Robert Hawkins

I figured the Minister was going to answer yes in some capacity, so I’m fine with his answer.

What actually has worked to our advantage, in this particular case, for turning back the Opportunities Fund? I thought it was actually working quite well as a vehicle for lending money at a rate of 10 percent. I’m not going to question the context or phraseology of our good Finance folks, but I’m just wondering where the political discussion or the emphasis on the investment vehicle. At 10 percent return I thought that would be considered a good one. Maybe if the Minister could help me understand that particular thing, because it seemed to be an excellent vehicle for making cash for this...

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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to speak to the Deh Cho Bridge concern and issue. Yesterday we heard the Minister speak in his Minister’s statement regarding an agreement that they’ve reached that could run us up to a capped $10 million. What stood out specifically for me was they’re confident that both parties are committed to the success of this project. Of course, I’m more confident that Ruskin has figured out how to keep draining more money out of the GNWT coffers and the territorial government continues to roll over. If I may coin it in a typical sense of partnership, I would call...

I guess my last question, and I’ll say with respect, of course, that I recognize the Minister’s last response. I mean, we really are talking about that kind of horse that’s since been gone for years as if it mattered on today’s debate. It’s well out of the barn, down the pasture, not even worth talking about. I appreciate that point.

I guess my last question in this particular regard, I suspect the Minister will answer it fine, but I suspect my last question will really be built around, was part of this a trade-off so we could get the extra access capital so we could get potential to use that...

I appreciate the answer. A couple of things, though, that popped out of that. The Minister pointed out a debate that was ongoing and you kept referring to a discussion, we had a discussion. I wouldn’t mind knowing who the debate was with and who the ongoing discussion was with. I’m not sure my memory serves me correct and I, of course, look for guidance from the Minister if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that this wasn’t brought to Regular Members as a particular option. What I’m going to do is bundle this with one other question. Where is the debate, with whom was it going on, was there or is...