Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In March 2010, former Minister McLeod talked about signing a contract with Ruskin for $6 million to $8 million. Minister McLeod of the day, continues to refer to the firm schedule on the Deh Cho Bridge. My question for the Minister of today, that is: Who is still responsible for the Deh Cho Bridge contracts, certainly, the implementation that is, is why isn’t the fixed price and the fixed schedule being fulfilled by our contractor Ruskin on this particular project? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, that was a decision the previous government made to get into the current contractual obligations with Ruskin. That contract follows a typical DOT contract which shifts only some of the risk to the contractor. It’s not a fixed price. There are eligible areas where we could see costs being overrun. That was a decision the previous government had made. Thank you.
The Minister keeps trying to do a smoke and mirrors show on this particular problem. He says the old Minister. Every time he keeps referring to the old Minister. The old Minister actually signed the contract. That’s the difference here. The present Minister is responsible for the implementation for the contract while it’s still active, live, valid, et cetera. The Minister keeps avoiding that reality. Why does the Minister refuse to take responsibility for the present legal contract? Has it already been struck down and thrown away that we’re not aware of? We need some clarification why he’s refusing to deal with the present contract on the books. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we have a team of lawyers that have been working on the contractual obligations, what our responsibility is going forward. I know the Member continually wants to go back to decisions that were made by the previous government. I have said it yesterday and I will say it again today, decisions that I have made since I became Minister last fall are decisions that I take responsibility for, I am accountable for. With our best advice and the options that were presented to us, we are doing the best for the taxpayer here in the NWT to get this project finished. We will continue to work toward that end to finish this project in November. This is the best option that was available to us to allow us to do that. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister keeps misunderstanding the issue. It’s not going back to a story long told in history. This is an active contract. So maybe that’s particularly the question that needs to be asked. In some way or some form, has the 2010 contract signed with Ruskin with the GNWT as a partner to get the bridge built, has that mysteriously dissolved in some manner and been replaced with some formal acknowledgement and information passed on to Members?
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the contract that the Member is talking about from 2010, we are working within the confines of that contract. It is not a fixed price contract. There are opportunities there and the contractor is paid as progress is made on that project for fixed prices, yes, but there are opportunities for costs to continue to go on. Certainly, we have taken every look at our options. Again, going forward, this is the best option for us. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I have been quite clear in answering other questions from other Members yesterday. I will say it again. Going forward, this money has helped us negotiate our way out of a myriad of claims, construction claims on the project. We are going to work together with the contractor to see the project get completed this fall. I am not sure if the Member would prefer that we throw our hands up, we fight with the contractor, we go to court for years and years to come, we spend untold hundreds of thousands if not a million dollars-plus on legal fees and we don’t have a bridge open this fall. That was one of the options. But going forward, we are taking the option that chooses to work with the contractor to negotiate an end to the claims that are out there and gets us some budget surety and also schedule certainty. That is what we have done. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
