Robert Hawkins

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...

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I didn’t unreasonably hold up the $49 million, and I wanted to talk about the $10 million. I just wanted to make sure I was in the right spot. That’s all. Shall I proceed, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to acknowledge a couple of constituents. First off I would like to recognize Brendan Callas. He’s a constituent of Yellowknife Centre and he was recognized earlier today. I know I’ve got a few others up there. It’s actually a pleasure to give note to Kim Doyle, who is my constituency assistant and it’s the first time I’ve gotten to recognize her in the gallery. She’s a very hardworking lady and I appreciate all the work that she does.

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?

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...

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?