Public Accounts committee  Thank you for the question. In 2011, the decision was made to replace the bridge. At that time, it was decided that the possibility of using a modern P3 model to build the bridge would be studied. Once that decision was made, a multidepartmental team was established—over at Tra

Public Accounts committee  Based on the chronology and the information that we have, the decision was made in 2011 to replace the bridge and to examine whether a P3 would be the optimal model.

Public Accounts committee  There was a mandatory P3 screen at the time, but the analysis on whether a traditional versus a P3 would be undertaken happened between 2012 and 2013, and then the decision to proceed with the P3 was announced in 2013.

Public Accounts committee  Thank you for your question. Yes, PSPC has always been a member of our team. I mentioned in my opening statement that our team was made up of representatives from various departments. We have a great working relationship with PSPC. When dealing with a project as complex as this

Public Accounts committee  I think we've already learned how important the governance mechanism and information system are. A tremendous amount of documentation and information is shared between the government and the private partner. It's important to make sure that a good information system is in place.

Public Accounts committee  The project itself has kept to its original design, yes. The $235-million negotiated settlement is the only additional cost that we've had to date on this particular project.

Public Accounts committee  It's a combination of circumstances.

Public Accounts committee  There was the iron workers' strike, the public service engineers' strike, yes.

Public Accounts committee  The permits related to heavy load on roads from the Quebec government as well as permits from JCCBI on heavy loads going over the current Champlain Bridge also contributed and were also part of the negotiated settlement, yes.

Public Accounts committee  Any of the changes, any costs related to the REM train coming on the particular bridge, would be borne by CDPQ in making sure that the design of the bridge is not financially impacted by that change.

Public Accounts committee  The toll revenue was never going to go to SSL. It was always separate from that. It was always going to go back to the fiscal framework.

Public Accounts committee  No. It was always separate. It was going back to the fiscal framework, taking into consideration the finance for the overall general revenue. It was never directly related to the—

Public Accounts committee  They would be reimbursed with service arrangements, payments from the government directly, for meeting service standards and maintaining the operations of the bridge.

Public Accounts committee  This would be different. There's a full range of P3s, some with a revenue risk component. This was never intended to have that. It was never part of the operations from the beginning. That is not a change.

Public Accounts committee  In terms of the construction schedule, the $235-million settlement allowed SSL to hire more workers and buy additional equipment to make more progress on construction and make up for the strike delays.