This is page numbers 4179 - 4230 of the Hansard for the 16th Assembly, 4th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was community.

Question 332-16(4): Deh Cho Bridge Project
Oral Questions

February 14th, 2010

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few more questions for the Minister of Transportation pertaining to the Deh Cho Bridge. I listened to the Minister when I was talking about the design earlier. The government has always said that the design was essentially completed. It has been essentially complete for six years now. According to the Minister, most of the components of the redesign and the design work are concluded but not all of the components are concluded. I am wondering if the Minister could elaborate a little bit more. Are we setting ourselves up for more cost overruns on this project because we do not have all the components on that design work concluded? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Minister of Transportation

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a question I asked our own staff

and our project management team. We believe all the components are concluded sufficiently that we can make the next steps in terms of entering into a contract and start the construction process. Thank you.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

The next question I have for the Minister, and we’ve talked about March 1st being an

important date, I want to get back to some of the earlier questions I had on why the superstructure didn’t go to tender. People I’ve talked to in the industry and other companies that are out there in western Canada that could have bid on this work tell me that they could have had numbers into this government inside of 30 days.

I’d like to ask the Minister again, how come the project, the superstructure, the second half of this project did not go to a tender?

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Deh Cho

I’m not sure if the Member expects me to change my answer, but I just responded to that very same question a few minutes ago. It’s a result of timing. When we had information on the change of design concluded far enough, we did have engagement with our previous contractor. Those didn’t result. We recognized that we were not going to be able to conclude those discussions and, therefore, terminated our relationship and entered into discussions with a company that was familiar with the project and that was willing to move forward with this whole project and provide budgets and figures that we would be able to explore. We felt comfortable and confident that we’d be able to conclude it with this company.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

I apologize if it sounds the same. March 1st is the key date that I wanted to put out

there. If the government and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation knew the problems before March 1st ,

like I said, it would take 30 days to go to the marketplace, get some pricing for the superstructure. That didn’t happen and now our backs are against the wall. We’re going to negotiate a contract that we obviously won’t be able to get out of. We won’t have any latitude. There’s nobody else bidding on this work. It’s one company. Again, I think given what’s happened with this project and the history of it, at the very least we should have gone out to the marketplace and tried to get the best price we could have. That obviously didn’t happen. Considering we’ve done a wholesale changeup on the project management team, it would only make sense that we would go to the marketplace. I want to ask the Minister, if we changed out the project management team, how come the decision wasn’t made to go to tender, which would have got us within that March 1st timeline?

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Deh Cho

The pieces that the Member is referring to in terms of deciding to move forward with the actual negotiations with a different firm was decided upon prior to having the decision

made to remove the project management team and have a new team put in place. The project management team change was as a result of this cost overrun, that triggered the discussion. It was decided at that point that we had to make changes. There are a lot of other things that have to be factored into this decision. We have a company that’s been able to identify the steel production, the places and slots that we’ve had to reserve in terms of guaranteeing that we’re going to hit the November 2011 time frame that’s been set out to avoid further cost to this. There are a number of things that have to be taken into consideration. Of course there are a lot of other companies that are out there. We did go out to, I’d like to remind the Member as he goes back and relives history here, that we did go to a public tender at one point. We had one company come forward and they had prices that were not acceptable to us. We have a company that’s experienced, we have a company that’s familiar with the community and the project, they have identified the ability to do all the different pieces and parts that need to be accomplished to make this move forward, and we’re quite satisfied that they’ll be able to do it.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That company is also familiar with the fact that the Government of the Northwest Territories today is up against the wall. They know we’re in trouble with this project. We’re negotiating from a bad, bad position. Again, I’ve talked to people. This is unprecedented for a government in Canada to go to a sole-sourced contract on a bridge like this. Unprecedented. I’d like to ask the Minister who exactly makes up this new project management team. I’d like to know that.

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Deh Cho

I’m not able to provide that publicly at this juncture. There is a company that we have decided to use. I’m not sure if all the agreements have been signed. I’d like to confirm that prior to providing that information. I can provide that to him today in confidence, if he’d like. Along with this company we will be utilizing at least one person from our own sources that has already been working for us for some time and is quite familiar with the project. I can provide the information, I’m just reluctant to give out information that hasn’t been finalized and put out in the public yet.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll continue on with these questions. This is obviously, for all intents and purposes, a government project now. We’ve taken it on lock, stock, and barrel by

the looks of things. I’d like to ask the Minister, when he talks about contracts that are outstanding, what are we waiting to sign? Are we signing this project management team up to a contract? If that contract hasn’t been signed when is it going to be signed and who is it going to be signed with? I think this is a public government and we’re talking about public funds. The Minister should be able to stand up and tell us who exactly that is.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely. I agree with the Member 100 percent. Let’s be real here, though. We have a supp that we are bringing forward in the next couple of days and we will have to answer those questions. This is getting ahead of the game. We haven’t formally been in a position to put that in front of Members. We are discussing, I guess, the terms now, but there are a number of things that we need to sign, and we will sign once we know that we have an arrangement and we have the approval of this House. I’m sure the Members are not going to be very satisfied or very happy with me if I sign a contract for so many millions of dollars that locks us in while I don’t have the authority to spend the money. So first things first. Those things will be brought forward and we plan to have that information ready and inform the House of the different players that are involved. We haven’t formalized any agreements 100 percent, we haven’t signed off with the contractor, so there are a number of things that we are still working on and we made that clear. We still have to work out the transition agreements with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, for example. The supplementary appropriation for $15 million has not reached the floor of this House yet. We can commit to providing that, we intend to provide that, and that will come.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

I’d like to ask the Minister, with all these things outstanding, how can the Minister with any certainty be sure that $15 million is enough to cover all the bases on this project?

