction of the Deh Cho Bridge not be the responsibility of Ruskin to keep on track and, therefore, any cumulative costs, such as potentially running the ferry or whatever the case would be, wouldn’t that be part of their costs through our claim process?
All those issues would have been part of the protracted dispute resolution at some point, and a year from now when the project would have been completed if we would have chosen to go down that acrimonious, litigious path, that would not be in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories.
What are all those issues and all those claims? We haven’t heard specifics as to what they are. I’ve asked about them. I keep asking about them. I wouldn’t mind hearing about some of the claims that we want to put in, and I’d like to hear some claims that they were threatening. As I said earlier, it’s not unusual and our deputy minister has reaffirmed that in some type of language, that projects like this have claims. Here we are buying off or rewarding the contractor. I’ll use the Minister’s words back to him: I think the contractor smells the barn and they’re so excited to get back in that stable, they know they can charge more money because we want to get in there too.
I believe we – myself, the deputy, the Minister – have given some pretty specific areas where there are areas of potential dispute if we would have chosen that path. Things like the very specific things he just mentioned about who should pay, if we dragged it out another year who would pay for the ferry service, who would pay for the ice road. Those type of things. Change work orders, scheduling issues. We’re not in a position, nor would it be appropriate, to be dissecting contractual arrangements that, in fact, had potential for litigation in this House in a political forum like this. We want to give you the information. We've given briefings as much as we can. The very intricate detail the Member is asking for is not appropriate, in my opinion, to be discussed here at this level.
I find it really interesting that the Minister would invoke sub judice on a particular matter that isn’t before a court in his last comment by wrapping up the claims into future potential claims. I’d like to know what the claims Ruskin was citing as the problem from their perspective. I’d like to know what our engineers see as a particular problem, why they wouldn’t fulfill their obligation. Those are the type of things I’d like to get at.
For whatever the reasons the Member may have, that he wants to get in the middle or be seen to be causing a lot of friction and bad blood. We’ve worked very hard to come to a cooperative agreement with the contractor. We’ve done that. There is a need to move forward to get this project done. There is nothing to be gained at this point, as I’ve indicated, in the middle of this process to do the kind of forensic autopsy that the Member seems to be intent on, and to be able to point fingers in the confines of this House, to say many things when we’re intent on working out and have worked out a cooperative agreement with the contractor. We want to honour that and get this bridge built, which is the best long-term goal for all of us.
The AIP the Minister referred to in his Minister’s statement a few days ago, has that been signed?
It has been agreed to but has not been formally signed off yet.
Earlier the Minister had assured me that, of course, they invoked the privilege of moving the motion to extend today’s sittings for as long as possible, and my point of that contradiction was knowing that one person cannot carry the fire forever. That’s what I meant about forcing the process to go. If we had followed through today’s normal schedule we would have ended at two o’clock, and we would have been able to get this type of information on the side, whether it’s in committee or have some discussions after hours. I feel terrible. I’m not trying to hold the process hostage here by any means, but I feel terrible that that’s what I was referring to, is the fact that they’ve almost, not closed debate but opened it up in a way that it’s not easy to deal with.
In that comment from the Minister to remind me about the way the process works, I know very well how it works. He assured me all questions would be answered. I’m asking questions about explaining what the claims process is and why we didn’t… I want to find out why our analysis did not allow us to proceed with claims. We can do a follow up. We have holdbacks. I assume we have holdbacks. Maybe we don’t. That’s part of the issue, is the fact that we’re not getting the answers, or certainly I’m not getting the answers, as to what claims were that significant we saw and why we couldn’t invoke the present contract, that sounds like it’s still in force, to make them comply with the schedule. That’s part of the issue.
I indicated that there is an agreement-in-principle. That agreement-in-principle is there and has been committed to by both parties. Once the resources are in place to make it happen, the formal agreement will be signed.
Once again, there is nothing further I believe I can add that will assuage the Member’s concerns or allow him to accept the fact that we made some decisions. He is unhappy with those decisions, we’ve laid out to the best I can in this House, and the Minister has made every effort as well through the questions he’s been asked and the deputy, to lay out what the issues were, the process, the contract.
The fundamental decision was made, do we fight over some of the clauses in the contract that will drag things out and do all of the things we’ve already spoken to a number of times, or do we focus on a productive way of moving forward, come up with a compromise, and put the resources on the table that in the long run will save us money and get the bridge done on time, so that the people of the Northwest Territories can finally put that piece of much needed infrastructure to use. It doesn’t get any more basic than that, and it was a decision. It was a political decision, it was a business decision, it was a technical decision and it was made for all those reasons.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We are on page 13, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the last comments the Minister made. It’s just tough sitting here to think we have a contract that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. As I said yesterday, it almost seems as if our clauses to enforce it are all written in invisible ink, but they can turn around and hold us hostage for $10 million to get this particular project done. Do we have any legal opinion that you can share with Members to show us that we did not have a ground to stand on if we were going to challenge these claims?
