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. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 8, oral questions, on the orders of the day. Thank you.

---Unanimous consent denied

Maybe I can’t make it any more clear from this side of the House, which is what’s wrong with our contract in this particular regard? We keep asking why doesn’t the department, and use our legal division in the justice system to implement and force this contractor to comply with the contract. The simple ask is this: What’s the problem with our contract that we’re being held hostage by paying more?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation’s reply to one of my questions was that it wasn’t going to cost any more money. I think my colleague Mr. Dolynny tried to bring up that issue a little more clearly, but we didn’t get any clear answer. My next question for the Minister of Transportation is: What’s the point of having a negotiated contract when we’re asking for somewhere between $7.2 million and $9.5 million more, and explain to maybe the House why that isn’t actually costing more money, because it sure sounds like real money and new money to the taxpayer?

Mr. Speaker, maybe can I get some understanding of why they would refuse to comply with our direction provided by our engineer at the particular time? I think it is cited in March. Is he saying if our associated engineers instructed Ruskin to comply with a schedule, why would they refuse to comply with the schedule? What grounds would they have with the ability to refuse a contractual schedule? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions as well will be about the Deh Cho Bridge, similar to my colleague. They will be directed to the Minister of Transportation. Has Ruskin ever failed to comply with directions from our engineers to comply with a particular schedule? Thank you.

I figured the Minister was going to answer yes in some capacity, so I’m fine with his answer.

What actually has worked to our advantage, in this particular case, for turning back the Opportunities Fund? I thought it was actually working quite well as a vehicle for lending money at a rate of 10 percent. I’m not going to question the context or phraseology of our good Finance folks, but I’m just wondering where the political discussion or the emphasis on the investment vehicle. At 10 percent return I thought that would be considered a good one. Maybe if the Minister could help me understand that particular thing, because it seemed to be an excellent vehicle for making cash for this...