Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We agree that those piers have to be protected. There is some concern being raised that there was a deficiency on some of the scour rock that was provided for the south side. On the north side all the scour rock was appropriate size and of the quality we were looking for. On the south side there was rock that was placed into the water for protection that didn’t meet the standards and we are analyzing that right now. I would point out, though, that a lot of the provision of the rock was stopped right at the pit because it was recognized that it was the wrong dimensions. We’ll analyze the situation. That is going to be done this year. We are also holding back dollars for work that was performed on the south side. So if it doesn’t meet the standards, the deficiency will not be signed off and it will have to be provided for with the dollars that are being held back.

I think perhaps we’re getting somewhere. I hope people are getting an understanding of why it is that I am hesitant to support this $165 million. I mean, this rock didn’t meet the standards but somebody decided to dump it into the river anyway. What other issues are out there that didn’t meet the standard that are going to come back and get us or have the potential to come back and get us? Obviously if this rock didn’t meet the standards, somebody’s got to be responsible for dumping it off that temporary bridge into the Mackenzie River where most of it was, like I said, of a diameter where it’s probably floated down the river. Somebody approved that. I’d like to know who that was and what recourse we have.

Like I said, I don’t think the Minister responded to this either, that scour rock on the south side was prepaid. I’m not sure how we’re going to go about figuring that out. That rock was prepaid. It was limestone. It wasn’t granite, it was limestone. I’m not an engineer. I took a geology course in

university. Limestone erodes very quickly and it doesn’t have the properties that granite has, which, as the Minister said, was used on the north side. The north side piers are protected with granite. So what are we going to do about the south side piers and the limestone that was put in there?

The scour rock that was used on the south side was not approved. So let’s be clear on that. Whether it floated down to, where did you say? Norman Wells? We’re not sure on that. We’re doing an assessment of what has remained. We don’t expect that rock would have to be replaced, but we would have to provide additional armour rock to make sure that the piers are protected properly. We are going to be doing an assessment. That deficiency has not been signed off. It has not been approved.

If the Minister knows that the scour rock used on the south side didn’t meet standards, again, I’m having trouble understanding if the quality assurances and quality controls are in place on that project how that rock could end up at the bottom of the river. That’s a pretty fundamental question for me. Does the Minister have pictures of that scour rock that was used? Has he seen pictures of that scour rock? Has the department seen pictures of the scour rock? I do have a number of pictures that I’ll table in the House and that I will share with the Minister. I wanted to make that abundantly clear. I know these guys are calling me out a little bit on the information that I have. I just got those pictures Sunday night. We were back here yesterday and I mentioned it to the Minister yesterday in the meetings we had. I’ve been up front and I will continue to be up front. Obviously I don’t take throwing around accusations like workmanship and deficiencies in that project very lightly. I want to know what I’m talking about. I’m not just going to come in here and shoot my mouth off. I’d have to have every assurance from the person that I’ve been talking to that they know what they’re talking about. And I do. I do have a lot of assurance that this individual is credible and what he is saying has a lot of merit. I will share those pictures with you. I’ve told my colleagues here on this side of the House, I told them this morning at P and P, if anybody wants to see the pictures they’re more than welcome to see them. Like I said, I’ll table them in the House so that everybody can see these pictures. They speak to a few issues. One of those issues is that scour rock. I asked the Minister, he said he had some pictures, let’s compare pictures. Does he have pictures of that scour rock that was used on the south side piers?

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as I had stated earlier, there’s a very fundamental question here about what’s being said here in the public forum. Even in committee, if

Members, if any Member has information, credible information of deficiencies by people who are ready to put their status on the line, then do that. Let’s deal with the issue. But to continue to wave a flag about and make these comments is very dangerous to the professional credibility of all people.

We have a new project team, Associated Engineering, who is going to take over this and do the audit and provide that information. The Minister has committed to working with committee going forward on that basis. The Member said let’s compare pictures. Well, let’s go beyond just comparing pictures because, I mean, I could sit here and you could show me a picture of a rock. I couldn’t tell you if that was a rock that was, how big, the size, compared, is there a quarter beside it, is it the size of a football or what? The structure of that rock? I couldn’t tell you that. So putting a picture on the table and saying this is what it is, is one thing. The Member himself said in this forum he’s not an expert in the area. So let’s get the experts and let’s get them to verify the information on both sides.

