That’s exactly the sort of concerns we had when we raised the issues in discussing this, it was being rushed. It was a rushed job. The deputy minister has confirmed that, so we have thrown $2.5 million out there. I’m sure the truth is somewhere in between there.

I guess I’d like to know from the Minister that we’re not going to continue with that sort of approach. We have so many important priorities. We want to do this project, but we want to do it at the appropriate scale and pace to make sure that the dollars are being spent well. I’m looking for that assurance from the Minister. The proof is in the pudding. We didn’t get it last time. What can we do to be sure we get it this time? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We do intend and we are going to do this work and we’re going to continue to do the work in the proper way. As the deputy indicated, the licence had some restriction factors in it. We found out where things aren’t; now we have to find out where things are.

In terms of the money that is now before this House, it will allow us, once again, enough of the information that committee and the MLAs were asking for and that we need to make an informed decision about this project, about potential costs and are all the resources there in terms of granular resources and such. I’ll ask Mr. Neudorf if he wants to add anything further, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the issue of claims, can we get some details as to what claims they keep referring to? I often hear there are comments of claims, but maybe they can spell it out. What claims are they actually talking about that are our responsibility or should be Ruskin’s responsibility? That’s the type of dialogue we need to find out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Neudorf.

First off, I’m really grateful for the deputy minister’s comment, which is like any other project, there are claims. It’s not unusual that projects like this have claims or disagreements. It’s probably considered a standard of any particular major project to have claims. Why wouldn’t we continue on with the project and sort the claims out like in normal circumstances that happen in most other projects?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If the Member will recollect, there were two tracks. The one track is the one he’s asking about right now. Why don’t we just sort of move on and sort out the project, and then when it’s all over we’ll spend months, maybe years in court in

litigation over claims, or the tact and approach that we are taking which is, let’s nail down the deal, let’s nail down a timeline that’s three months out and a dollar figure that’s going to take all those other extraneous, complicating issues off the table. Those are the two tracks. We’ve moved on one of getting the project done in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories, limiting our political exposure and not expending probably well in excess of the $10 million that we’re now here asking for to conclude this project.

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?

All those issues would have been part of the protracted dispute resolution at some point, and a year from now when the project would have been completed if we would have chosen to go down that acrimonious, litigious path, that would not be in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories.

What are all those issues and all those claims? We haven’t heard specifics as to what they are. I’ve asked about them. I keep asking about them. I wouldn’t mind hearing about some of the claims that we want to put in, and I’d like to hear some claims that they were threatening. As I said earlier, it’s not unusual and our deputy minister has reaffirmed that in some type of language, that projects like this have claims. Here we are buying off or rewarding the contractor. I’ll use the Minister’s words back to him: I think the contractor smells the barn and they’re so excited to get back in that stable, they know they can charge more money because we want to get in there too.

I believe we – myself, the deputy, the Minister – have given some pretty specific areas where there are areas of potential dispute if we would have chosen that path. Things like the very specific things he just mentioned about who should pay, if we dragged it out another year who would pay for the ferry service, who would pay for the ice road. Those type of things. Change work orders, scheduling issues. We’re not in a position, nor would it be appropriate, to be dissecting contractual arrangements that, in fact, had potential for litigation in this House in a political forum like this. We want to give you the information. We've given briefings as much as we can. The very intricate detail the Member is asking for is not appropriate, in my opinion, to be discussed here at this level.

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.

For whatever the reasons the Member may have, that he wants to get in the middle or be seen to be causing a lot of friction and bad blood. We’ve worked very hard to come to a cooperative agreement with the contractor. We’ve done that. There is a need to move forward to get this project done. There is nothing to be gained at this point, as I’ve indicated, in the middle of this process to do the kind of forensic autopsy that the Member seems to be intent on, and to be able to point fingers in the confines of this House, to say many things when we’re intent on working out and have worked out a cooperative agreement with the contractor. We want to honour that and get this bridge built, which is the best long-term goal for all of us.

The AIP the Minister referred to in his Minister’s statement a few days ago, has that been signed?

It has been agreed to but has not been formally signed off yet.

Earlier the Minister had assured me that, of course, they invoked the privilege of moving the motion to extend today’s sittings for as long as possible, and my point of that contradiction was knowing that one person cannot carry the fire forever. That’s what I meant about forcing the process to go. If we had followed through today’s normal schedule we would have ended at two o’clock, and we would have been able to get this type of information on the side, whether it’s in committee or have some discussions after hours. I feel terrible. I’m not trying to hold the process hostage here by any means, but I feel terrible that that’s what I was referring to, is the fact that they’ve almost, not closed debate but opened it up in a way that it’s not easy to deal with.

In that comment from the Minister to remind me about the way the process works, I know very well how it works. He assured me all questions would be answered. I’m asking questions about explaining what the claims process is and why we didn’t… I want to find out why our analysis did not allow us to proceed with claims. We can do a follow up. We have holdbacks. I assume we have holdbacks. Maybe we don’t. That’s part of the issue, is the fact that we’re not getting the answers, or certainly I’m not getting the answers, as to what claims were that significant we saw and why we couldn’t invoke the present contract, that sounds like it’s still in force, to make them comply with the schedule. That’s part of the issue.

I indicated that there is an agreement-in-principle. That agreement-in-principle is there and has been committed to by both parties. Once the resources are in place to make it happen, the formal agreement will be signed.

Once again, there is nothing further I believe I can add that will assuage the Member’s concerns or allow him to accept the fact that we made some decisions. He is unhappy with those decisions, we’ve laid out to the best I can in this House, and the Minister has made every effort as well through the questions he’s been asked and the deputy, to lay out what the issues were, the process, the contract.

The fundamental decision was made, do we fight over some of the clauses in the contract that will drag things out and do all of the things we’ve already spoken to a number of times, or do we focus on a productive way of moving forward, come up with a compromise, and put the resources on the table that in the long run will save us money and get the bridge done on time, so that the people of the Northwest Territories can finally put that piece of much needed infrastructure to use. It doesn’t get any more basic than that, and it was a decision. It was a political decision, it was a business decision, it was a technical decision and it was made for all those reasons.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We are on page 13, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized. Mr. Hawkins.