Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I think I told this committee that, for the foreseeable future, the passenger terminal building would stay where it is, that's why the money is being spent. We have to confirm to CATSA that their investment is good for at least 10 years. We believe that it's good for more than that, at least 10 to 15. But it's pretty hard to get accurate traffic volume forecasts that go that far out. Based on best knowledge, the best estimate that we have right now, the Department of Transportation believes that that facility will still be in use in 10 to 15 years. It may be still in use in 25 years. If volumes don't go up, it could be in use even longer. But based on current growth patterns and what the expectation is for the economy, this is a long-term solution and one that you know the government is looking at. Even if it were a 10-year investment, it's only $666,000 a year. So it is not something that we are spending $50 million on.

It is also not the construction management process, which is the one that I think the Member was actually referring to rather than design/build. The government has a fairly good track record with design/build. It doesn't with construction management. That's my opinion. I guess I should be careful about saying that. The design/build process has done fairly well for the government, so I don't think we should be afraid to take a look at that process.

To the best of our knowledge, the building is going to be there for a while and the process that we are looking at for construction has been utilized successfully in the past by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I guess the Minister and his definition of foreseeable future and my definition of foreseeable future are two different things. I can't see us spending that type of money on a terminal building that is only going to be in its current location for 10 to 12 years. To me, that is not the foreseeable future, Mr. Chair.

I have a question. I am not sure if Minister Dent can answer this question, or perhaps Minister McLeod might be better equipped to answer this question, but this master plan for the Yellowknife terminal building or the airport property, the government has spent a tremendous amount of money on getting this master plan developed. They are setting forth on implementing some of the things that are included in that master plan, Mr. Chair. What happens to this master plan now that the government is going to invest this money into the current terminal building? Does it go on a shelf, or five or six years down the road are we going to have the Department of Transportation come back and say we need this new terminal building? The current location isn't big enough. It doesn't address the needs of the airport and we are going to have to look at moving that terminal building again, sooner rather than later. I would like to know what is going to happen to that master plan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this question can more appropriately be answered by the Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the airport plan is in its final phase of coming towards completion. Be expected to have a completed document for review right shortly. We are planning to still do a number of things: to consult with the city, for example, and also other carriers and stakeholders of intentions. We still will be moving forward. It was our intention to look at relocating the facility to the west side of the airport. That initiative would cost $50 million. It was part of our long-term plan. It is not something that we can realistically expect to do in this case. We looked at it as an option, of course, but it is not realistic. However, we still would like to follow the details of that plan once it is approved and accepted. This airport, this facility, as the Minister has stated, has a 10 to 15-year life forecast. Our traffic is growing at three percent a year. However, that changes and this facility may have a longer lifespan. As to the question that was raised by the Member; yes, we expect to follow the airport plan for the long term in terms of development.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Dent, would you like to add anything?

No, I don't have anything to add, Mr. Chair. The Minister has outlined the situation. On this issue, I don't think we can take too lightly the issue of terrorism. That is what this is all in response to. We have been ordered to take certain actions at this airport in order to protect the Canadian air transport system from terrorist attacks. The responsible course of action is to follow through and do what is required. The experts have looked at our airport and said this is what you require, have them placed there in order to tie into the national airport system. It is unfortunate that we have had to come forward because of the timing with a special warrant. I

think if the negotiations had been concluded more quickly, it would have been better if we had been able to get the money in for a supp in the June session. Unfortunately, because of the timing, that wasn't possible. The government would always prefer that we could do things by supp rather than by special warrant simply to avoid the issue that we seem to always wind up with in the House here. But, this is a Canadian security issue. It is one that we have to take seriously: the threats. We have to make sure that we are moving to do what is the responsible thing in keeping the air transport system safe. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am really glad that Minister Dent just gave that little litany that he did about how we have to be concerned about terrorism and how we have to do what the federal government tells us to do with respect to protecting our airports and traveling public against terrorist threats. Mr. Chair, I would like to know that the Minister conveyed this to the federal government. I think this entire suggestion of X-ray equipment for explosives at the Yellowknife Airport is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of in my life. Maybe in southern Canada, other small airports feeding to a main airport, where you have the sophisticated and very expensive equipment, but it is a very different situation when you are going north and south. This is like the gun registry. This is a boondoggle. This is a federal government imposed farce because there is a 737 jet that takes off from Inuvik with no security. There is a 737 jet takes off from Hay River en route to Edmonton International Airport with no security. So to put an X-ray machine to see if there are explosives getting on an aircraft in Yellowknife would hardly address the threat of terrorism in the Northwest Territories or any imposition of a threat on the traveling public in the Northwest Territories.

