Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am now prepared to start my hour-long filibuster on this particular project. I am well prepared to do what’s necessary.
The issue here before us in this supplementary appropriation is there’s still no details as to why we need to realize the extra $10 million. I’ve been after that particular answer. There still seems to be no answer other than vague ones, like trust me, our legal people say this. But what are our legal people saying? What are the complications or factors? We need to see what the issues are.
Now, there are those who suggest that this is a delay of the bridge. I disagree. We aren’t seeing a tools down situation. If we were, that would be our explanation right now. If they refused to do any work, they’d put their tools down and they’d put it in writing that they’re not satisfied with the fact that we’d like this contract fulfilled. It’s not a question of support for the project. By all means, if that’s what people are hearing, they’ve not heard anything I’ve said the last few days on this issue. They’ve already made their mind up what they think they’ve heard.
In fact, it’s not a question about support for the project. I haven’t wavered in my support for the project. If anything, the only time I’ve really been annoyed about the project is listening to the constant criticism over the last term on this one. I really think that the community had a good initiative. I think the constant criticism on this initiative was part of the downfall and the problems of it. Rather than supporting it, getting behind it, trying to find ways of making it work, others wanted to criticize it.
I was always in favour of this agreement through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. I thought it was a good mechanism to get the community involved. It was their project and I still think there will be a lasting legacy where people feel that this project has been taken away from them. If anything, it’s going to be a constant reminder of that. It will be a long time before people forget this and by the time those people forget, they will just remember the icon it represents, without knowing the whole story.
Mr. Chairman, the issue I have before me is quite simple. I’d like to know the details of why we’re not fulfilling the contract. It just seems to behoove me as well as many others. I just received more e-mails this morning asking why do we need the $10 million other than “because.” Because worked on me as a kid when my mother said it to me or my father said
it to me, but people are expecting a little more when we have an adult conversation with adults. Don’t just say because. The taxpayer needs to understand what because means. Saying our legal people are saying we may be on shaky grounds on some things and other things, what are we really talking about? I think that’s the open discussion we need to have.
Again, whether it’s the Minister, the department, managers, associate engineering watching the project, I don’t care if their hearts are broken that this is fair criticism. What is the problem?
The other day Transportation gave a briefing to committee – of course, we can’t speak to the specific details of the briefing – and the fact is there are Members who have left that briefing with still those same questions. What is the detail? What is the problem?
I don’t know what the reluctance is of sitting down, breaking it out and saying this is our primary issue. Here it is on this particular problem and this problem is explained in a certain way. Then they go onto the next one. They may be surprised that they actually get community support. They might even get my support on this particular initiative.
I’ve stood behind the project and I still stand behind the project as a project, a legacy infrastructure for the territorial citizens. Not just the government, but the citizens. If we are building our territory, we have to build it with infrastructure. We have to create projects that provide benefits to communities, provide employment, provide a sense of pride. The reluctance to continue to keep saying why they won’t explain why they can’t fulfill the project seems frustrating. I’m not the only one. I’m already getting e-mails on this. All they are asking for is for an explanation of why we can’t fulfill the contract signed by Ruskin.
Now, the Minister’s statement the other day refers to an AIP drafting. There’s no clear answer. If he was on this side of the House, I guarantee he’d be asking the same darn questions. You shouldn’t be scoffing at me or trying to heckle me back on this particular issue, because he would be asking the same damn questions. If he’s trying to pretend he’s not, he’s fooling not only himself but everybody else.