Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I think I told this committee that, for the foreseeable future, the passenger terminal building would stay where it is, that's why the money is being spent. We have to confirm to CATSA that their investment is good for at least 10 years. We believe that it's good for more than that, at least 10 to 15. But it's pretty hard to get accurate traffic volume forecasts that go that far out. Based on best knowledge, the best estimate that we have right now, the Department of Transportation believes that that facility will still be in use in 10 to 15 years. It may be still in use in 25 years. If volumes don't go up, it could be in use even longer. But based on current growth patterns and what the expectation is for the economy, this is a long-term solution and one that you know the government is looking at. Even if it were a 10-year investment, it's only $666,000 a year. So it is not something that we are spending $50 million on.
It is also not the construction management process, which is the one that I think the Member was actually referring to rather than design/build. The government has a fairly good track record with design/build. It doesn't with construction management. That's my opinion. I guess I should be careful about saying that. The design/build process has done fairly well for the government, so I don't think we should be afraid to take a look at that process.
To the best of our knowledge, the building is going to be there for a while and the process that we are looking at for construction has been utilized successfully in the past by this government.