Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to comment on the Auditor General’s report on the Deh Cho Bridge Project. In general, the findings are not surprising. This massive construction project was forced ahead by this government a number of times, in spite of warning signs which should have slowed or paused the project. Signs such as a financial analysis in 2007, which determined that a conventional approach to the project, instead of a P3, would provide significant savings for the project. Such as, in February 2008 at the time of financial close, the government had not approved the bridge design. In order to proceed with the project, the need to have design approval by the GNWT was waived. In September of 2007, and again in February 2008, regulations under the Financial Administration Act were amended or waived so the project could proceed. Early in 2009 an independent review of the project management practices showed deficiencies at the construction site. The independent report to the Department of Transport and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation proposed actions, but not all of the actions were implemented.
At any of these points, Mr. Speaker, and at many others over the last five or more years, the government should have paused and taken the time to thoroughly evaluate whether or not the project should move ahead. It should have been an opportunity for sober second thought, for honest evaluation of the project to that point, for careful consideration of the potential pitfalls if the project went ahead. Instead, decisions were made to push forward; decisions, which in the long run, had highly negative impacts.
This project started with the intention that it would be a P3, a public-private partnership project, and it was to have a focus on community economic development. In a P3 project, risks are supposed to be shared by the partners, but in this case the Auditor General determined that the GNWT assumed all the risk, and as stated in the report, the project morphed into a publicly funded project, more costly than it should have been, with significant risks to the GNWT and little or no economic benefit to the local community.
The Auditor General found that the project risks were not adequately managed, but that does not mean the project is at risk, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not believe that it is. Risks related to quality control are well looked after at this point and I must congratulate the Department of Transportation for their hard work to manage that risk in both the current construction phase and for going back to ensure quality in phase 1.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted