Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Considering that it will be the taxpayers who will be paying for this bridge, I’m looking for the operation and maintenance of this bridge on an annual basis. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to get that information for the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My residents are concerned about the construction of the Deh Cho Bridge as well. I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation some questions. I think the concern is that it was really no great surprise that the cost continues to rise and they continue to come to this House for expenditures. Can the Minister assure this House that once this final deal is done, the bleeding will stop, so to speak?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All expectations are that this will be the final ask. It’s going to allow us to have the bridge open this fall. We have also negotiated an end to the claims back and forth on the construction of the project. This is going to be something that we continue to

pursue until the bridge is complete in November. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate some of the past issues that the Auditor General’s report spoke of incomplete designs, et cetera. Is the Minister confident in telling this House that all considerations and risk factors have been taken into account to date and that they can achieve this November 2012 opening, especially with this new deal that he is talking about with the contractor? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. Again, it’s our expectation that the bridge will be open in November. We were weighing a few different options in how we could look at this. This was the option that would allow us to get budget certainty and also schedule certainty that would enable us to move forward and complete this project by November.

Again, it wasn’t easily arrived at. We have been in negotiations for a number of weeks with the contractor. This is our best effort to move this project along and get the project complete. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I’m trying to get at the point that in the past there were unforeseen and incomplete things being done. Can the Minister assure us that all aspects of bridge construction have been considered and that this side of the House and the general public have no reason to expect further delays or further cash output from our government and hence the taxpayers of the Northwest Territories? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there always could be potentially unforeseen circumstances, but again, my expectation – and I have been following this project closely for a number of years – is that this will be the final ask of this government to see the completion of the Deh Cho Bridge in November of this year. We can move on after that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All things being considered, I know that last year we had shipping delays, production delays. Is there any of that on the table? What does this House have to expect, or have all things been considered? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the completion of the construction of the Deh Cho Bridge, this is all encompassed in the negotiated deal that we have with the contractor to complete the project. It is in there. This is our way forward so that we can see the bridge get completed this fall so we can get budget certainty and we can get schedule certainty. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for the question, but that’s more of an operational question. It would be something that I would be more than happy to go back to the department with and provide the Member with the answer. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that’s a pretty big question. You would think the Minister would know if he was certainly asking for up to $10 million as he pointed out in his Minister’s statement, so maybe I’ll try it again.

Is the department aware in any manner that our engineers - and I believe they are called associated engineers watching the project - have they ever instructed Ruskin to complete this project on schedule? Has there been any pushback or refusal from Ruskin to do so? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide this answer. Back in March it became apparent the contractor wasn’t going to be able to complete the project on time. We had a number of options, three of them. The option that we chose was to work with the contractor to figure out a way that we can negotiate the claims that are out there and complete the project on time in November. That was the schedule that we wanted to maintain. That’s how we negotiated an end to the claims and also put ourselves in a position where we could say that everything is included in that deal. We’re going to have the bridge project completed in November.

Again, if the Member wants further detailed information, we can get that for him. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, maybe can I get some understanding of why they would refuse to comply with our direction provided by our engineer at the particular time? I think it is cited in March. Is he saying if our associated engineers instructed Ruskin to comply with a schedule, why would they refuse to comply with the schedule? What grounds would they have with the ability to refuse a contractual schedule? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it’s in our best interests as a government to work with the contractor to move forward and not look back. I believe the negotiated settlement in completing the project and working with Ruskin is a much better approach than going back and dealing with the long list of claims and being stuck in court for a number of years. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m still missing the answer of why they would refuse to follow instructions provided by our particular engineers. It almost sounds like, if I’m understanding this correctly, that it’s costing us more money because we are complying with the will of Ruskin. Is this approach costing us more money, as mentioned in the press release, up to $10 million? Why aren’t we enforcing our legally obligated contract which we negotiated with them earlier? Thank you.