Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got some questions today for the Minister of Transportation regarding the Auditor General’s report on the Deh Cho Bridge. I listened quite clearly to the Minister’s statement from earlier today where on page 2 he says we continuously identify risks and track mitigation measures. I am confident that we are adequately managing risks to ensure the highest standards of quality and safety are maintained in this project.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that, but quite clearly in the Auditor General’s report risk management is certainly called into question by the Department of Transportation. I’d like to, first of all, ask the Minister of Transportation what plans they have specifically to address the responsibility for certifying that the design and construction of the whole bridge project will meet Canadian highway bridge design code. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s an expected comment, I guess, from this MLA that hasn’t agreed with anything that we’ve provided him. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion there has been a number of approvals to the design. It has the piers which have been signed off by a designer. We had the superstructure that also has been approved and signed off by a second designer. We also have some repairs on some of the deficiencies that were signed off by another engineer. Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that as a government we did overview on this design and all our engineers inspected it and approved it. We are currently now engaged with a contractor to look at providing an overarching approval which would require one engineer to give its final design. That’s in the works, Mr. Speaker. We have already seen the first draft of the recommendations and we’ll continue moving that forward. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that’s what happens when you don’t have a design for three years into a project. You still don’t have a firm design. You’ve had more engineers, probably close to 30 or 40 engineers working on the project. It’s little wonder that you’re going to have trouble finding somebody that can come in and sign off on that project, ultimately, at the end of the day.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister what evidence does he and the department have that the other risks that are addressed in the Auditor General’s report are being managed effectively? Thank you.
A perfect example, by the comments made, that he doesn’t agree with anything that we’ve provided him. We have provided numerous briefings and I’ve just indicated to him that this has been signed off by three different engineers, it has been reviewed by our team, some world-class engineers that have given their approval. Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with all the risks that are involved. We’ve reviewed it. We’ve had the Levelton Report, which did a technical review. We’ve put a plan of action together to address these issues that have come forward. Some of them have also come forward through the Auditor General’s report by the Member that instigated the motion that required this. It has been a real challenge to deal with an auditor. For the 12 months that this project has been in our possession, we have been audited for eight of those. I’m not sure who is going to satisfy his questions, but I can reassure him that we have a team. We have a framework that was recognized by the Auditor General. There has been no question of safety or quality. I think things are moving very well. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the Minister referring to me as instigating the Auditor General into taking a look at this project. I have had questions about this project going back seven years. Mr. Speaker, apparently I am not alone. If you read the Auditor General’s report, there are a lot of issues that I have addressed over the years that are clearly articulated in here as being an issue.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about all the risks being addressed. Where is the budget for the remaining other work like the electrical distribution, the catwalks, the cost of resolving claims, the compensation for lost fish habitat, the rehabilitation work for the cleanup and disposal of contamination in and around that site? Where is that budget, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Member should know by now where the budget is. He approved portions of it in the last couple of budgets. The toll collection portion was approved over the last two budget years. It is a separate issue. It is a separate budget. It is kept separate because it is not part of the construction. It is a budget that will be maintained for the life of this bridge. The Auditor General indicated they wanted us to roll it in. We disagree. The construction project is going to end within the next while, but the toll collection is always going to be there. Within our budget for fish habitat and electrical and other miscellaneous, we have $2.5 million slotted and we have a budget line for that. Mr. Speaker, for cleanup of contaminants, this government has a budget of $20 million. All these issues that are raised, unfortunately, were flagged. Maybe further clarity could have been provided but we didn’t have that opportunity. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t really talking about the toll but I appreciate the Minister throwing that in there for me. I want to talk about the contingency as well. That was flagged by the Auditor General too. On a project of this size, how is it possible that we have a contingency of less than 2 percent or close to 2 percent on a project of this size? Judging by the items I have identified, it would take no time at all, Mr. Speaker, to eat that $2 million up. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Member that the Auditor General did an operational review or look at the government portion of this project. They didn’t audit anything else. It wasn’t a financial audit. They didn’t look at our contractors or talk to them, so there are a lot of things that maybe could have been clarified. The Auditor General was pretty clear that she wasn’t satisfied that the contingency was enough, as the Member had indicated. We looked at the project. We looked at the requirements of what was needed to complete this project. We had a professional team give us their best advice and we felt that the $2 million was sufficient. We also are now a year into the project and we have only used $300,000. Mr. Speaker, we have no reason to believe that we may need more. But having said that, there may be unforeseen circumstances that will require us to put further investment. I can’t predict that. We are on track for the budget, Mr. Speaker. That is all I can point to at this point. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
