Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure the Minister understands the difference between a legislative review, which is partly what we've undertaken, and an operational review, which is to say that once we've created the rules and the platform for how a job is to be done, how is the job actually implemented and undertaken. This is where many injured workers have come to me and other MLAs, to say that the way the WCB performs in this area for some workers, not all, but for some, puts them on an endless treadmill of appeals and frustration. When are we going to undertake an operational review? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I talk about in regard to the draft legislation does address the issue of the appeals process. We realize there are some concerns in that area and in order to make it work better, we have to make those changes. So we are addressing the area of the appeals because of concerns, but we're also trying to have a transparent system through the new legislation to ensure that when people come forward and they have an appeal, that the appeal is being heard and that we've responded to it without having legislation that is overlapping between the authority of the government's counsel or the Appeals Tribunal. So we're ensuring that those two functions operate in a clearer manner than they are right now because if the legislation has originated from this, it does have some overlap and we are trying to resolve that through the proposal that is coming forward; to look at the new legislation under phase two to ensure that we have a system that works. With regard to the Appeals Tribunal and the roles that they have in regard to the governance council, the Appeals Tribunal should ensure that they don't have these overlapping authorities where they are bumping into each other. I think that is the area that I and my counterpart in Nunavut are looking at to ensure that we make these changes so that we avoid these kinds of inconveniences to the people that are going through the appeals process.

So this is an opportunity for us to look at that and, with regard to the Members on the other side, once we have more meat on the bone with regard to figuring out what's in that legislation and we have something that is solid, I will bring it forward to the Members so they can have a chance to look at that.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, the public report called Act Now, which spurred these initial changes, was presented to the Ministers almost three years ago now, but has yet to be tabled in this House. Will this Minister table this report for the record in this Assembly? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to ask a question to the Minister of Public Works and Services. Just recently the Village of Fort Simpson met and they forwarded me a concern that the department is looking at shutting down the Deh Cho Hall, formerly known as the La Pointe Hall. The village is concerned that it's scheduled for 2006, based on an evaluation report. What is this report, Mr. Speaker, and when can we see this report? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that facility is one that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment uses to deliver its programs in that community and region. What was done and undertaken was a review through the fire marshal's office and, on that recommendation, we've moved in this area. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, perhaps the Minister can correct me if I'm wrong, that was a report about four or five years ago. I'm not too sure how old that report is, but I believe some conditions have changed there. Does this report also speak about a relocation plan? Does that report speak to that, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the initial work was done as far back as about 2002, when the fire marshal was looking at that facility. There is a meeting coming up on Monday, between Public Works and Services and Education, Culture and Employment, to review what the necessary steps will have to be. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that there's a meeting coming up to discuss the life of the building and what the department plans to do. It has come up several times in constituency meetings that I've had in Fort Simpson, Mr. Speaker. People are concerned about maintaining the building. It's about 10,000 square feet and it's a future training facility; that's what people would like to see. Can the Minister and can this government look at ways of maintaining this building? Even though government has to move out, do they have to demolish this building? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, based on the recommendations we received and the code upgrades that have been required, we'd have to do a cost-benefit analysis. That's why the direction has been, at this point, to look at relocating, and that's what the meeting is going to be about; to see what needs to be done to make sure that the department can continue to operate in the community and in the region.

With respect to the facility ongoing, again, we haven't identified the cost of doing a total upgrade on that to see if it is a usable space. The government's initial move, looking at the preliminary reports, was to look at alternative space. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the general feeling in Fort Simpson is that, if we undertake a good comprehensive review or a good foundation analysis of this building, you'll find that it will probably stand for another 100 years. So that's the concern, Mr. Speaker. Will the government and will the Minister have a real good look at this building and not demolish it, because we can certainly use a facility of that size in Fort Simpson? Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we can't commit to continue using the facility unless we get the okay from the fire marshal's office. So with the fire marshal's recommendation, the facility can't be used beyond 2006. That's why we've undertaken this next step, working with Education, Culture and Employment, and we can look at the reports to see what options might be out there. But with the preliminary work that has been done, this avenue was chosen because it's the most cost-effective way to move. Thank you.