Why doesn't somebody just call this for what it is? This is ridiculous. It is the federal government imposing on our government a multi-million dollar expenditure for something we don't need and it is not going to help. In fact, if somebody actually wanted to do something, they wouldn't get on the plane in Yellowknife. They would get on a plane someplace else with a direct connection to an international airport in the South. Why doesn't somebody call this for what it is? This is ridiculous. I hope somebody conveyed that to the federal government. If not, it is now on the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

---Applause

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. If I could just say the language that was used earlier, on parliamentary stuff, can Members be careful? Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may have to ask the Minister of Transportation to confirm this, but my understanding is that after January 1, 2006, a 737 will not be allowed to take off from an airport where this kind of security system is in place and land at another one like Edmonton. So as of that date, this will be a system that is enforced all across Canada. It will not be possible to fly that size of airplane to an airport like Edmonton from anywhere except an airport that has this kind of screening process in place. Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we can confirm that with the Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Chair, as of the January deadline that was imposed on us, there will be five levels of explosive detective systems in place at 87 different airports across Canada. Yellowknife has been rated at the highest level. Because of its high volume of passengers and check baggage traffic, our traffic volumes are a lot higher than Whitehorse, as well as Iqaluit. Consequently, we are rated at the highest level for EDS/HBS deployment. The equipment is going to be operated and supplied by CATSA. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the equipment is going to be supplied and operated by CATSA, but the consequential effect of this being located in the Yellowknife Airport has some very serious dollar ramifications for this government in terms of capital that we have to build around it. Maybe the federal government should just pick up the tab for those consequential costs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll refer that question to the Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the Member's comments. That was our intention. We did in fact negotiate, as I indicated yesterday, very aggressively to have the federal government pick up the costs. We had initially brought forward the scoping and project costs and insisted that the government look at covering all the expenditures required. However, we were unsuccessful. There was displacement of aircraft parking on the air side, there was space used up in the terminal building that the federal government would not cover. Having looked at this, we had the option of going and taking only the funding provided by CATSA as an option, which would have left us in a situation where there would have been congestion in the airport as traffic volumes grew, and also on the air side where the airplanes were landing and parking that would have caused a lot of problems. We figured this would not be an option, so we went to our second option where we looked at and agreed to bring it forward; that we would increase some of the size and relocate some of the space inside the facility, along with the parking on the air side and the parking lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I just feel this is another case where our government needs to play a little bit of hardball with the federal government. I don't know what the outcome would

be if we didn't step up with all this cash in an effort to accommodate this security program.

I just want it on the record that I think it's a shame that our territory, strapped for money as we are, our resources being dragged out of here by the day, that we can't even afford community halls in some of our communities, we need so much public infrastructure here and we're going to dance to the federal government's new security program.

I just want to say one more thing. Sure, after 2006 we won't be able to fly out of any airport directly into Edmonton, as the Minister has said, but the fact is, are we going to have X-ray equipment in Inuvik and Norman Wells? Oh, no, just here. So, therefore, a 737 has the capacity and will be well capable of flying from Inuvik to Edmonton.

Here's the scene, let's let everybody know: get on the plane in Inuvik or Norman Wells, take your luggage and when you get to Yellowknife they'll say now please remove all your personal belongings and we're going to take off all your luggage and we're going to X-ray it. I think if somebody actually had a master plan in mind, they might implement it before getting to the Yellowknife Airport where they knew their luggage was going to be X-rayed. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all I have to say.