Robert Hawkins

All right. Well, I’ll give the Minister an analogy back. We are buying a $10 million iceberg. We are buying it in the winter, parking it out and now it’s melted in July and someone says, let’s mop it up and see if we can account for our losses. Are you kidding me? It is going to melt away and no one is going to be around. We’re going to have an empty bucket because there is nothing left to soak up. To say that the fundamental decision was to go forward and basically pay $10 million, is the Minister saying to the House today, and I’m going to be frank, has the government, has this Cabinet...

Thank you. Will the Minister table the 2010 contract signed with Ruskin, along with the 2012 new agreement signed with Ruskin and then finally supply a copy to my office as soon as possible?

Madam Chair, I do appreciate the Minister’s answer, but what I took from this last answer regarding the slippage and how it has fallen behind schedule, it sounds like it is the fault of the contractor. Are we not rewarding bad work or incomplete work? That is the question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All we hear are options of somewhere between $7.2 million and $9.5 million. There has been no clear explanation as to why that money is really needed. All we hear is the platitude saying our lawyers say this, but where is the real discussion in our committees, in the Assembly about that particular discussion? Has the AIP formally been signed as the Minister pointed out? Has it formally committed us to some type of contractual obligation that we have no other choice of supporting it? Thank you.

The detail of the briefing, actually, I should let the Minister know, I actually have a copy. I have actually gone through it and out of that stemmed many, many other questions, so no need to send one to the office. I already have one, so we can save the paper and save the time.

The detail of why they’re not meeting the existing deadline of the fall under the existing contract still needs to be cleared up. Thank you.

The Minister keeps trying to do a smoke and mirrors show on this particular problem. He says the old Minister. Every time he keeps referring to the old Minister. The old Minister actually signed the contract. That’s the difference here. The present Minister is responsible for the implementation for the contract while it’s still active, live, valid, et cetera. The Minister keeps avoiding that reality. Why does the Minister refuse to take responsibility for the present legal contract? Has it already been struck down and thrown away that we’re not aware of? We need some clarification why he’s...

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?