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Deh Cho

The discussions are concluded, the signing off has not been done, and I’m quite reluctant to throw the names and company titles out into the public until we have that kind of discussion in house. We have looked at this project from every angle. We have had people that are outside of our government, outside of the bridge project itself look at our numbers. We are confident that we’ve captured all the different costs or pieces that are out there in terms of what it’s going to take to conclude this project. We’ve looked at the claims, we’ve looked at the interest, we’ve looked at everything that needs to be paid out before we move forward. It’s all captured in the $15 million that we will be bringing forward in terms of a supp.

Is it 100 percent foolproof? Of course not. We don’t know and won’t know until we look back as we move forward, I guess.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I guess the last question I’d have is whether or not the Minister understands that, as I said earlier, for a government project which -- let’s not fool ourselves; it has become a government project -- it’s unprecedented for work of this nature on a project like this in this country of Canada to be sole sourced, that this is completely unprecedented, Mr. Speaker, the way this project is moving forward. Unprecedented. Thank you.

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Deh Cho

Maybe I have to remind the Member this is not the only project that we’ve sole sourced. The school in Inuvik is sole source also.

Mr. Speaker, this project started off as a public process with a tendering portion that was built into it. It has led into a number of changes and we certainly have heard in this House the challenges that have concerned the Members. We’ve made every effort, I want to assure the Members, Mr. Speaker, that I’ve taken the opportunity to meet with our staff, with the Bridge Corporation, with everybody that I could to see if we could influence the project moving forward smoothly and the transition being able to happen without any extra costs. I was very confident that we were going to be able to achieve that as we looked at changing the design. Of course, it was of great concern to myself and to my Cabinet colleagues and I’m sure to the Members of this House, that we weren’t able to do that.

We have come in now with a project that’s 10 percent over budget, and that’s something we’ll have to debate and have approval from the Members of these Chambers to get the go-ahead. Failing that, we won’t be able to conclude this project. We would be in a very difficult situation. But I’m very reluctant to sign off on a contract until we have that discussion. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Time for oral questions has expired. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Bromley’s Reply
Replies to Opening Address

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to take stock on where we are in our achievement of the principles of consensus government. Last summer we renewed our commitment to consensus government with the approval of the guiding principles for consensus government in the NWT.

On Friday past, the Minister of Finance raised the principles as a foundational document of this government and reminded us of our agreement and dedication to them.

Mr. Speaker, we worked hard as a Caucus to develop these principles, because of serious concerns with the health and integrity of the practice of our consensus government. Some Members had serious concerns that the executive direction of government had descended into a despotic form without respect for including the views and concerns of Regular Members in the decision-making process.

I’d like to quote some of the guiding principles we committed to: “ consensus government is not defined by the absence of party politics. It is defined by the ability and willingness of all Members of the Legislative Assembly to work together with their respective roles for the collective good of the people of the Northwest Territories;” “Open and respectful communication between all Members is the most essential feature of consensus government; except under extraordinary circumstances, Members of the Legislative Assembly should be made aware of and have opportunity to discuss significant announcements, changes and consultations or initiatives before they are released to the public or introduced in the Legislative Assembly.” “Use of the element of surprise is inconsistent with consensus government. The role of the Caucus is fundamental in the effectiveness of consensus government. Caucus provides a venue for all Members to set broad, strategic direction for the Legislative Assembly;” Mr. Speaker, “to discuss matters of widespread importance to the Northwest Territories as they arise;” “the Premier and Cabinet are appointed by the Members of the Legislative Assembly to provide overall leadership and direction in accordance with a broad strategic direction set by the Caucus. Cabinet must have the ability to implement this strategic direction effectively and efficiently but in a way that reflects the concerns of Regular Members and maintains their support.”

I’ve often spoken about the track record of our Executive in consulting Members and seeking their mandate, albeit most frequently concentrating on failure to consult. I have pointed out instances of the leadership attending meetings with other governments and making deals with no mandate from this Assembly. The Premier’s comment two years ago at the northern leaders’ meeting saying a carbon tax would not be considered was an example. I have spoken in criticism of the failure of Ministers to report back on their activities at intergovernmental meetings. On this front, things have improved with the reports from the Ministers of Health and Industry, Tourism and Investment upon their returns from national meetings.

