We have to be clear that we are not looking at the issues in terms of deficiencies as a public safety issue. I know the Member has been trying to make it an issue that would jeopardize the whole project in terms of safety. That’s not the case and I think we should be clear that’s not the case. We’ve done analysis on a number of the things that are being raised. We have a list of deficiencies that we are going to be dealing with. That’s standard. We certainly can reassure the Member that we have looked at the scour rock this past year and we know what has been put down there. We can share that information with him if that’s the kind of detail he wants. We can sit down with him in the next little while, once we complete the analysis. Because I’m sure he’s going to want more information as to where we are in terms of resolving some of these issues. We can provide that private briefing for him, so he can look at the design, look at all the issues that he keeps raising in terms of specific detail. If that information was being provided to him by somebody else, then it’s obvious that it’s by somebody who has been on the project and I think there is an obligation for that person to come forward. If he’s very concerned that there are safety issues, I think it’s from a professional standpoint and an ethical standpoint, that person should come forward and should not hide behind a politician and keep feeding information that should be brought directly to our attention. If that’s something of concern, then provide it to us.

Let’s not throw pieces out there and say this is a safety issue. Scour rock right now is not a safety issue. Bolt holes, bolt sizes, length of bolts, some things that need to be cleaned, I recognize as deficiencies. Is that public safety? No. It’s obvious that we are getting down to some very specific details of this project and we just about have to start bringing in engineers if we are going to start getting into more detail.