Thank you, Madam Chair. That being said, recognizing that buildings certainly have a lifecycle and 37 years is a life, possibly that wall had lived its life. Would the Minister be able to assure us today that maybe

this has created a paradigm shift on how we maintain our buildings? Possibly a policy change, and you know whereas we buy some ladders, shovels and snowsuits, that we make sure that these are clear from the anomalies of big, heavy snowfalls of some sort? Is there a policy change on how we maintain these buildings and what we are doing about it? Could the Minister elaborate? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As a result of this we did go back and look at our operations from the Public Works side and reviewed the practices that were being used, looked at other buildings in the territory that were constructed at the similar time, that had similar design and looked at, again, the operations that we did of O and M or maintenance. Those that we've felt that we had to have a closer look at, there was further inspection just to make sure that we did not find ourselves in that area, and maintenance procedures were looked at. In those places where we felt that there may be a possibility of something like this -- although remote as it is -- some of our practices have been adjusted. So there has been a fair bit of work done looking at facilities across the North of similar structure, similar design and with similar conditions on them, being the winter.

Initially, there was a lot of concern about snow load, and after the review it was confirmed it was not snow load that caused the collapse. There were some deficiencies in the rear wall itself. But trying to go back to that and track down actual contractors which are no longer in existence is very difficult. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one quick question with regard to the fire, the aftermath of the fire. I'm just wondering, Madam Chair, if the Minister can explain what kind of security was brought in after the collapse of the foyer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a number of things that happened. One was to cordon off the area itself where the collapse happened. The facility was not in use for about three weeks. Repairs were started, inspections done on the facility and the normal work that would happen about that. When it was about to be opened, unfortunately there was an incident occurred where an individual had decided that they did not want to return to school is my understanding. So they lit one section of the school on fire. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up with what Mr. Hawkins said earlier, I'm just wondering if in cases like this you can have more stringent procedures for security and all that if it happens to another building. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, part of the other end of this is from the insurance side in ensuring that we don't sustain major losses. Risk assessments have been done in a number of areas to ensure our facilities are safe, that we have the proper procedures in place, and that in some cases we're not over insured as well as not under insured. Also ensuring that they're safe to go in because we sure don't want to be caught in the situation where we lose any more. Thankfully there were no injuries as a result, beyond that of the fireman who was trying to help extinguish the fire that happened there. Beyond that, the security that then happened around the place because of the fire, as well as the collapse, there was a contract put in place to ensure that there was no further access. Once the work was done and the place secured and the normal mechanisms for entrances could be locked, there hasn't been a further extension of that contract. That is something we'd have difficulty doing, is trying to get back into a place where we'd have 24-hour surveillance. When it comes to the safety of our building and assets, when it comes to self-insurance we have to ensure we have proper and adequate oversight on these things. But we don't have a 24-hour contract in place for supervision. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, education and culture, special warrants, $2.5 million.

Total department, special warrant, $2.5 million, not previously authorized, $4,000.

On page 14, Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $81,000.

Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I ask a question on the $40,000 for the Yellowknife air terminal building? My understanding is this has something to do with contaminated areas or some areas there that need to be cleaned, but in this here it just says it's for new baggage screening equipment and increased passenger volumes. Could I just get some more detail on that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The first part of this, the $40,000 stated, is a result of a decision made that affects the Yellowknife Airport. We have to increase our baggage screening equipment and process. The second part of that, the $41,000, is the transfer of assets and the accounting of those assets for the Aklavik and Tulita old airport terminal facilities. The $400,000 involves much more that comes into play around the discussions the Department of Transportation

has had with CATSA -- that's the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority -- in the amount of work that needs to be done at that facility to bring it up to code before the year 2006. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies; I mixed up two different items there. For Yellowknife air terminal building I'm just not sure why the money was spent in this way in that we have been aware since the September 11th attack that there have been lots of requirements being imposed on various airports, the Yellowknife Airport being one of them, to upgrade their facilities and baggage areas and better security and such. I'd like to know why it is that this was not incorporated into a main transportation budget and what transpired that required this to be spent, the money to be allocated in this way. We could understand the fire at the Inuvik school requiring emergency money, but why would the Yellowknife Airport require emergency money? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.