Last week I made a statement in this House on the vital importance of public transparency and the matter of this government’s reaction to the report of the Joint Review Panel on the Mackenzie Gas Project. I directed questions to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources in his capacity as lead Minister for the project. I asked this Minister in two sets of oral questions whether this government intended to participate in the consult to modify process of the National Energy Board, which is a first procedural point in making responses to the recommendations of the panel. The Minister went to some length in not answering my question then said he would take the questions as notice.

On Thursday last week, I got an answer to my question when a constituent provided me with a copy of a letter filed to the public registry of the National Energy Board on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories that day under the consult to modify process. The day after, Mr. Speaker, the response was tendered, the lead Minister provided a copy of this document to the Members of the Legislative Assembly. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I must learn of my government’s position on critical matters like the JRP process by retrieving that information from the NEB’s public registry.

Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of January, according to

Hansard for that day, I asked the Minister of ENR: “Does the GNWT intend to file a submission with the National Energy Board on or before February 11, 2010, the response to the Joint Review Panel report and recommendations and if so, how will we involve the MLAs and the public in the preparation of this submission?” That’s February 11th . Thank

you. The response, Mr. Speaker, from the honourable Michael Miltenberger was: “Mr. Speaker, I’ll take that question as notice.”

Well, the Minister of ENR would not tell me in this House whether this government would take part in the consult to modify process and before he fulfilled this undertaking to respond to my question, this government filed the response to the consult to modify process two weeks later. On Thursday last, any of my constituents who had read the GNWT letter on the registry would have known more than me, as a Member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I and some others are Members of both the Standing Committee on Social Programs and the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure. Both the Minister of ITI and the Minister of ENR responsible for the JRP file are aware of these committees’ desire to have input into any response this government makes on the Joint Review Panel report before the response is given. Indeed, in response to my questioning on the 29th of January, the Minister

replied, according to Hansard, “We have committed to work with committees.”

The February 11th response to the JRP report says

that “the NEB should reject recommendation 8-6 from the JRP, which related to the establishment of the greenhouse gas emissions target or a series of targets in connection with the MGP facilities.” On January 29th , in response to questions about the

process the government intended to follow in developing and submitting their responses, the Minister responded: “We know we want it to be clear, comprehensive and be able to stand scrutiny and be shown to have followed due process.”

Well, Mr. Speaker, the situation we have here today speaks to the government’s ability to fulfil its intent. The Minister of ENR is a member of the Special Committee on Climate Change. The committee was set up as a central clearing house for a coordinated government attack on the crucial issue of climate change. I spend a lot of time and effort participating in the work of the Climate Change committee. Greenhouse gas emission targets is the most important item on that committee’s agenda. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly highlighted the need to have input on issues in that committee relevant to their mandate. I consider the failure to do so in this instance clearly the mandate of this committee to be a major failure of this Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of short months ago, this government spent in excess of $50,000 to attend the 15th conference of the parties in Copenhagen

because of our concern about the change in climate and the cost of potential devastation it is causing or will cause both here in the North and globally. The Premier, the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources and three Regular MLAs, which I was one, returned espousing our commitment to take this on, to take the responsible lead given the ongoing absence of any federal leadership whatsoever. Indeed, we said sub-national governments like ours will save the day. Yet when I look at the government’s published response to such issues with respect to the Mackenzie Gas Project, we are recommending that we reject rather than strengthen the recommendation that attempts to ensure management of emissions. The government sweepingly rejects rather than strengthens attempts to manage future impacts resulting from the basin opening nature of this process, those aspects that ensure the project could go forward as sustainable development. This government has formally rejected a JRP recommendation on greenhouse gas targets and Regular Members have to read about it in a public registry.

Let me highlight those guiding principles for consensus government once more. “The opportunity for all Members to have meaningful input in important decisions is fundamental.” “Except under extraordinary circumstances, Members should be made aware of and have opportunity to discuss significant announcements.”

“Caucus is fundamental to the effectiveness of consensus government discuss matters of widespread importance to the Northwest Territories as they arise.”

Mr. Bromley’s Reply
Replies to Opening Address

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bob McLeod. What is your point of order?

Point Of Order
Replies to Opening Address

Bob McLeod

Bob McLeod Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on Section 23(i). The Member is suggesting that we are withholding information from him. I would like to point out that he is an intervener in the Joint Review Panel process. As such, by providing information to him, he would have unfair advantage over other interveners in the process. For that reason, I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point Of Order
Replies to Opening Address

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I take your point of order. I might allow a bit of discussion on this point of order. Do you want to speak more on the point of order, Mr. McLeod?

Point Of Order
Replies to Opening Address

Bob McLeod

Bob McLeod Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through the regulatory process, there is a process of intervening with the report. As far as I understand, the Member is listed as an intervener with the Joint Review Panel process. As such, it is to make sure that we have a fair process. We have to make sure that if we provide the Member with information, it has to go to all of the interveners in the Joint Review Panel process. As such, the Member, being an intervener, found out about the fact that we filed the statement with the National Energy Board like all the other interveners did. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Point Of Order
Replies to Opening Address

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the point of order. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.