Michael McLeod

It would depend on who the responsibility of the delay or the cost overrun, who it would apply to. If it was the contractor’s issue, then they would have to eat those costs. If it was the responsibility of our government, if it was an issue that could be attributed to something we did or we were responsible for, then we’d have to pay for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The plan is to still meet in the middle, but the approach has changed somewhat, as the Member has indicated. The delay in steel has caused the approach to change. The plan is now to work on the north side and things are going very well. The contractor has been doing some very good work in launching the steel. We should be hitting the fourth pier or the final pier on the north side relatively soon and construction will continue with the tower as we deal with the breakup of the ice. The plan is to have all the trusses be worked on and put together during the breakup time...

Some of this information is available publicly. Our financial audit is done on an annual basis. It’s reviewed by the Auditor General. The information is something we can certainly share. Mr. Speaker, we’ve asked for some committee time to talk about some of the details regarding schedules, regarding budgets and things of that nature. I believe we’ve managed to secure some time so we can have an opportunity to sit down and look at some of these things in depth, including the risk matrix and things of that nature that maybe will provide some comfort to the Members with further detail. Thank...

Mr. Speaker, we do have status reports that are compiled on a daily basis by the different companies that we have. We also do our own. We do it on a weekly and monthly basis. We certainly can provide a reconciliation of where the expenditures are versus the construction schedule. Mr. Speaker, we are a little over 80 percent, moving towards 85 percent of our expenditures, of our budget being spent, and we’re probably at the same level with our construction schedule. So roughly a little more than 80 percent of our budget is spent and a little more than 80 percent of our contract schedule is...

Yes, but, Mr. Speaker... Mr. Speaker, that’s correct, but if there are any issues that arise that are attributed to something we’ve done or that are under our responsibility, then we would have to absorb those costs. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we do have a design sign-off on all components of the bridge project. As I indicated yesterday, we have also had our own independent design engineers, our experts, review the design. They all approve it. What the Auditor General is looking for is one signature to approve all components. Right now we have a designer that approved the piers and we have a designer that approved the superstructure. Although the superstructure is 85 percent of the overall design, her desire is to have us have one designer approve all the different components and that would bring comfort. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we have the figures. The Auditor General reviews and audits the bridge project on an annual basis. They have been since the project started. They also have the information. Thank you.

Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, if there was any potential loss of revenue due to the contract going past the completion date, we would seek recovery on that. Thank you.

The Auditor General identified the risk matrix as being weak. It didn’t cover some areas that we consider as low. There’s also been concern from the Auditor General that the wording itself was too general when we used the best efforts or best practices and those types of terms, she figured that we should have it word-specific to an actual response, Mr. Speaker.

We have a contract, we have a plan to deal with any issues that come forward and there may be issues that are unforeseen, but for the most part, Mr. Speaker, we’ve engaged risk management experts to put this plan together, they’re the...