Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the Minister referring to me as instigating the Auditor General into taking a look at this project. I have had questions about this project going back seven years. Mr. Speaker, apparently I am not alone. If you read the Auditor General’s report, there are a lot of issues that I have addressed over the years that are clearly articulated in here as being an issue.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about all the risks being addressed. Where is the budget for the remaining other work like the electrical distribution, the catwalks, the cost of resolving claims, the compensation for lost fish habitat, the rehabilitation work for the cleanup and disposal of contamination in and around that site? Where is that budget, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Member should know by now where the budget is. He approved portions of it in the last couple of budgets. The toll collection portion was approved over the last two budget years. It is a separate issue. It is a separate budget. It is kept separate because it is not part of the construction. It is a budget that will be maintained for the life of this bridge. The Auditor General indicated they wanted us to roll it in. We disagree. The construction project is going to end within the next while, but the toll collection is always going to be there. Within our budget for fish habitat and electrical and other miscellaneous, we have $2.5 million slotted and we have a budget line for that. Mr. Speaker, for cleanup of contaminants, this government has a budget of $20 million. All these issues that are raised, unfortunately, were flagged. Maybe further clarity could have been provided but we didn’t have that opportunity. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t really talking about the toll but I appreciate the Minister throwing that in there for me. I want to talk about the contingency as well. That was flagged by the Auditor General too. On a project of this size, how is it possible that we have a contingency of less than 2 percent or close to 2 percent on a project of this size? Judging by the items I have identified, it would take no time at all, Mr. Speaker, to eat that $2 million up. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Member that the Auditor General did an operational review or look at the government portion of this project. They didn’t audit anything else. It wasn’t a financial audit. They didn’t look at our contractors or talk to them, so there are a lot of things that maybe could have been clarified. The Auditor General was pretty clear that she wasn’t satisfied that the contingency was enough, as the Member had indicated. We looked at the project. We looked at the requirements of what was needed to complete this project. We had a professional team give us their best advice and we felt that the $2 million was sufficient. We also are now a year into the project and we have only used $300,000. Mr. Speaker, we have no reason to believe that we may need more. But having said that, there may be unforeseen circumstances that will require us to put further investment. I can’t predict that. We are on track for the budget, Mr. Speaker. That is all I can point to at this point. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to continue to ask a few questions about the Minister’s statement regarding the Deh Cho Bridge. The Minister also talks about the contractor providing the Department of Transportation with a revised construction schedule. That comes as news to me. I am glad he mentioned it today. He also talks about the department evaluating this to determine whether the contracted completion date can be met. Mr. Speaker, a schedule, to me, would outline when the construction on that project can be complete. Is that date still November of 2011, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer is yes. Right now, the challenge that we are facing is to look at the construction methods that are going to be required to provide the final completion portion of the decking including the asphalt pour and we have come to realize that there is going to be certain challenges as the weather is going to be cold at that time of the year and how do we accommodate that and how is the contractor proposing to do that. There is some technical information that has come forward that we need to review and confirm whether it is acceptable or not. That is the information that we need to, on an ongoing basis, continue to work at. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, seeing as we have taken over control of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and that contract between what was then the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and Ruskin, I am wondering if the Minister can comment on what our potential liabilities are or risks associated with being in that contract with Ruskin. This is related to cost, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, there is always potential for cost overruns on a project of this nature. We have already experienced that. There are unforeseen circumstances that are not identified in the contract that is at no fault of the contractor. Of course, that would become our responsibility, Mr. Speaker. We have worked this contract with our current contractor. We feel it is a fair one. The date, of course, is always going to be up for discussion with the general public as we move forward. We would like to meet that date; however, we are not going to jeopardize any issues around safety or quality. Things of that nature have to be kept in the forefront and our goal is to build a bridge that is going to be there for the long haul. It is going to be there for something that people will admire and come to see. That is where we place our priority, Mr. Speaker. We are working towards getting this project done without jeopardizing any safety or quality issues. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a supplementary question. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department also states in the Auditor General’s report that Members were kept informed of the financial requirements of the project. In February 2008, the regulations were amended to allow for an indemnity in the lender protection agreement in favour of the trustee and the lenders. Whose decision was that to change the regulations and how they notified the Members of those regulations being changed? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Member that we have kept in line with the practice that this government has followed for quite a few years. It has been used since 1999. The government has used this practice 20 times. We made no special allowances for the bridge project. We followed protocol. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That begs the question: why were the regulations amended in February 2008 to indemnify the lenders in this? Why were the regulations changed if they were following policy as the Minister states? Why were the regulations changed? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House during the 15th Assembly and were also briefed in the 16th Assembly, were kept informed of the process leading up to the concession agreement. They also were aware that to make this project happen, additional dollars were committed to and also aware that there was a need for an indemnity. Mr. Speaker, there were a number of meetings. I think there were three over the summer and a total of 35 meetings over the life of this project, for sure, have been to provide information to the Members. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 8, written questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 7, oral questions. Thank you.
---Unanimous consent granted
The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Seeing as we’re talking about regulations being amended, in September 2007 the Contract of Indemnification Exemption Regulations was amended to allow for specific indemnity in the concession agreement. This happened on September the 27th of 2007, the day before the concession agreement was in fact signed by the previous government. I’d like to ask the Minister why that regulation was amended, which would have meant that the Cabinet had 14 days to inform Members of that decision to indemnify the lenders, but that was amended and Members weren’t notified. I’d like to ask the Minister how that could happen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We followed all of the FAA rules. I believe the Finance Minister of the day also was involved in this decision, as were the Members of Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the rules allow that the contracts that are exempted are also excused from the 14-day notice. Mr. Speaker, that’s the practice that almost every request or every decision of this nature has been following and we were no different. Thank you.
