I’m going to join my colleagues on this side of the House today and also weigh in on this issue of the Deh Cho Bridge. I haven’t talked about the Deh Cho Bridge for a long time, and I’m going to direct my questions to the Premier, if I may, today.
We’re aware of the situation with the Deh Cho Bridge. It was fraught with challenges and setbacks and change in contractor and all kinds of things. Everybody was out there on the job doing their best to ensure the delivery of this bridge project as close to on schedule and on budget as possible. It is not a perfect science. Construction is not a perfect science, so when it became apparent that some of the scour rock had to be hauled from a further distance. There is such a thing as agreements between contractors and subcontractors. They aren’t always signed out there on the workplace, but the work gets done and it’s done in good faith. That’s what I want to say.
Now we have a situation here where we have a couple pots of money. We have money for deficiencies, we have money for holdbacks, and we have a northern contractor that was really owed about $1.3 million and that amount has now been written down to $373,000. You can see, the Cabinet can see, the Premier can see from the support on this side of the House that Rowe’s Construction is a territorial company, a long-standing territorial company that has come to the aid of the GNWT on many projects, because projects run into problems. It’s not a perfect science. Rowe’s has been, I think, a very good corporate citizen in the contracting that they have done for this government.
Now we have the situation before us today where we’re talking about $373,000. I’d like to ask the Premier: Is there money in any of the pots of money either from holdbacks or deficiencies that could allow us to pay this northern contractor? Everyone else has been paid. The Minister of Transportation has said we had to pay Ruskin, they built us a bridge. They didn’t build a bridge without the subcontractors there to help them and support them to get the job done.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bit of a drawn out story, but as everybody knows, Rowe’s was working as a subcontractor to ATCON, who was the contractor to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, and when ATCON went into bankruptcy, Rowe’s submitted five claims to the receiver and also to the Department of Transportation. The receiver who was looking after ATCON’s bankruptcy action did not evaluate Rowe’s Construction claims as there was no evidence of a formal contract between ATCON and Rowe’s. The legal review by DOT and our legal division concluded that the Government of the Northwest Territories was not liable for any of the claims that were submitted. However, Rowe’s Construction is pursuing a political solution, so our government reached an agreement with the principals of Rowe’s Construction to hire a referee to independently review the claims and make a recommendation, so I think all our stories are coinciding.
The first report prepared by the referee noted that the GNWT probably has no legal liability to pay the Rowe’s claim, but if there is surplus funding available after all deficiency work is paid for, there could be a possibility of paying. Also, they noted that there were deficiencies in work that was done by Rowe’s, and if there was any work that had to be done to fix deficiencies, those should be offset against those claims.
There was a second report filed by the referee, who concluded that two out of the five had merit, so that both claims came up to about $722,000. The deficiency fund, backed up by the Government of New Brunswick, was to fix deficiencies, and any, the referee concluded again in the second report, that there should be a set off for any deficient work, and a condition that if there is going to be any payment to Rowe’s that there be unspent funds in the ATCON deficiency fund. They also recognized that there is at least one other company that is in the same situation. There is approximately $700,000 to $800,000 left in the deficiency fund. I am not aware of any other holdbacks for the bridge.
The Premier and the Minister previously have spoken about legal liabilities. Again, this project is not without its challenges and difficulties, but the government and Rowe’s agreed to a referee arbitrator. In the arbitrator’s report it says I believe Rowe’s is entitled to a part of all of the money still owing to them up to the amount of the funds available under the credit agreement. I mean, these are nonbinding decisions of the arbitrator but the government and Rowe’s came together to go choose somebody to look at this whole situation and now here we are today and we’re just talking about the absolute legal liability.
I say this government has a moral liability, in the interest of good business and good business practices, to support a northern contractor who in good faith performed work for which they have not been paid. As I said, that amount has been written down substantially to take into account any of those questionable things that the Premier has made reference to. I think, like I said, you’re hearing pretty clearly from a number of Members on this side of the House that we are interested in seeing Rowe’s paid this $373,000. I’d like to ask the Premier, how can we get that done?
I should point out that a fair and reasonable resolution process is still underway involving the Department of Transportation and Rowe’s Construction. We still don’t have any evidence of any formal contracts. We also know that there are deficiencies in some of the work that was done that we have to reach agreement on, so there is still ongoing work to be done. I expect that it will continue into the 18th Assembly in order to look for a resolution.
I would like to ask the Premier if it is within his purview to instruct someone within the Department of Transportation to meet expeditiously with the Rowe’s to see this matter brought to a conclusion.
I am led to believe that there may be people in the Department of Transportation who are not as willing as perhaps their political masters or their political bosses would be to see this matter resolved, and I would like to see it resolved. If it takes political intervention, I’m asking for political intervention. Does the Premier have it within his ability to ask someone in the Department of Transportation, in the next short while, to meet with the Rowe’s, representatives of Rowe’s to find a solution to this situation?
Between myself and the Minister of Transportation, I’m sure that we can find a way to meet with the principals. The problem is going to be finding a legal way if there is going to have to be some financial restitution because of the fact that we’re in an election process. That’s why I’m saying it would have to be looked at as part of the 18th Assembly. But we are quite prepared to meet with Rowe’s Construction. We have said that, and as I said, there is still an ongoing process.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad to hear that the matter is not concluded and that the Premier has expressed a willingness today to meet with the principals of Rowe’s Construction to see this matter brought to a satisfactory conclusion, understanding the challenges of the election period and so on. But I understand that Ministers will stay in their capacity and in their roles until after new Ministers or a new Cabinet has been elected and appointed, so I would still ask the Premier if this could be done still yet prior to that during the 17th Assembly?
After all, we are a responsible, transparent government, so we would be very pleased to do that.
