So, Mr. Chairman, the answer is we have essentially no recourse. There is no one we can go back to accept that some of us may be involved in the hit that everybody is going to experience or has already experienced because of higher fuel costs, but the volumes and the slippage on this one are really quite remarkable.
Mr. Chairman, I guess we will move on, but I would like to leave a comment and I relate this to a discussion I had with a Yellowknife architect awhile ago. When it comes to putting up a building, there is a bit of a shift or quite a large shift now in terms of the planning and the budgeting for these not to look at what it costs to build and open something, but what it costs to keep that building going over its projected lifespan. This might be something that if it's not already on the radar screen for our buildings and planners, perhaps we should be looking at it.
Perhaps we have an upside down way of looking at this. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, in our desire to get something built, we want to get it build as quickly and cheaply as possible. Of course, it always looks good to be able to cut a ribbon, but sometimes we don't incorporate what is the eventual and overall hit to the taxpayer, which, over the lifespan of a building will be many, many times more than it cost to put up. So I think we oftentimes incur a false economy when we put up perhaps a less expensive building for the sake of getting it up, but we are not very cognizant of what it costs over subsequent years. We always think we will leave that up to somebody else to figure out. I wonder if this is an illustration of not using that philosophy. We are not thinking how much it's really going to cost us to keep this place going for the next 30 or 50 years, whatever its life design is. Then we would have a more representative, accurate and responsible way of assessing the cost of putting up these buildings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