This was a business decision that was made for all the reasons, all the factors, political factors, technical factors, legal factors, all the other constraints and variables that are there, and we made a business decision on this project. That’s what it was. We chose to go down a path that did not involve trying to invoke clauses in contracts and getting involved in the middle of completing a project that is 90 percent complete, protracted legal battles.
I want to acknowledge the Finance Minister’s position of calling it a business decision. That sounds a lot nicer than the words I may have used. I’d like to make a motion. I move that this committee defer consideration on the activity highways under the Department of Transportation, capital investment expenditures, Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2011-2013, on page 13, at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is being distributed. The Members all have the motion. The motion is in order. The motion is not debateable.
---Defeated
We are on page 13, Transportation, capital investment expenditures. Mr. Yakeleya.
Madam Chair, I want to ask the Minister on the bridges that are being worked on in the Sahtu region, because of the increase of the traffic over the winter season, and it’s going to get worse in a good way, that we need to look at the bridges. I want to ask the Minister on the bridges in the Tulita area and outside Norman Wells that those bridges need to be taken care of. Will that happen this winter?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Neudorf.
There are a couple of projects, in the list of projects to be carried over that would be looking at improving bridges along the Mackenzie Valley winter road. So, yes, and our intention would be to have that work completed this year. There are always a variety of reasons why projects are carried over, including permitting requirements, and contractor capacity, and time required to go through the procurement process and our own capacity internally, but our intention is that work would get done this year.
I would note, as well, that the Member did talk about the increased traffic expected on the winter road this year. We’re very much in tune with that. We have started to have discussions with the Sahtu Explorers Group, so that we can ensure that we’re working with them, that the road will meet their needs and also the needs of the rest of the travelling public. Thank you.
I would ask if the department, again, would look at establishing themselves in the Sahtu for reasons that the deputy minister talked about. We need to now start tracking the amount of vehicles that are going to be using that road, especially from Tulita and Norman Wells, and also coming up from the southern portion of the road. We need to start looking at our infrastructure. For example, the bridges at Four Mile Creek and Prohibition Bridge. Those two bridges there, and possibly other future bridges, but these are the ones that for me in the Sahtu that are key, even at 12 Mile Point. When the department starts looking at moving its presence, a temporary office in the Sahtu to look at some of this increased traffic and fix these bridges, and that I expect that this department will do it.
I have heard over a number of seasons, reasons why we aren’t able yet to put bridges in the Sahtu, and I no longer am going to accept the deputy minister’s opinion that there are a number of factors. It can get done. Today is June. I’m telling you right now, you can have this done by this winter season. For myself, there are many projects in the North that Transportation is looking after, and I think the one in our region needs not to be delayed anymore. I can give other examples, but I don’t think it’s the time right now. It’s Friday and I want to get this budget approved and passed and get to work. I’m sure that the Transportation department is well aware of the bridges that I’m talking about. I’ll ask the deputy minister to work on it. I’m going to come back in October. If I have to be in the House again to do another Member’s statement, I will. Thank you.
Both Four Mile Bridge and Prohibition Bridge are on the list of projects that have some carry-over here. There were some delays with the design and the engineering work, so we couldn’t get all the geotechnical investigation done like we had planned, and that’s why we needed to carry over the funding. We will do what we can. The project is started, and as much as when DOT can control the progress on the bridge, we will endeavour to do that. But, of course, permitting does take time and it can take longer than what we expect.
The Member also talked about an office in the Sahtu, and we’ve, of course, heard that request on a number of different occasions. We hire staff now in the Sahtu, casual staff to look after our winter road, and that does help us with the service that we provide. We will be very interested to work with the Explorers Group, and see what additional opportunities there might be to provide some more oversight, and perhaps some more DOT staff in the region to provide the oversight given the increased traffic and the increased level of effort that’s going to occur on the winter road this winter. Thank you.
The Department of Transportation has some well dedicated staff. Maybe they might be overworked, because we got a lot of money from Transportation and the federal government to put projects right across the Northwest Territories. We certainly, in the Sahtu, could also help with some of these projects here, with the transportation, the design, the work. We can also even take some of this project management. They did a wonderful job in Colville Lake. The department and the community put together a good team and they put the airport there. It can get done. I think the department needs to give a little more credit to the communities in the regions for taking over some of these projects, and it can get done probably under budget or just right on budget. It can get done.
