Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden.

Thank you. That's why I asked for clarification, because the second paragraph in the bill -- and this is totally before the public, by the way, we're not popping anybody's secrets here -- the second paragraph says the total additional investment of $11.2 million comes from CATSA and, therefore, user fees, which left the $3.4

million special warrant. So I'm going to ask again, is it a $14.6 million or an $11.2 million total project? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The description is not entirely accurate in the supp. The total project is $11.2 million.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden.

Okay, so $11.2 million. I'm just doing the math on the fly here, Mr. Chairman. We're going to get $6.6 million from the travelling public, we've been asked to approve $3.4 million, that makes $10 million. Where's the other $1.2 million coming from? Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our expectation is that total expenditures will be about $6.6 million from GNWT monies, and $4.6 million from CATSA over the entire project, the $11.2 million. So in this year, we're looking at $3.4 million, and then the balance will show up in the main estimates in subsequent years.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden.

I guess I would like to explore a little bit more along the line that Mr. Ramsay had started with. This is $11.2 million just to install an explosive detection system. That's the only information we're given in the bill here. I don't know very much about explosive detection systems, Mr. Chairman, but is it costing this entire amount to put in this thing or is there other stuff that's being done out at the airport in addition to the detection system? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, there is other work being done, it's largely work to ensure that the passenger terminal building will last for 10 to 15 years, again to make sure that we meet that minimum 10-year lifespan that CATSA insists on to get their $4.6 million. If committee would like, I would suggest that perhaps Minister McLeod be asked for some information on the overall plan.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden, would you like the Minister to expand? Thank you. Mr. McLeod.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to ask you to repeat the question.

Could you please repeat the question?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Braden had asked for some outline of what other projects were included in the whole thing. There is about $4.6 million that's allocated to CATSA, and that's what they have agreed to supply us with. There are other projects involved in order to make sure the terminal building lasts for 10 to 15 years. For instance, there's going to be a secure hold room and washrooms, there's going to be new public access, there's going to be non-secure hold rooms and vestibules, there's going to be $600,000 spent on mechanical and electrical and so on.

So there are a whole bunch of things that are in addition to the expenditure by CATSA, and the big part of it is on paving and the apron outside. The CATSA structure causes us to expand the terminal building in such a way that we lose an awful lot of airplane parking, so there has to be a lot of work on the outside airside to develop new apron space and new parking for airliners as they're out there.

There is going to be other work done as well in order to make sure that if you are going to be spending this kind of money you need to make sure it is going to last for 10 years. There are a number of other parts to the project that have to take place. So it is broader than just the absolute minimum required, because if we did that we couldn't be sure that we would get that 10-year life that CATSA requires for their funding to flow.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, this sounds good. How much then is actually being spent for the detection system in billing requirements itself and then how much for these additional up-fits, I think is the word of the day? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, $4.6 million is clearly being spent on work related to what CATSA has required. However, as a result of that work, as I said we got a significant amount of money that has to be spent on the apron and areas outside. CATSA has refused to agree that they are responsible for any of those kinds of expenses. So they are willing to pay for the changes that are required in the building to put in their equipment and...(inaudible)...changes that are required because we are putting in their equipment they are not paying for. So it's hard to see that it's $4.6 million for CATSA and $6.6 million for the balance, because we have to spend a good portion of that $6.6 million because we are spending the $4.6 million too. It's difficult to do an exact calculation. That's why the department was really aggressive with trying to get CATSA to recognize that they had a responsibility beyond the $4.6 million, but they have said they are not paying for it anywhere else in Canada and, therefore, are refusing to pay for it here as well.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. There are a few other areas in this thing that I will want to get into, but with the time I have left I guess I'd like to go with this CATSA deal that we got struck with in Yellowknife. It doesn't seem appropriate that they can be totally arbitrary about what we get and what we don't get. I mean, every airport in Canada must be in some certain kind of circumstance. If Yellowknife's situation was such that putting in the explosive system required a huge amount of extra work, can't there have been some kind of allowance or provision made for that? Perhaps one way to ask this question, Mr. Chairman, is to say given our relative size and the number

of passengers and things like that moving through our airport and the cost of doing all this, is the deal Yellowknife has made with CATSA in line with the deal that similar airports have, or is this one costing us more than maybe the other average Canadian airport? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to believe that it's as good a deal as anybody has gotten, but it would probably be best to ask the Minister responsible, Minister McLeod, to see if he can respond to provide some details of the negotiations.