Robert Hawkins

Fair point, Mr. Speaker. I don’t mean it to be personal, but I can tell you it wouldn’t be surprising that he would be asking these questions. No one would be surprised. It’s not meant to offend. The fact is, these are just fair questions. All I’m asking for is why isn’t this contract being fulfilled. Explain it to us so we can explain it to the citizens.

You look at the supplementary appropriation, it’s basically a one-liner, more money for the Deh Cho Bridge so we can open it up November 2012.

There are ten million reasons to ask a few questions and have a little delay on this particular...

What are all those issues and all those claims? We haven’t heard specifics as to what they are. I’ve asked about them. I keep asking about them. I wouldn’t mind hearing about some of the claims that we want to put in, and I’d like to hear some claims that they were threatening. As I said earlier, it’s not unusual and our deputy minister has reaffirmed that in some type of language, that projects like this have claims. Here we are buying off or rewarding the contractor. I’ll use the Minister’s words back to him: I think the contractor smells the barn and they’re so excited to get back in that...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with concern to this particular motion. Back in 2003 I did a fair bit of research. In my first term as MLA, I thought there was a lot of need for a particular ombudsman. I certainly was an advocate at the time, but continuing to look at the issue even into my second term, I started to realize that there were cases where we were going to minimize the role of MLAs. If we had an ombudsman, and a particular person didn’t like a WCB decision and they called their MLA, their MLA would probably say, hey, go to the ombudsman. Case closed, file taken care of. If they didn...

First off, I’m really grateful for the deputy minister’s comment, which is like any other project, there are claims. It’s not unusual that projects like this have claims or disagreements. It’s probably considered a standard of any particular major project to have claims. Why wouldn’t we continue on with the project and sort the claims out like in normal circumstances that happen in most other projects?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister when we will get those particular details. Of course, we are running short of session days and it would be useful for both myself and the public to get these questions out in a timely manner. That’s simply the question. When can we get it? Can we get it before Monday?

Madam Chair, this is not about hindsight. We are actually at the deciding point. I am not sure the Minister wants to talk about the project as a broader issue. I agree with everything he said when he spoke to it as a broad issue, is recap, revisit, analyze, et cetera, but the issue of the $10 million is a $10 million decision today. The decision should come with some deciding points. The deciding points are based on the fundamentals as I had asked, which was, has the government consciously chosen to ignore Ruskin’s responsibilities to fulfill its contract. That is the question.

Thank you. In 2010 a particular Member of this House had pointed the Cabinet to stop blaming previous governments for their problems and certainly take decisions and responsibility. Just a moment ago, the Minister referred to the present contract in the present terms, which is the 2010 contract. So it’s still relevant. So the question is: Would the Minister supply the 2010 contract with Ruskin alongside the companion document that I’ve asked for, which is the 2012 document signed with Ruskin? Thank you.

Madam Chair, the next issue, which is ironically the previous issue, was the Minister said there was slippage. He pointed to the contractor being responsible for not meeting the objectives of the schedule, which clearly is the issue here. What type of penalties or enforcement clauses on the slippage of the scheduling do we have? What can we invoke? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions will continue to be to the Minister of Transportation regarding the Deh Cho Bridge. For clarity, did our engineers ever order Ruskin to take steps to complete the Deh Cho Bridge by the end of 2012 at Ruskin’s cost and by what authority are they instructing that direction?

The old Minister kept articulating that it would open in the fall of 2011, then he insisted it would be open in the fall of 2012 through the process. What particularly changed that we are unable to fulfill under the existing contract? It had a schedule of the previous year to be opened, and for some reason there clearly is slippage, as someone would use in the terminology here. What part of the slippage is our fault and what part of the slippage is their fault, and can we get some details as to what the slippage actually is? Because we did have a schedule on this previously; actually, a couple...