Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is with dismay and frustration that I stand before you today to say there is unfinished business with the Deh Cho Bridge. Yesterday I tabled, in the House, the Referee Claim Review, the interim and phase two reports of the Deh Cho Bridge between Rowe’s, ATCON and DOT. I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation a few questions about the referee report. Most particularly, the unfinished business is Rowe’s Construction. An NWT company was the only contractor not paid when this bridge was completed. I would like to ask the Minister about that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The company had chosen to use a political process to get the money from the Government of the Northwest Territories in the work that they did for a company that initially went bankrupt and was no longer working on the bridge. The original contract, whether it be verbal or in writing, was between the company that that Member refers to and the former company that was ATCON. Once that company went bankrupt, another company came in to finish the bridge. So, legally their dealings would be with the company.
What happened was that the bankrupt company was supported by the Government of New Brunswick. We needed to prove to the Government of New Brunswick that that money that was held by them or their support for the company that went bankrupt would be money that would be used to finish the bridge and complete all the efficiencies on the bridge. That’s what we have the money for. Thank you.
Certainly, the Minister covered some of the details, but he didn’t cover all the details like when the bridge failed in 2010, the government came to this House for a further $15.9 million and once again came to this House for another $10 million. Yet, we can’t pay for unfinished business from our contractors. Once again, I make the case that Rowe’s Construction was the only contractor not paid as a result of ATCON failing. I’d like to know why and I’d Iike to ask the Minister what the department is going to do about it.
I don’t have the list of all of the contractors that were paid. Anybody that was paid from this $13.6 million that was given to us by the Government of New Brunswick, all of the payments that were made from that account were something that would be supported by the Government of New Brunswick. We would have to provide the appropriate documentation to indicate that that was a valid payment and there was a contract between two companies, there was a contract that was left over, that where there was documentation, and based on documentation, we made the payment. It was then approved by the Government of New Brunswick. If we made payments that the government does not agree with, then we would be coming back to this House for additional dollars to make those payments. We were hoping that we would make all the payments and we feel that there’s enough money in this fund to finish the deficiencies on the bridge at this point, and that’s what we’re endeavouring to do.
The Minister doesn’t address why they weren’t paid. He says everybody else has been paid, and that’s a well-known fact, but the referees that analyze this situation, look at all the claims – there were, I think, about seven or eight of them – and for the most part there were only two acceptable, and those are the referee’s recommendations.
I’d like to ask the Minister to seriously consider these recommendations despite keep going back to the books of a failed company, ATCON. The government took over the project and came to this House for more money. Why can’t we pay all the contractors that are due?
The report looked at five different claims by this company. The referee indicated that two of the five claims had technical merit, meaning that he felt that Rowe’s Construction had done the work, so he priced out what he thought had technical merit. Technical merit doesn’t mean that the Government of the Northwest Territories has a legal obligation to pay. It just says that he believes that Rowe’s did the work.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Rowe’s did the work, and like any other contractor agreement, even if it’s verbal, they should be paid. That’s what I’m asking the Minister. Why have they not been paid to date?
As much as I’ve answered, we are still continuing to work with the company and also with the Government of New Brunswick. As I indicated, Rowe’s has a claim. Two of the five claims add up to approximately what’s left in the budget, and it also adds up to approximately how much deficiencies will cost to complete all of the deficiencies. We would like to have had enough money to pay everyone. Go to New Brunswick. If they had the documentation that we felt that that government would support, then we would have paid it, filed it with the government and had confidence that the money would have been paid. The problem is we needed to prove to that government and the government was going to approve the payment after we made it. Had they not made the approved payment and we didn’t have the proper documentation to make the payment then we would be paying it from this House.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
