Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister when we will get those particular details. Of course, we are running short of session days and it would be useful for both myself and the public to get these questions out in a timely manner. That’s simply the question. When can we get it? Can we get it before Monday?

Madam Chair, this is not about hindsight. We are actually at the deciding point. I am not sure the Minister wants to talk about the project as a broader issue. I agree with everything he said when he spoke to it as a broad issue, is recap, revisit, analyze, et cetera, but the issue of the $10 million is a $10 million decision today. The decision should come with some deciding points. The deciding points are based on the fundamentals as I had asked, which was, has the government consciously chosen to ignore Ruskin’s responsibilities to fulfill its contract. That is the question.

Thank you. In 2010 a particular Member of this House had pointed the Cabinet to stop blaming previous governments for their problems and certainly take decisions and responsibility. Just a moment ago, the Minister referred to the present contract in the present terms, which is the 2010 contract. So it’s still relevant. So the question is: Would the Minister supply the 2010 contract with Ruskin alongside the companion document that I’ve asked for, which is the 2012 document signed with Ruskin? Thank you.

Madam Chair, the next issue, which is ironically the previous issue, was the Minister said there was slippage. He pointed to the contractor being responsible for not meeting the objectives of the schedule, which clearly is the issue here. What type of penalties or enforcement clauses on the slippage of the scheduling do we have? What can we invoke? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions will continue to be to the Minister of Transportation regarding the Deh Cho Bridge. For clarity, did our engineers ever order Ruskin to take steps to complete the Deh Cho Bridge by the end of 2012 at Ruskin’s cost and by what authority are they instructing that direction?

The old Minister kept articulating that it would open in the fall of 2011, then he insisted it would be open in the fall of 2012 through the process. What particularly changed that we are unable to fulfill under the existing contract? It had a schedule of the previous year to be opened, and for some reason there clearly is slippage, as someone would use in the terminology here. What part of the slippage is our fault and what part of the slippage is their fault, and can we get some details as to what the slippage actually is? Because we did have a schedule on this previously; actually, a couple...

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?

Thanks very much. The Minister had offered full disclosure here in some manner, of course, and those are my words, not his exactly, but would the Minister give a detailed breakdown of the $10 million, how it’s being spent in this regard. I had spoken quite at length, so I don’t need to repeat all my questions. Thank you.

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.

I want to acknowledge the Finance Minister’s position of calling it a business decision. That sounds a lot nicer than the words I may have used. I’d like to make a motion. I move that this committee defer consideration on the activity highways under the Department of Transportation, capital investment expenditures, Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2011-2013, on page 13, at this time.