Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to comment on the Auditor General’s report on the Deh Cho Bridge Project. In general, the findings are not surprising. This massive construction project was forced ahead by this government a number of times, in spite of warning signs which should have slowed or paused the project. Signs such as a financial analysis in 2007, which determined that a conventional approach to the project, instead of a P3, would provide significant savings for the project. Such as, in February 2008 at the time of financial close, the government had not approved the bridge design. In order to proceed with the project, the need to have design approval by the GNWT was waived. In September of 2007, and again in February 2008, regulations under the Financial Administration Act were amended or waived so the project could proceed. Early in 2009 an independent review of the project management practices showed deficiencies at the construction site. The independent report to the Department of Transport and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation proposed actions, but not all of the actions were implemented.
At any of these points, Mr. Speaker, and at many others over the last five or more years, the government should have paused and taken the time to thoroughly evaluate whether or not the project should move ahead. It should have been an opportunity for sober second thought, for honest evaluation of the project to that point, for careful consideration of the potential pitfalls if the project went ahead. Instead, decisions were made to push forward; decisions, which in the long run, had highly negative impacts.
This project started with the intention that it would be a P3, a public-private partnership project, and it was to have a focus on community economic development. In a P3 project, risks are supposed to be shared by the partners, but in this case the Auditor General determined that the GNWT assumed all the risk, and as stated in the report, the project morphed into a publicly funded project, more costly than it should have been, with significant risks to the GNWT and little or no economic benefit to the local community.
The Auditor General found that the project risks were not adequately managed, but that does not mean the project is at risk, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not believe that it is. Risks related to quality control are well looked after at this point and I must congratulate the Department of Transportation for their hard work to manage that risk in both the current construction phase and for going back to ensure quality in phase 1.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted
I congratulate the department for their hard work to manage the risk in both the current construction phase and for going back to ensure quality in phase 1, but the weaknesses in the management of risk in the other three areas is cause for concern. That concern and that finding and many other findings, Mr. Speaker, deserve comments, but I have no time. You’ve allotted me an extra bit already, thank you very much, and I will have questions for the Premier at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to speak today about the Auditor General’s report on the Deh Cho Bridge Project. I want to start by saying that I appreciate the time and effort that Ms. Sheila Fraser and her staff have provided on this audit.
The Auditor General’s report confirms clearly and concisely that the concerns I have repeatedly expressed the past seven years on the decision to proceed with the project and its subsequent management are legitimate and real. What becomes abundantly clear is this project, as it was sold to Members and the public as a P3 project, was not a P3 project and it was rushed into during the dying days of the last government. Regulations were amended on Thursday, September 27th, casting aside the requirement to give Members 14 days’ notice. Then on September 28th, on a Friday afternoon, three days before the territorial election, which is clear evidence that the last government knew full well what it was doing. All in an effort, it would seem, to leave that lasting legacy. The disregard for due process and risk management prior to the signing of the concession agreement is truly disgusting.
Throughout my seven and a half years here I have questioned this project at every turn in an attempt to protect the taxpayers in our Territory. This project was questionable right from the very beginning. What is most important to me is accountability and responsibility for decisions regarding this project. Now that the project is clearly in the hands of this government, I will continue to ask questions about the management and the risks associated with the project.
I’m very concerned about this project because if we see significant delays in construction, this will undoubtedly lead to further costs and, quite frankly, we cannot afford much more than we have already paid for this project.
The government has always hid behind the facade that was the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and it does not surprise me that they continue to be evasive when it comes to answering questions about the contract for $92 million with Ruskin. The Auditor General herself could not get a final figure for the amount spent to date because the external audit of the corporation’s financial statements was not finalized.
I’ve previously referred to this project as a boondoggle and I may have been too generous.
I’ll have questions for the Minister of Transportation at the appropriate time.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Translation] I will also be talking about the Deh Cho Bridge and in reference to the...and it seems that it’s costing a lot of money and it doesn’t seem like they’re working it as well as they could be. [Translation ends]
...Deh Cho Bridge Project and ask questions every time I go home. Many were never convinced that it would be on time and on budget for the original $165 million. There did not seem to be a good plan in place. The recent Auditor General’s report and comments in the media does say that she, too, is not convinced herself that the new cost of $182 million will be enough. The Auditor General also pointed out the risks, mostly financial, were never properly assessed or used as a decision point to re-evaluate the project as they move forward and to minimize the costs.
In general, my constituents are supportive of the bridge because one day it is our dream that we will have one across the Liard. My colleague Mr. Ramsay has always pointed out the inconsistencies in the project and raised accountability issues from day one about the impacts on our future budgets. The Auditor General’s report did point out that this was not a real P3 and that there were many risks that occurred over the project that led us to taking over the project.
Increased costs do lead to increased government expenditures, therefore, affecting how we use our budget in the Northwest Territories. I stand with my colleagues when we say we simply must learn from this, because we will have large public infrastructure projects and we want to have real P3 projects. I also note that we are in discussions in developing a P3 project and I look forward to fully discussing that and having input from this side of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
