Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you look at the budget for 2003-04, the budget for the fuel was $320,000, but the actual expenditure was $620,000. That's $300,000 more. It's almost 100 percent more than what was budgeted. For power, the budget was $440,000, but the actual rate was $1.018 million. That's $578,000 more. That's more than 100 percent of what was originally budgeted. I think maintenance costs are maybe two-thirds of a PY more and one could see that as something that could happen, but for heating fuel and power, we are talking about 100 percent more than was originally thought. This is not an old building. This is a new building. It was architecturally designed, we spent millions of dollars designing it and building it and I don't think the fuel cost went up by 100 percent in a year. I still don't understand how that could happen. So in each year now, we have a $919,000 deficit for 2003-04, we have a $925,000 deficit for 2004-05 and we don't know what's going to come next year. I think this House has to get a better explanation, given that this is a new building. It's a state-of-the-art building. If they could not see how much fuel and power the building could consume, you have to begin to wonder what else do they not know about that building that's going to come back to bite us.
I need a better explanation as to why it was 100 percent or more than what was originally planned. I also need to know if the Minister is now budgeting $1 million more every year for power and utilities.