Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for

Weledeh, that Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends several acts to ensure that references to "spouse" appropriately capture persons who live in spousal relationships outside marriage, so that the rights or obligations provided for or imposed under those acts are equitably applied to persons in different forms of spousal relationships.

This particular bill:

• • amends the Conflict of Interest Act to ensure that the term "spouse" includes couples who live together in a conjugal relationship of any duration;
• • amends the Dependants Relief Act to substitute a definition "spouse" that adopts the meaning assigned to the term by section 1 of the Family Law Act;
• • amends a provision of the Education Act relating to the conflict of interest requirements for members of education bodies to ensure that the term "spouse" includes couples who live together in a conjugal relationship of any duration;
• • amends a provision of the Hospital Insurance and Health and Social Services Administration Act relating to a conflict of interest disqualification from membership on a board of management, to ensure that the term "spouse" includes couples who live together in a conjugal relationship of any duration;
• • repeals a provision of the Human Tissue Act which defines "cohabit" and "spouse," thus allowing the new Interpretation Act definition of "spouse" to apply;
• • amends the Interpretation Act to add a definition "spouse" which will apply generally to Northwest Territories enactments that refer to that term, unless a contrary intention is expressed in a particular enactment;
• • amends the Intestate Succession Act to repeal the definitions "spouse" and "cohabit" and to substitute a definition "spouse" that adopts the meaning assigned to the term by section 1 of the Family Law Act. The Intestate Succession Act is also amended to add a statement that preserves application of the previous law to persons who die intestate before this bill comes into force.
• • amends the Marriage Act to clarify that a requirement to provide proof of death of a previous spouse upon marriage only applies where the person and the deceased spouse had been married. This amendment does not change the eligibility of persons to marry under the Marriage Act.
• • amends a provision of the Wills Act relating to the attestation of wills to provide that the definition "spouse" added to the Interpretation Act by this bill does not apply to an attestation that was made before this bill comes into force;
• • amends the Workers' Compensation Act to provide that the definition "spouse" added to the Interpretation Act by this bill does not apply to the Workers' Compensation Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

--Carried

Bill 17 has had second reading and the bill is referred to a standing committee. Item 18, second reading of bills. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

There's a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

--Carried

Bill 18 has had second reading and accordingly is referred to a standing committee.

Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Minister's Statement 48-15(3), Sessional Statement; Minister's Statement 49-15(3), Fiscal Update; Minister's Statement 54-15(3), Progress Report on Health and Social Services in the NWT; and, Bill 13, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, 2004-2005, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.

I call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee wishes to consider Bill 13, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, 2004-2005.

Thank you. Does the committee agree?

Do you want to proceed with that now? We will take a 15-minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

I am going to call Committee of the Whole back to order. We are dealing with Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, 2004-2005. It is Bill 13 in your binders. We left off yesterday on page 10, Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, health services programs, not previously authorized, $1.49 million.

I guess I was being optimistic and I wasn't thinking about questions. I have noted that Ms. Lee wants to ask questions. Does the committee agree that the Minister will bring witnesses into the Chamber?

Thank you. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms if he will escort the witnesses in for Mr. Roland, please.

We welcome Mr. Voytilla back as a witness for Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would be pessimistic to not expect questions. Madam Chair, I have a question for the Minister on the cost overrun on the heating fuel and power and maintenance cost of the new Inuvik hospital. I know there were lots of questions raised on this yesterday and I only have one final question. It has to do with whether or not any specific investigations were done as to whether there was a major defect in this area, or it's just a case of not crunching the numbers. Often houses get built and you start heating for a year and things come up and are noticed that were not anticipated. Something might be loose that could cause leakage or an overuse of fuel that was not anticipated, and it's an actual physical defect rather than not estimating properly. I would like to know if that sort of investigation was done. Has there been any analysis done on how this level of cost at the Inuvik hospital compares with other facilities, perhaps a comparison should be done with the Stanton hospital by comparing comparable numbers to see if it's over the limit for the size. For a 10,000 square foot space, is it reasonable that it costs as much as it does? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I would like to thank the Member for raising questions around this issue again so that I could provide committee with information as to the actual process and to clear the air that, in fact, estimates were done but they were not used. As a result of the questions that came out from Members of concerns raised and some very strong suggestions that something should be done, we have gone back and requested more information and I would be willing to provide committee members with the responses that we received from the Department of Health and Social Services. I would like to read some of it in for the record, as well, to the process. We do have a package here to hand out to members.

I am going to do this for the record because there is a bit of misinformation out there. Initially the information and questions that arose here were around the fact that there were bad numbers out there and poor estimations done. On that, I went back and made the request through FMB and Health to come up with the full history on this. That is what we are providing to Members. The way the work was done, there were estimations made during the preconstruction phase, and they were completed in 1999 for the utility and maintenance costs for the new facility. The estimates at that time were $1,012,083, which were over $300,000 more than the old facility was using on an annual basis.

When the project was in completion and they began moving staff, officials and patients over, another estimate was done based upon the original consumption estimates but revised unit costs. The estimate, at that time, came in at $1,487,500, which was $700,000 more than the costs of the old facility. The actual costs for 2003-04 year came in at $1,637,781, which is just $150,000 over the revised estimate. But because of the changing estimates that were being used and our stringent FMB requirement for substantiation for new money, it was felt at the time that it was best that the health board operate within the existing budget -- that was the old budget for the old hospital -- and come forward once they had actual costs for O and M. Once that was done, it went into the process as being built into the business plans as we go forward, and the department came back with a request for monies that they did not have, based on the discussions that happened through Health and FMB. It was the understanding that when they did have actual costs, then they could come back and better substantiate the need for dollars. So taking into consideration that the old hospital was 4,600 square metres and the new hospital is 8,800 square metres, and new code requirements for ventilation -- air turnover, as they call it -- and the new air cooling system that was in the new facility versus none being in the old facility, and the different equipment used and more space that is there, it has now come forward that, in fact, they were short substantially versus what they were told to operate on from the old facility. So that is how the numbers have come about. We provided that. There is also an attachment of the figures that were projected on electricity, heating fuel and the total costs and the unit costs, as well. We have provided that to members. Hopefully that will clarify the concerns and better show how this number was arrived at as we are here today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Well, that is a lot of information. I appreciate that we went through this yesterday, but there were some remaining questions. We are still not clear exactly as to how it is the case that this budget for fuel and power has been underestimated by almost $1 million each year. For example, it says here that the Minister said that the department was aware that the new facility would cost more and that something like ventilation, it seems like the turnover had to be 13 times or whatever. This is not new science. I am sure there is an industry standard that they had to work with that would tell them what level of

ventilation would be required and how much power that would take to run it. With all this knowledge about it, why were they not able to factor in the extra costs? It is a bigger hospital, a newer system, and more stringent requirements for ventilation and other air cooling systems and all that stuff. With all that knowledge, why were they not able to get to a better figure? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.