Mr. Chairman, as I have stated in this House before and will state again, the school in Hay River is a bit of a landmark. It may be old, but it is of a design that is unusual, outstanding, and it’s a tourist attraction. I don’t think you’re going to completely change the exterior. I mean, it needs to be upgraded, definitely. It needs new windows; it may need new siding. If you’re going to use the same school, it’s hard for me to believe that a program review for what you’re going to do inside that school is going to…. You would think that wisdom would tell you that you’re going to probably try to change the programming space with a minimal amount of change to the building. If you don’t, I guess you might as well tear it down and start again, and I’m not suggesting that’s what we should do.

When we toured the school, there was talk about enhanced trade shop opportunities. They’re making do with a very small space there. And the access is an issue: the administrative offices in relationship to people coming in and out of school, security, things like that. These are not things that are going to cause the exterior walls of the school to be moved. There may be an addition — there may be a wing added on, something to that effect — but the main body of the school is going to remain the same, as far as I know.

I’m still not really hearing where the idea for a full program review came from. I don’t know if it came from the principal. Did it come from the local district education authority? Did it come from the teachers?

It didn’t come from the MLAs that I’m aware of. So where did that idea come from? You went from having a midlife retrofit to looking at a full program review. Even with a program review a high school is a high school is a high school, and we’re not going to turn it into a banana.

Interjection.