I will go back, very briefly, in history. The Member pointed out earlier that the building was built at the same time as the air terminal building in Holman. I believe both of those buildings were put up by Transport Canada in 1982. Effectively, they are identical buildings, and I think Sachs Harbour actually was built a year after or maybe two years after the Aklavik building. Again, the same kind of building.
When we looked at the projects in all three communities, and we have done work in Sachs Harbour to renovate and expand the building and, as the Member points out, we have replaced the building in Holman. Now Aklavik is in the program. We looked at replacements for all three initially. The first thing we do when we look at a building replacement is to look at traffic forecast needs.
The next thing we do is we look at the remaining life of the existing building and make a determination of whether the forecast needs, in terms of traffic and the remaining life, require replacement or whether they require rehabilitation and expansion.
In the case of Holman we determined, in terms of need, that the building was far too small to meet the passenger traffic that was flowing through the building. To expand the existing building in Holman to the degree that it needed to be expanded, was going to cost us considerably more than to start with a new building to meet the same requirement. That did not mean that the existing building in Holman did not have remaining life and, in fact, that building has since been relocated to town and will probably serve the town for another purpose for many years to come.
In the case of Aklavik, we did the same thing. We looked at the forecasted passenger movements through the airport and we heard nothing to tell us that there was going to be any immediate growth. We looked at the current traffic flow through the terminal and subject to the requirements at peak periods, over Christmas holidays and special events, the building was not being stretched to its capacity.
We then had Public Works go and do a full structural, mechanical and technical assessment of the building, and based on the fact that the building had a design life of 40 years, initially, it was only 18 years old. Based on the fact that Public Works' reports said that, with some modest investment, we could expect to get another ten to 15 years out of the building, at a cost of $250,000 to $300,000.
The decision was pretty clear to us. The community was involved in the discussions with Public Works and our regional staff and then we recognized that the community would certainly prefer a new building over renovation of the existing building, but we are convinced for the price of under $300,000, we are going to get another ten years of life out of that building.
The renovation process will involve similar renovations to those that were done in Aklavik, where we will provide for barrier free access washrooms, which will actually provide a bit of an expansion in the public area and the baggage handling area.
So the position the department has taken, rather than spend something like the million dollars plus that we actually spent in the end in Holman to replace the building, we are better off to invest $300,000, meet the current and forecasted needs, and provide the community with a good terminal that will last them another ten years or so. Thank you.