I ask the Minister and the deputy minister of the Department of Transportation, we could do this work and get it done in the Sahtu, and put together these projects on time and on budget. For example, we have some work on the airports and the winter roads, and it’s going to get busy this winter. If the Explorers Group tells us, you know, when they’re going to spend maybe over $200 million. I’m not too sure if that’s a correct number, but that’s what they say they’re going to do. We need to get ready for that and we can have a temporary office set up in the Sahtu with some of their instructors, that could look after the bridging, work on the airport, other than getting approval out of Fort Simpson or out of Inuvik. We just don’t have that mechanism. We have to make that phone call to Fort Simpson or to Inuvik to get work done in the Sahtu. Those 1950s, ‘60s days are over. It’s 2012. Why can’t we get the approval done in the Sahtu? I don’t understand. Is it really that hard to let that type of authority go in the department?
The big boys are playing in the Sahtu for oil and gas, so we need to play along with them to get things done. I ask again, the Department of Transportation, you have some very good people working in your department. We have some real good people working in the Sahtu. Those roads are going to need to be upgraded and I see that they’re putting signs on the winter road. I’ve driven the winter road from here to Wrigley, Deline, to Fort Good Hope and the Wells. I’ve been on those winter roads. There’s a lot of improvement. The signs are no longer tagged onto a tree. They’re actually posted now on the road. That’s showing me that there is some attention and there’s improvement.
We have a really good ice paving program. It’s good that you’re doing some good work there. What we see in the amount of activity going on there on our winter roads, and the oil companies are coming up and our people are seeing this. The other areas like Good Hope to Norman Wells, the road is pretty rough. This is our transportation for the three months. This summer we got the Mackenzie Valley River. That’s our transportation right now. I’m talking now just on the winter roads, and I’d like to see this department step up to the plate and put an office, a position, even temporarily, in the Sahtu, so we can have some autonomy and some authority, instead of making that phone call to Simpson or to Inuvik to say can we do this, can we do that. We’ve got to have that. That’s what I’m asking in a forceful way to the department on these projects here, because I’m seeing these bridges certainly need to be fixed and it’s not getting done for the reasons that the Minister or the deputy minister has said to us in the House here. That’s all I have to say on page 13.
I well remember the discussions when we had this very similar debate. The Member might have been involved, as well, when we were talking about moving Health out of Inuvik to give the economy to the people in the Sahtu. I think that process is underway. We have commitments on decentralization. We are looking at how we do this, and going forward I think I know we will get there, but I’ll ask Minister Ramsay if he wants to speak to the issue so we can give the Member some comfort from the Minister himself. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have had a great deal of success working with industry in the Sahtu when it comes to winter roads. We’re looking forward to continuing that partnership with industry as the resource is developed in the Sahtu. We are also looking for more opportunities to partner with industry. There is potentially a lot more opportunity when it comes to winter roads in the development of winter roads in the Sahtu. Potentially, the opportunity I think will also exist for all-weather roads once the resource is developed and it’s more proven up. I do believe there is a tremendous opportunity to work with industry and the federal government to see some permanent all-weather roads built in the Sahtu.
I know we just had a meeting with Husky recently. They are intent on building 35 kilometres of all-weather road across the river from Norman Wells. There are opportunities there. There is the Sahtu Explorers Group. At the earliest opportunity, we will be meeting with that group to discuss opportunities and possibilities for the Department of Transportation and the Government of the Northwest Territories to work with industry to advance our mutual goal, and that is to improve the transportation infrastructure in the Sahtu. We certainly look forward to that.
In regard to the Member’s comments about staffing and resourcing offices in the Sahtu, again, I think as development continues and activity increases in the Sahtu, those types of staffing resources will certainly have to be given a great deal of consideration by the government and by the department. I want to thank him for raising those concerns. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Members, before we go on, I would like to recognize a visitor in the gallery, Mr. Sonny Greenland, who is here visiting from Inuvik. Welcome to the House.
Members, we are on page 13, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $62.342 million. Mr. Hawkins, do you have anything new to contribute to this discussion?
Absolutely, Madam Chair. I just wanted to use the opportunity to thank my colleagues, all who voted against me; you too. I want to use the opportunity to thank my colleagues, especially the Members on this side of the House, for allowing me the chance to articulate some of my concerns. I’m disappointed by not getting the answers I would like, but I also recognize Minister Miltenberger had said twice at the end of each last chance he had to comment, which is ultimately a political and a business decision, so I just wanted to put that on the record. Clearly, I will be voting against this supp. I think I have said my piece. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Page 13, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $62.342 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 14, Transportation continued, capital investment expenditures, road licensing and safety, not previously authorized, $881,000.
Agreed.
Transportation, total department, not previously authorized, $72.103 million.
Agreed.
Page 15, Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, tourism and parks, not previously authorized, $64,000.
Agreed.
Thank you. Total department, not previously authorized, $64,000.
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 16, Environment and Natural Resources, capital investment expenditures, corporate management, not previously authorized, $155,000.
Agreed.
Thank you. Forest management, not previously authorized, $1.012 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. Wildlife, not previously authorized, $72,000.
Agreed.
