Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Madam Chair. While clearly I won’t spend a lot of time, I just want to make reference to that last motion. I think that this is a simple example of government rushing it through. Knowing that I cannot talk for three days or whatnot is seriously unreasonable. I think that this is no different than an act by what’s happening in our own Parliament, whether shutting down debate or closing off reasonable discussion, and I think what’s moved today has shown that this supplementary appropriation will get through no matter what.

Quite frankly, as I said earlier and I continue to clearly say...

The AIP the Minister referred to in his Minister’s statement a few days ago, has that been signed?

Fair point, Mr. Speaker. I don’t mean it to be personal, but I can tell you it wouldn’t be surprising that he would be asking these questions. No one would be surprised. It’s not meant to offend. The fact is, these are just fair questions. All I’m asking for is why isn’t this contract being fulfilled. Explain it to us so we can explain it to the citizens.

You look at the supplementary appropriation, it’s basically a one-liner, more money for the Deh Cho Bridge so we can open it up November 2012.

There are ten million reasons to ask a few questions and have a little delay on this particular...

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...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with concern to this particular motion. Back in 2003 I did a fair bit of research. In my first term as MLA, I thought there was a lot of need for a particular ombudsman. I certainly was an advocate at the time, but continuing to look at the issue even into my second term, I started to realize that there were cases where we were going to minimize the role of MLAs. If we had an ombudsman, and a particular person didn’t like a WCB decision and they called their MLA, their MLA would probably say, hey, go to the ombudsman. Case closed, file taken care of. If they didn...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up quickly regarding the matter Member Dolynny had brought out. I’m just trying to understand perhaps the context of the bill of goods that we were sold by taking this particular option of returning the $135 million, or $134 million, it doesn’t really matter. Potatoes, potatoes at this particular case because it’s all gone. But what was the bill of goods sold to us, that this was in our benefit that we had money that cost us a 1.45 interest rate versus now we’re using a market rate of 3.5. I mean, there must have been some reasoning why turning it...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These words will sound familiar to the Minister, but what’s the point of having a contract if the Minister isn’t going to be responsible? Therefore, the question simply is: Who is responsible for the failure of the implementation of this contract? We need a name and someone to take responsibility. I’m sure that sounds familiar.

I’m trying to get a sense of who is actually in the driver’s seat of this particular problem. The Minister has just said if we don’t meet the fall deadline, it’s going to cost us $9 million. He says we have to pay potentially up to $10 million to make sure we comply. I’m confused that the negotiated contract isn’t being implemented. Did Ruskin agree, if we paid more money, they would comply with the original direction provided by Associated Engineers to comply with the fall deadline, again, if we paid more money?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m still missing the answer of why they would refuse to follow instructions provided by our particular engineers. It almost sounds like, if I’m understanding this correctly, that it’s costing us more money because we are complying with the will of Ruskin. Is this approach costing us more money, as mentioned in the press release, up to $10 million? Why aren’t we enforcing our legally obligated contract which we negotiated with them earlier? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that’s a pretty big question. You would think the Minister would know if he was certainly asking for up to $10 million as he pointed out in his Minister’s statement, so maybe I’ll try it again.

Is the department aware in any manner that our engineers - and I believe they are called associated engineers watching the project - have they ever instructed Ruskin to complete this project on schedule? Has there been any pushback or refusal from Ruskin to do so? Thank you.