As we have a new project team who will take this on I’m sure they’re not going to take on faulty workmanship and have them sign their names and status on the line to a project that is going to be hauling people across the river. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can go to Minister Michael McLeod.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member, I think, is assuming that we’re not aware of the deficiencies. We’re completely aware of the deficiencies. We’ve probably got the same pictures. If he wants to compare pictures, that will be fine. We have a list of deficiencies. It gets pretty detailed, right from hole size to length of the bolt that’s sticking out. Scour rock was part of it. We are aware of the deficiencies; we’re dealing with the deficiencies; many of them have been dealt with already. If I’m going to be sitting here answering why every one of the deficiencies has been in place, that’s challenging, but we certainly can share that information as we go forward. We are doing a complete analysis of what has been out there as deficiencies and what has not been signed off. All the companies involved are meeting today and have been meeting all day to talk about any issues that are out there. If the Member wants to bring that forward to them or to us so we can provide it, we’ll certainly follow it up with more in-depth analysis so that all the Members and the people in the Northwest Territories can be reassured that this is a safe project.

Next on the list I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask about the toll fees and when the Minister will

have some type of solid information in terms of the new information that we’re going to get for the toll fees in light of what some things that may happen in terms of revenue coming in for the payment of the bridge.

Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, right now we’re looking at servicing some of the cost from this project through revenues generated from tolls. We expect for the first year it’s going to be around $8 million that we would have to use to service the debt and half of that we would expect to raise from tolls. The other portion would be from money that we’re already spending on the ferry service and the ice bridges, and also there’s a contribution from our government on an annual basis.

The other question I have is in regard to the issue around Minister Flaherty and the Minister of Finance in terms of a working relation arrangement. I think what I heard from the Premier, Mr. Chair, in terms of that coming close to some satisfaction, in terms of yes, this will not hinder us in terms of our fiscal forecast, forecasting projects that we have in the future, and that I’m leaning towards the Premier’s voice in terms of the evidence that the Minister is going to do something, the federal Minister. He said something like that. I just need to know if the Premier would, even if it’s some type of indication on paper to show that this is what the federal Minister is going to help us with the situation here.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, number one, the federal Finance Minister, as I worked in the previous Assembly as the Finance Minister in the first year of this government and developed a working relationship with Minister Flaherty, has been very straightforward in the sense of where he’s at when he says that he will work on certain issues with us, he has always delivered. When he says no, we’re unable to do that, he says it right up front and is clear with that. So following that discussion I had with him, the further commitment that I have seen that is evidence of that commitment is the fact that his staff and our staff have been in discussions regarding the proposal. I have requested of his office to get some confirmation in writing so that I could share with Members as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. I look forward to that discussion with the Members after he’s had some discussions with the Minister of Finance Canada.

Mr. Chair, in terms of the time frame to complete the bridge, we’re looking at 2011, in terms of this time frame and the amount of work that it is

required, we aren’t too sure how things are going to unfold next week or the day after. We’re under a time frame. There are certain consequences of not meeting the time frame. In his good judgement and estimation, can the Minister of Transportation say that the quality assurance of the project, things that we’re going to be looking at a little closer in terms of the structure, that we’ll be able to meet this time frame in light of what Mr. Ramsay has been saying, in terms of those issues? I just came to know about them and I’m not too sure if that’s true or not. The Minister has talked about some deficiencies. Is that something that we can safely say by 2011 that this bridge will be done and finished and that you’ll have the satisfaction? Because you are right, lives are going to be depending on it, they’re going to be crossing it. It’s very serious about this issue here. I have children or relatives, the same as anybody around here, so we really have to be serious about this. So when you say time frame, I really want to make sure that we are able to meet this time frame, because there are consequences for not meeting this time frame, there are penalties, and I want to make sure that we are prepared with some alternative plans depending on how we go about this. I want to have a few minutes from the Minister to see if he could help me with this question here.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should point out that the issue of deficiencies is part of any project that we have on our books. All projects encounter challenges, be it big or small, there are a lot of things that are always being flagged and this project is no different. Every item that, no matter how small, if it doesn’t meet the code, if it’s not done properly, then it’s flagged and it’s either left until it’s rectified or else a solution is found to fix it. And that list changes. Some things get resolved. As the project moves forward, new issues are added to it. That will continue right until the project is completed, and even after traffic is moving on it I’m sure there will be smaller things coming forward that have to be looked at.

