Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any discussions going on with the City of Yellowknife about that at the moment?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With regard to the extension of the runway at the Yellowknife Airport, we are in discussions with the Department of ITI in terms of the tourism market that's out there and how much of an impact it's going to have on our North. Once again I'll state that a runway extension has to have merit as a business plan. For expending $12 million, they have to make sure that there's benefit for our North and for everybody that's involved. If the numbers are so low and the volume is just not there, then it's very, very difficult to proceed with a project of this nature. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are valid questions that one should ask about any project and I think that's why the Minister today stated in the House that he's funded some money to do the highway system in the Tlicho area. I would expect that any project like this would have those questions posed and answered. I'd like to know if the study in 2004 that the Minister mentioned had any information in that regard, other than the fact that the cost at that time was $12 million. Before the Minister just dismisses the idea, I would think that he might want to ask those questions, because I wouldn't imagine that, even if he's talking to ITI about it, ITI is not going to be able to cough up $12 million from ITI. So my questions are, would the Minister be interested in undertaking something to see what the feasibility of that is before he draws to conclusions? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. No, I didn't want to convey that a project of extending the Yellowknife airstrip is not being looked at at all. In fact, extending the runway is one potential method of improving access for our tourism market. We have begun internal discussions with ITI to look at the case; and 2004, you could say that's an old study, I guess. We do have to revisit the numbers and look at the demand that's out there and to revisit that business case. That's what ongoing discussions are happening with ITI to develop this comprehensive business case, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I know that the Department of Transportation has produced a number of good studies about, you know, the Corridors for Canada and a lot of those reports on the road system and the need for them had been prepared and there have been documents that would go with the Ministers and Premier to Ottawa to make our case for various funding. So I know that the department is experienced in doing those studies. I have one question about whether or not there is any mention in the socio-economic agreement on the Mackenzie gas pipeline about any road infrastructure.

The second thing is...I'm switching the topic here. Let me just stick to the old topic. The airport extension; has there been any discussion with the federal government about the possibility of their involvement, because any potential project like that would have to involve the federal government if we were to ever be a gateway not only to the North, but a gateway from Europe and Asia to North America. So that would definitely require federal participation there.

My second question is just a transportation project in general whether there are any provisions under the socio-economic agreement on the pipeline about any investments on roads related to the resource development project. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Our airport, and once again we'll have to sit down and work with ITI and develop this business case and then at that point we can determine whether we're going to need federal involvement. The existing development of the airport itself has always been a fully GNWT initiative, but something significant like this, certainly we could begin discussions with the feds, although we have not yet at this point, saying we can't handle a project of this nature. Once again, we need the business case and we are going to continue to work towards getting that done. Once again, it's to our North's benefit to have such a significant airport if the business case is there.

The Member talked briefly about the SEA and impact on the highway. Certainly the SEA mentioned it quite frequently. We have got in there early enough to say you will be impacting our highways and our transportation infrastructure and the community infrastructure. So the Mackenzie gas project has always had a good ear for us as to how they will accommodate and assist us with the impacts of their development of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Could I just get the Minister to be more specific about exactly what the agreement speaks to about the transportation issues?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If the Member will permit, I can read the document in front of me because it's a rather detailed document, the SEA, but I do have a briefing note. I will try to be as quick as possible.

I think the main thing that we must remember with the SEA is that the Mackenzie gas project is willing to contribute to upgrades or infrastructure and really look at negotiating additional O and M costs to maintain our highways and infrastructure, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the idea of reading the document for something that's fairly lengthy like that, if the Member doesn't already have a copy, I am sure the Minister would be happy to provide it. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a copy, so I didn't mean for the Minister to answer that. I wanted to have a conversation about what's in it. Maybe I could just ask a question then. I don't see any intent, cooperation or understanding between the proponent and the government. Are there any specific dollars? Is there going to be a built-in process where the government and the industry would work together to see what sort of stress there will be or additional use or need for expansion or enhancement in order to supply this massive project? How specific is that? If the specifics are not there, what is the process for us to get there? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Obviously we can't really get into specifics because there has nothing been nothing finalized with their logistics plan that they have been filing. But the level of detail that I can share is that the Transportation logistics plan, the operators have agreed to negotiate a cost-sharing agreement with us for capital upgrades, O and M, maintain highways, airports, anything they are impacting. They recognize that safety and movement of our travelling public is important. They agree to continue to consult with us to develop measures to address public safety and maintain our infrastructure that they will be deteriorating and will help us upkeep it and negotiate it financially as well, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next on the list I have Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to delve into a little bit more detail into airport security. A few days ago, the Minister answered a couple of questions relating to security screening that passengers have to go

through. It's in this area of not only a necessary inconvenience that all the passengers around the world are going through. I am not at all challenging the need for doing this in this terrorism-prone world we have, but in delivering the service and making sure it is effective and efficient, are we actually keeping an eye on this? What tests or criteria are we applying to the screening service that we undertake here on behalf of the CATSA organization? Considering the costs of operating this are borne by the taxpayer in part through fees and things at the airports, our Department of Transportation is making sure that it's up and running, are we looking at it through the efficiency, the economy lens, Madam Chair? Is the department satisfied that we are indeed spending the dollars required and no more to provide passenger screening, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Canadian Air Transport Security Agency, more commonly referred to as CATSA, is a federal government arm that is responsible for screening of air passengers and baggage. Once again, it all stems out of our post-911 world and we have a duty to provide for the travelling public's safety. So the federal government did provide funding for us to increase the security services at the airport through our baggage handling, explosive detectors, et cetera. It's important to note that the staff out there are federal staff and not ours. Their security system is run by the federal government and all their tests and screening are all conducted on the federal level and they are all trained at a standard to provide our services.

Once again, I think that the Member had brought it up in the House as well in reference to a newspaper article in one or our northern papers. We did check out the lag or delays that are happening. Even though they seem like delays, all the flights are leaving on time and it is comparable to other jurisdictions across Canada, the line-ups that are happening, Madam Chair.