Thank you. I find it highly convenient that the government would waive the requirement to give Members at least 14 days’ notice regarding the indemnity the day before the concession agreement was signed and I’d like to ask the Minister who ultimately is going to take responsibility for that happening. Thank you.
Thank you. The Member knows I’m in a difficult situation. He’s asking me to second guess the decision of the previous government, previous Cabinet and the Minister of the day. I’m not willing to do that. Mr. Speaker, the decisions were made, I can’t look through a lens of hindsight and say why, why, and this is why, give rationale. The practice was followed, no rules were broken, we’ve been audited twice now and I should point out we are audited every year for this project by the Auditor General for the financial budgets. Never has there been a concern of any rules being broken and it’s also not fair for me to be trying to explain for other Ministers, but that’s the reality. Thank you.
Thank you. It is a difficult position to be in, but some of my colleagues across the way were there when these decisions were made. The decision was made to change the regs the day before the concession agreement was done, which, for all intents and purposes, meant that the former government, the previous government was fully intent on getting this project done despite anything else. They wanted it done, they got it done, Mr. Speaker. What I can talk about today and I can ask the Minister this question: where does the responsibility lie for a February 2008 decision of Cabinet to change the regulations once again allowing for an indemnity in the lender protection agreement in favour of the trustee and the lenders? Whose responsibility is that, Mr. Speaker? That’s this government. Thank you.
There have been two occasions within the life of this project that the indemnity requirements have been waived. It was as per the FAA rules. All protocol was followed. The Member is insinuating it was done because there was a desire to ram this project through. It was done because there was a need to move forward, decisions needed to be made and it’s no different than any other time that these rules were waived. It’s been done at least 20 times since 1999, Mr. Speaker. So if the Member thinks or is insinuating we did something different, this is standard practice. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s also not every day that the government puts close to $200 million of taxpayers’ money squarely at risk. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to get back to the question of responsibility and accountability. Now, in February of 2008, the regulations were amended once again, and again I’m going to ask the question, who is going to take responsibility for those regulations being amended to again put us at further risk, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member has raised this issue a number of times in the past and, in fact, again, questioning this government about a previous government decision on what’s to be happening. Clearly it’s laid out in the Financial Administration Act. There is process to request indemnification in this process clearly laid out and Members are aware of that. So that process was done and it’s the FMB that votes on any of those decisions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to follow up perhaps with the Premier. I’ve heard some distressing remarks here. I find the Auditor General’s remarks and report here quite distressing. I heard the Minister of Transportation say we followed the rules. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they didn’t do that. They changed the rules, not once but twice and the second time was...
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on 23(h), that the Member in his statement and line of questioning is making allegations that in fact the government has broken rules in this Legislative Assembly and I would raise the fact that though a process was engaged, he’s referring to in fact Ministers or a Minister has broken, and suggested breaking, the rules. In fact, that has not been the case. So I would say that, again, a point of order in the fact that he’s having debate and making allegations against another Member of this House. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Roland has risen on a point of order with regard to the comments made by Mr. Bromley. The Chair will take the point of order under advisement and provide a ruling at a later date. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to chuckle, Mr. Speaker, I did not say the word “broken.” I said the word “changed the rules.” I believe the Auditor General has used the word “amended the rules” and I was looking for a synonym that was plain language because I know our public are listening. So if the Premier chooses to interpret that as broken, well that seems to reflect a sensitivity on his part, but in fact, I used the word “changed the rules” and in fact the...
Do you have another question, Mr. Bromley?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have another question. I’m wondering, Mr. Speaker, how is it possible that this government can amend the rules rather than follow the rules and choose to avoid requirements that are in law in terms of engineering and so on in making a decision to go forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact that this process that the Member is questioning has been used since 1999 and is in fact part of documents that are available to the public on indemnifications, that indemnification to the exemption of regulations used, and they are public, a process used since 1999. So this wasn’t done for a project specific to this for avoiding rules. It is something that’s in place and, in fact, I believe the Finance Minister is working on an updated formula finance or a Financial Administration Act that would bring more clarity to issues of this nature. Thank you.
The Minister for the Department of Transportation mentioned that the Cabinet or somebody followed standard practice which included, apparently, amending rules. I’m wondering what message this sends out to our public, to our colleagues, to our businesses. Can they simply change the rules or are rules in fact put in place for a reason?
In the Financial Administration Act, Contract Indemnification Exemption Regulations, 1(1)(a), “contract or an agreement that contains an indemnity by the Government of the Northwest Territories is exempt from the operation of Section 66 to Section 67.2 of the act where the indemnity is made in favour of…” And there’s quite a list of these; almost 20 since 1999. Things like for the Tlicho Government. Things like directors and officers of the Canadian Blood Agency and members of the Scientific Advisory Committee established by the Canadian Blood Agency. “(f) All-State Insurance Company of Canada in respect of claims made by individuals or estates alleging abuse in another case; (g) persons who on behalf of the government in the instance of the Government of the Northwest Territories and in respect of a third party providing accounting or management services or act as a receiver, receiver manager, or liquidator.” So there’s quite a list of things that this is done for in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories.
I would simply note that the Auditor General has observed that these amendments were made to allow for the indemnity to be changed and that some of the existing regulatory requirements, including the need to give 14 days’ notice for change, this is within days if not hours of the event that transpired immediately after that. I have to ask, the amendments that the Premier mentioned, the amendments to the rules on which we base our day-to-day business, when did they occur relative to the decisions to indemnify themselves without letting Members know?
Again, for the life of this government, in February, and part of the report Members were briefed on three occasions of this work that was being done.
