Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 281-17(5), Northwest Territories Capital Estimates, 2016-2017, be now concluded and that Tabled Document 281- 17(5) be reported and recommended as ready for

further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We wish to deal

with

Tabled

Document 324-17(5),

Supplementary

Estimates

(Operations

Expenditures), No. 2, 2015-2016; and Tabled Document 325-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2015-2016; and, Mr. Chair, we’d like to start with the capital estimates, which we did not conclude yesterday. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to say to the Minister that the only lessons that were learned were from the review team project. I quote from their report: “The analysis was based on the experience of the delivery team, and many more parts that included political, financial and legal issues were not looked at.”

I have to ask the Minister, will he, once again, commit and fulfill the promise that was made by the previous Minister of Transportation and provide one report, a fully thorough and analyzed and retrospective analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Project from inception to completion?

I don’t believe I was suggesting that

the bridge was not a good project. By the time the government took over the project, I believe it was extremely well managed and it has become an excellent piece o

f infrastructure. That’s not the

issue. The issue is that the project started under a veil of suspicion and it continued under that veil of suspicion for quite some time.

There is no analysis, to my mind, that’s been done, looking at all the documents I got from the Minister. There’s nothing that looks at the project from its inception from the 15th Assembly when it was first

discussed, from the transition from the 15th to the

16th when the contract was signed and then on into

the 16th until the government took it over. There is

nothing which I can go to or direct the public to go where they can see what sorts of things happened and what went wrong.

I would like to ask the Minister, there were lessons to be learned, absolutely. The lessons that were learned by the department were from a review team

and specific to the building of the bridge. I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is what lessons were learned from the very inception of the bridge project. Thank you.

Thanks to the Minister. I didn’t

suggest that… I think it was my statement that the public didn’t get what they deserved. It was a public commitment in the House to do a retrospective analysis and then there was a decision by the executive, by a Minister and I guess the rest of Cabinet, not go through with this.

So my question is again, which I think the Minister chose to ignore, what is the value of promise by government?

The Minister mentioned a whole bunch of documents. I have a list here that is probably about six or so documents, but why should the public have to go searching all over the website, all over the GNWT public site looking for documents to find

out why this project didn’t proceed as planned? I would like to ask the Minister, in that particular instance, where is it

– I know there is no spot – that

the public can go to get a fully inclusive retrospective analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Project. I don’t believe it’s there. There is no one report which covers everything and I want to ask the Minister why that is not there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions

today

are

for

the

Minister

of

Transportation. I would like to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask some questions about the Deh Cho Bridge review, which is apparently not now coming. I would like to ask the Minister, first of all, if he could please explain to me the answer that I got from him that he and Cabinet had decided that the public did not deserve a report which had been promised by the previous Transportation Minister in 2011.

I have to ask him, what is the value of the promise of government and why did you decide the public did not deserve the analysis that was promised? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, although I think Hilda is gone, but I did want to mention Hilda. She has been a stalwart person in

Yellowknife for many years, beyond her work in the Assembly, so I wanted to recognize her work here and her commitment to the community.

I’d also like to recognize Ms. Elaine Taylor. We have had some meetings over the years. Also all the other representatives here from the Yukon. As Mr. Moses said, it’s great to have communication between Yukon and NWT, Whitehorse and Yellowknife. Welcome to everyone.

Everything done by the Department of Transportation does not address the fundamental underlying issue: the project did not proceed as planned. Where is the report which identifies and outlines the problems with the project, where it went off the rails and why?

Minister Ramsay committed to a full retrospective analysis of the bridge project, and that’s what I and the public expected. Now it’s just a distraction and not worth doing.

Examining past mistakes is invaluable to preventing the same thing from happening in the future. At the very least, Cabinet should be able to provide me and the public with a report that encompasses all the work done to date in an easily readable and informative format.

I will have questions for the Minister of Transportation at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the summer months I had a disappointing e-mail exchange with the Minister of Transportation. For several years now I’ve been waiting for the government, the Department of Transportation, to produce

and

make

publicly

available

a

comprehensive, in-depth review and analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Project. I have repeatedly asked about work done on such an analysis, and for years now I’ve been given excuses as to why it hasn’t yet happened.

Last month I finally got a straight answer, but it’s one which gives tru

e meaning to the phrase “the

government can’t be trusted because they lie.”

On December 13, 2011, there was, in this House, a public commitment by the Transportation Minister of the day to do a full retrospective analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Project. But the answer I received last month from Minister Beaulieu stated, “I have had discussions with my Cabinet colleagues on the pros and cons of committing additional time and resources to undertaking additional analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Project. It has been determined that further retrospective analysis of the bridge project is not warranted at this time.” The Minister continued, “Any additional analysis at this time is not expected to result in new lessons learned and could become a distraction to other significant initiatives of the government.” A distraction, Mr. Speaker.

The Deh Cho Bridge Project was undoubtedly the most poorly handled project in this and the two

previous Assemblies. The public deserves to know why and where the project went wrong, deserves to know why it ended up costing residents, through their tax dollars, some four times the original estimate.

The e-mail answer to me went on to say that a number of analyses have taken place and that “other reviews have also been undertaken, including the presentations delivered at several venues.” Are all of these items publicly available,” I asked. Are they even available to MLAs? What are these other reviews? Presentations were made to whom? Did MLAs have access to the info in those presentations? Can the public have access to those presentations? They certainly should.

The last straw for me was this part of the answer: “The Deh Cho Bridge is functioning and operating as planned and there are no outstanding concerns regarding the processes as to procure this important piece of infrastructure.”

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

---Unanimous consent granted