Public Accounts Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you for your question.

The $235-million settlement that was negotiated with SSL is the only claim that would increase the cost. Currently, there are no others, and we aren't aware of anything else that could increase the cost of building the bridge.

As part of the negotiated $235-million settlement, SSL assumed responsibility for potential delays in the bridge's opening. It is contractually obligated to complete the bridge by December 21, 2018, and if the bridge isn't ready by then, SSL will have to comply with the requirements set out in the contract.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

What are those requirements? The Auditor General's report refers to significant penalties. I'd like to know how SSL will be penalized if it does not meet the December 2018 deadline.

[Kelly Gillis]

For every day the project is late during the first week, the group will be fined $100,000. After seven days, the fine goes up to $400,000 per day, up to a maximum of $150 million.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

You said that construction of the bridge was 80% complete. Last week, I had the opportunity to fly over the new bridge when I was going from Mont-Joli to Montreal, on my way to Ottawa, and I was able to see the progress. It was really something.

What kind of oversight mechanism was established to make sure the work is completed on time?

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you for the question.

We monitor the progress made by SSL very closely. We have regular update reports and meetings. An independent engineer works for us and tells us what we need to know in order to ask the right questions about the progress made.

In terms of governance and progress oversight, we are proactive. Any issues that need to be clarified are dealt with immediately.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Sorry, but it's not quite clear to me.

When it comes to determining exactly what stage the work is at, who is in charge of oversight? You mentioned a few names. In terms the average person can understand, who is ultimately responsible for overseeing progress and answering to the government?

[Kelly Gillis]

Under the contract, SSL is responsible for making sure the bridge is operational by December 21. There is no question about that.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Very well.

[Kelly Gillis]

We have a team of experts who receive construction updates, and if they see a need for further clarification, a process is in place to allow for that discussion.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

That's great.

Let's fast-forward. The bridge has to be safe so we don't have a repeat of the past. Once the bridge is built, what oversight mechanism will you use to make sure Montrealers crossing the bridge can do so safely for years to come?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Madam Gillis.

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you for the question.

Under the contract, once the bridge opens, SSL will be in charge of its maintenance and operation until October 2049, so 30 years. That whole time, it will have to ensure service standards are met. Seven years before the bridge is transferred back to the government, an engineer will conduct an independent inspection to make sure it is in proper condition and in compliance with established standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. We'll now move back to Monsieur Deltell.

Mr. Deltell, you have five minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Le Goff, Ms. Gillis, Mr. Fortin, and Ms. Bossé, thank you for being here and welcome to the committee. Thank you for being here, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to have you appear before the committee. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Ferguson, in your report, you note that, in 2007, the study did not clearly show the potential impact of the bridge's deterioration.

In fact, you said that it was not until 2007 that JCCBI realized that the bridge was in need of urgent repairs. It then communicated that to the minister in charge but did not clearly explain the rapid deterioration of the bridge.

Can you please tell us what wasn't clearly explained and why that was the case?

[Michael Ferguson]

I'm going to ask Mr. Le Goff to provide those details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Le Goff.

[Philippe Le Goff]

I would say that, from our standpoint, it's a bit of a mystery. We did not find any evidence that the Federal Bridge Corporation properly communicated the severity of the bridge's deterioration to the then transport minister.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

That was rather major when you consider everything that followed.

Mr. Ferguson, from your report, it's clear that the government in power at the time had not been clearly informed of the urgent nature of the problem. One thing led to the next. If the government was not made aware of how urgent the situation was, why would it have acted swiftly?

I'd like a bit more information about that. Everything depends on that. Why was the situation not communicated clearly back in 2007? You, yourself, pointed that out in your report.

[Michael Ferguson]

In these kinds of situations, it's never easy to follow all the evidence. I can say, though, that, at the time, JCCBI indicated that it was necessary to begin planning the construction of a new bridge so that it would be operational by 2021. JCCBI stated that it was necessary to begin the planning for a new bridge but did not clearly describe the deteriorating condition of the bridge. Given the communications between JCCBI and the department, it was somewhat difficult to grasp just how urgent the situation was.

As I already said, the only thing we noted in all of those communications was the crown corporation's assertion that the new bridge should be operational by 2021. It was just prior to the partnership agreement being signed that JCCBI indicated the need to accelerate the construction schedule so that the new bridge would be done by 2018.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Once again, that is the whole point, Mr. Ferguson. In your report, you say that JCCBI did not highlight the serious nature of the situation or the extent of the deterioration. In paragraph eight of your opening statement, which you read earlier, you say that, had JCCBI identified and communicated the seriousness of the Champlain Bridge degradation in 2007, a new bridge could have been delivered by 2015.

We agree on that. As you pointed out, neither the severity of the situation nor the deteriorating condition of the bridge was communicated to the minister. What was communicated, however, was that there were problems with the bridge and that a new bridge should be open to traffic by 2021. The decision to move up the completion date to 2018 came later, as Ms. Gillis confirmed in her opening statement. You have doubts about the 2018 deadline, but Ms. Gillis, who is in charge of the file, told us today that the bridge could be completed by 2018, given that construction was already 80% complete. I nevertheless come back to the fundamental problem, the severity of the situation and the extent of the degradation.

How could the government—or anyone else, for that matter—have come to a swift decision when the severity of the situation and extent of the degradation were not communicated in the initial 2007 report?

[Michael Ferguson]

I would repeat that that is why we stressed the importance of the life-cycle management of an infrastructure asset as important as the Champlain Bridge and of a clear understanding of the severity of the condition of such an asset, including its degradation. Of course, we noted that JCCBI conveyed the need to begin the planning for a new bridge, but we also noted that it failed to communicate the true severity of the situation.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

To your knowledge, Mr. Ferguson—and Ms. Gillis may also have some information to share—when was the severity of the bridge's deterioration formally communicated to the appropriate authority?

[Michael Ferguson]

It was probably in 2013. That was when the decision was made that a new bridge had to be operational by 2018. Therefore, it was first necessary to have a real indication that the construction schedule for the new bridge was very tight.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I see.

Just a moment. The sequence of events—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Our time is up.