Robert Hawkins

I find it really interesting that the Minister would invoke sub judice on a particular matter that isn’t before a court in his last comment by wrapping up the claims into future potential claims. I’d like to know what the claims Ruskin was citing as the problem from their perspective. I’d like to know what our engineers see as a particular problem, why they wouldn’t fulfill their obligation. Those are the type of things I’d like to get at.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am now prepared to start my hour-long filibuster on this particular project. I am well prepared to do what’s necessary.

The issue here before us in this supplementary appropriation is there’s still no details as to why we need to realize the extra $10 million. I’ve been after that particular answer. There still seems to be no answer other than vague ones, like trust me, our legal people say this. But what are our legal people saying? What are the complications or factors? We need to see what the issues are.

Now, there are those who suggest that this is a delay of the...

My question, of course, is: Would delays caused by the construction of the Deh Cho Bridge not be the responsibility of Ruskin to keep on track and, therefore, any cumulative costs, such as potentially running the ferry or whatever the case would be, wouldn’t that be part of their costs through our claim process?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Human Resources.

Please provide a list of senior management performance bonuses, including those to deputy ministers, assistant/associate deputy ministers, awarded in 2011-2012 in all GNWT departments, boards, agencies, commissions and corporations, by position and range, as follows:

Less than $5,000,

$5000 to $9,999,

$10,000 to $19,999,

$20,000 to $29,999, and

$30,000 and up.

What is the total amount of bonuses paid, by department, board, agency, commission and corporation?

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the issue of claims, can we get some details as to what claims they keep referring to? I often hear there are comments of claims, but maybe they can spell it out. What claims are they actually talking about that are our responsibility or should be Ruskin’s responsibility? That’s the type of dialogue we need to find out. Thank you.

Maybe the Minister then could help the public understand why it’s not a reasonable question now when it was a reasonable question before, because the public has no idea on how this contract is being implemented and yet all of a sudden it’s not worthy and we’re scrapping it and putting in a new contract. There are a lot of mysteries out there. In short, explain why we can’t get to the bottom of this contract, find out what the clauses are in there that have us on the hook for more costs. The public wants to know.

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.