The time frame is something that we’ve had a lot of discussion on with the people that are going to do the actual construction. They point to November 2011. We agree that’s a date that we’d like to see traffic crossing. We have all the steel ordered. We have a new contractor that’s already on site. We have new project management that is going through a transition, and we expect to start to see some of the steel coming on to the bridge site by this summer. So we are already working quite hard to see that this project meets the deadline, I mean the time frame in place and that’s something we don’t want to see any slippage on. Thank you.

Maybe I’ll just remind the House to keep the side chatter to a minimum.

It’s affecting some of the responses here. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, my last question in this round here would be the issue of project management and quality assurance in terms of going forward. I reviewed what the Ministers have put before us and it seems like we really have taken the bull by the horn on this project here with the GNWT in terms of how you set up the org chart and you told us how certain qualified people are going to manage this program, get the bridge built, in terms of that quality management project team initiative.

The one thing I wanted to look at, besides that, is how the community of Fort Providence is going to be involved. Mr. Minister has talked about the involvement of Fort Providence in terms of the Metis and the Dene First Nation on their involvement and partnership arrangements. They have released a press release and they have stated publicly their position and I look forward to seeing what type of arrangements will be made.

I just want to ask the Minister about going forward if he has some draft indication as to when an agreement could be reached with the community of Fort Providence in terms of a partnership agreement. Is that going to be something that’s going to hinder us or is that something that’s going to be just one of the other tasks that needs to be completed in terms of the completion of this bridge? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think right now one of the most concerning issues was to try to get the project stabilized in terms of having a new contractor in place and having all the material ordered and people on site and dealing with the transition. That is taking place right now. The construction, we feel, is now coordinated and it’s going to move forward and we don’t expect that will be affected.

There is a lot of work that’s been done in choosing project management and the new companies that are on the site. We certainly have done due diligence and looked at the background and checked out references and looked at their experience and they have provided us a lot of information and certainly feel free to provide that to the Members if there is a desire to see that.

The community involvement is something that’s, again, ongoing. We’ve, I think, all staked out our positions now and it’s a matter of sitting down and concluding the discussions. The community has expressed a desire to stay involved. They would like to see a lot of the benefits in terms of contracts and things of that nature provided to the residents there. We expect that in maybe two weeks we should have things concluded and be able to share that information to the Members. I don’t know if

there was another question there, but that’s good for now. Thank you.

Next I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question I’d like to go back to a comment I made in my opening comments in regard to the revenue and expenditures for this project and in listening to the conversation I’ve been able to glean some figures, which are more up to date than the 2008 figures that we were given earlier. My question is I would like to see a list of revenues and expenditures based on 2010 numbers as opposed to based on 2008 numbers and I’ve managed to gather that our revenue is going to be approximately $4 million from tolls, give or take, $3 million from the operations of the ice road and the ferry and about $2.3 million for the subsidy, which the GNWT has guaranteed, I gathered. But in terms of the expenditures I’m still somewhat, I am in the dark, I’m not somewhat in the dark. I’m told the debt payment is going to be about $7.9 million. I’ve asked the question before and I’ll ask it again: is that debt payment going to be the same every year for 35 years or does that payment schedule change and can we see what that payment schedule is?

The O and M costs, the only figure that I’ve heard is about $700,000, but that’s 2008 and I suspect there’s been some change to expected O and M costs. O and M costs will also be minimal in the first few years and will increase over the years as the bridge gets older. So what is the expectation of the department in terms of how quickly those O and M costs will increase and then there’s the equity payment to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation or whatever entity they become. That, I realize, is up in the air because negotiations are still underway, but I have no real handle on what the expenses are going to be. I’m getting a sense of what the revenues are going to be and I would really like to know if the Minister can either provide that information now or if we can get it certainly before we have to vote on this bill. Thank you.

Minister of Transportation.