I think perhaps we’re getting somewhere. I hope people are getting an understanding of why it is that I am hesitant to support this $165 million. I mean, this rock didn’t meet the standards but somebody decided to dump it into the river anyway. What other issues are out there that didn’t meet the standard that are going to come back and get us or have the potential to come back and get us? Obviously if this rock didn’t meet the standards, somebody’s got to be responsible for dumping it off that temporary bridge into the Mackenzie River where most of it was, like I said, of a diameter where it’s probably floated down the river. Somebody approved that. I’d like to know who that was and what recourse we have.

Like I said, I don’t think the Minister responded to this either, that scour rock on the south side was prepaid. I’m not sure how we’re going to go about figuring that out. That rock was prepaid. It was limestone. It wasn’t granite, it was limestone. I’m not an engineer. I took a geology course in

university. Limestone erodes very quickly and it doesn’t have the properties that granite has, which, as the Minister said, was used on the north side. The north side piers are protected with granite. So what are we going to do about the south side piers and the limestone that was put in there?