Mr. Speaker, I guess that’s what happens when you don’t have a design for three years into a project. You still don’t have a firm design. You’ve had more engineers, probably close

to 30 or 40 engineers working on the project. It’s little wonder that you’re going to have trouble finding somebody that can come in and sign off on that project, ultimately, at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister what evidence does he and the department have that the other risks that are addressed in the Auditor General’s report are being managed effectively? Thank you.

A perfect example, by the comments made, that he doesn’t agree with anything that we’ve provided him. We have provided numerous briefings and I’ve just indicated to him that this has been signed off by three different engineers, it has been reviewed by our team, some world-class engineers that have given their approval. Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with all the risks that are involved. We’ve reviewed it. We’ve had the Levelton Report, which did a technical review. We’ve put a plan of action together to address these issues that have come forward. Some of them have also come forward through the Auditor General’s report by the Member that instigated the motion that required this. It has been a real challenge to deal with an auditor. For the 12 months that this project has been in our possession, we have been audited for eight of those. I’m not sure who is going to satisfy his questions, but I can reassure him that we have a team. We have a framework that was recognized by the Auditor General. There has been no question of safety or quality. I think things are moving very well. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the Minister referring to me as instigating the Auditor General into taking a look at this project. I have had questions about this project going back seven years. Mr. Speaker, apparently I am not alone. If you read the Auditor General’s report, there are a lot of issues that I have addressed over the years that are clearly articulated in here as being an issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about all the risks being addressed. Where is the budget for the remaining other work like the electrical distribution, the catwalks, the cost of resolving claims, the compensation for lost fish habitat, the rehabilitation work for the cleanup and disposal of contamination in and around that site? Where is that budget, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Member should know by now where the budget is. He approved portions of it in the last couple of budgets. The toll collection portion was approved over the last two budget years. It is a separate issue. It is a separate budget. It is kept separate because it is not part of the construction. It is a budget that will be maintained for the life of this bridge. The Auditor General indicated they wanted

us to roll it in. We disagree. The construction project is going to end within the next while, but the toll collection is always going to be there. Within our budget for fish habitat and electrical and other miscellaneous, we have $2.5 million slotted and we have a budget line for that. Mr. Speaker, for cleanup of contaminants, this government has a budget of $20 million. All these issues that are raised, unfortunately, were flagged. Maybe further clarity could have been provided but we didn’t have that opportunity. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t really talking about the toll but I appreciate the Minister throwing that in there for me. I want to talk about the contingency as well. That was flagged by the Auditor General too. On a project of this size, how is it possible that we have a contingency of less than 2 percent or close to 2 percent on a project of this size? Judging by the items I have identified, it would take no time at all, Mr. Speaker, to eat that $2 million up. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Member that the Auditor General did an operational review or look at the government portion of this project. They didn’t audit anything else. It wasn’t a financial audit. They didn’t look at our contractors or talk to them, so there are a lot of things that maybe could have been clarified. The Auditor General was pretty clear that she wasn’t satisfied that the contingency was enough, as the Member had indicated. We looked at the project. We looked at the requirements of what was needed to complete this project. We had a professional team give us their best advice and we felt that the $2 million was sufficient. We also are now a year into the project and we have only used $300,000. Mr. Speaker, we have no reason to believe that we may need more. But having said that, there may be unforeseen circumstances that will require us to put further investment. I can’t predict that. We are on track for the budget, Mr. Speaker. That is all I can point to at this point. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to continue to ask a few questions about the Minister’s statement regarding the Deh Cho Bridge. The Minister also talks about the contractor providing the Department of Transportation with a revised construction schedule. That comes as news to me. I am glad he mentioned it today. He also talks about the department evaluating this to determine whether the contracted completion date can be

met. Mr. Speaker, a schedule, to me, would outline when the construction on that project can be complete. Is that date still November of 2011, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer is yes. Right now, the challenge that we are facing is to look at the construction methods that are going to be required to provide the final completion portion of the decking including the asphalt pour and we have come to realize that there is going to be certain challenges as the weather is going to be cold at that time of the year and how do we accommodate that and how is the contractor proposing to do that. There is some technical information that has come forward that we need to review and confirm whether it is acceptable or not. That is the information that we need to, on an ongoing basis, continue to work at. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, seeing as we have taken over control of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and that contract between what was then the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and Ruskin, I am wondering if the Minister can comment on what our potential liabilities are or risks associated with being in that contract with Ruskin. This is related to cost, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there is always potential for cost overruns on a project of this nature. We have already experienced that. There are unforeseen circumstances that are not identified in the contract that is at no fault of the contractor. Of course, that would become our responsibility, Mr. Speaker. We have worked this contract with our current contractor. We feel it is a fair one. The date, of course, is always going to be up for discussion with the general public as we move forward. We would like to meet that date; however, we are not going to jeopardize any issues around safety or quality. Things of that nature have to be kept in the forefront and our goal is to build a bridge that is going to be there for the long haul. It is going to be there for something that people will admire and come to see. That is where we place our priority, Mr. Speaker. We are working towards getting this project done without jeopardizing any safety or quality issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a supplementary question. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department also states in the Auditor General’s report that Members were kept informed of the financial requirements of the project. In February 2008, the regulations were amended to allow for an indemnity in the lender protection agreement in

favour of the trustee and the lenders. Whose decision was that to change the regulations and how they notified the Members of those regulations being changed? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Member that we have kept in line with the practice that this government has followed for quite a few years. It has been used since 1999. The government has used this practice 20 times. We made no special allowances for the bridge project. We followed protocol. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That begs the question: why were the regulations amended in February 2008 to indemnify the lenders in this? Why were the regulations changed if they were following policy as the Minister states? Why were the regulations changed? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House during the 15

th

Assembly

and were also briefed in the 16

th

Assembly, were

kept informed of the process leading up to the concession agreement. They also were aware that to make this project happen, additional dollars were committed to and also aware that there was a need for an indemnity. Mr. Speaker, there were a number of meetings. I think there were three over the summer and a total of 35 meetings over the life of this project, for sure, have been to provide information to the Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 8, written questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 7, oral questions. Thank you.

---Unanimous consent granted

The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Seeing as we’re talking about regulations being amended, in September 2007 the Contract of Indemnification Exemption Regulations was amended to allow for specific indemnity in the concession agreement. This happened on September the 27

th

of 2007, the

day before the concession agreement was in fact signed by the previous government. I’d like to ask the Minister why that regulation was amended, which would have meant that the Cabinet had 14

days to inform Members of that decision to indemnify the lenders, but that was amended and Members weren’t notified. I’d like to ask the Minister how that could happen. Thank you.

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