What was raised yesterday was about trying to look at other ways we can do that. The Member is correct: I myself would not be able to touch base with all of my employees, but I would pursue that through our departments. We need to seek those that are directly involved.

I recall even from my own days as a public servant in the Government of the N.W.T. that you see things at a community level that you know can be addressed, and there can be some savings identified. We should not turn a blind eye to those that are on the front-line and who might have some ideas for us. We’ll look at ways of trying to do that. I gave an example yesterday — a potential way of getting ideas on the Premier’s web site. We can look at a number of other ways of doing that as well.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

It’s not a new issue; it’s one that was raised during the length of the last government. It has to do with space utilization at Stanton Territorial Hospital.

As I mentioned in my statement, morale has been an issue. There’s been an HR plan that’s in the works. There have also been some questionnaires that have gone out to employees. One of the main themes that has come back is space utilization and the fact that health care professionals at the hospital are having to deliver services to patients in crammed and often inadequate space. I’m wondering why, if this is the case, does the hospital insist on turning patient lounges into office space? I’m wondering if the Minister could provide an

answer to why that is the case today — that they’re looking at turning more space at that hospital into office space.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for the question.

There is no question that Stanton Territorial Hospital is under a lot of pressure with respect to capital needs. It’s a 25-year-old building, and there has not been a lot of work done in that regard. Space has been an issue. Like all other capital funding processes, work is underway to review those needs and to try to meet those needs. There are not a lot of studies going on, but there is work in place to look at seven of the most critical areas, those being emergency, medical day care units, ICU, the diagnostic imaging place…. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to do that, and the hospital is using its resources as best it can until any major changes are done.

My point is that the hospital is in fact a hospital — it is not an office building; it is not an administrative building; it is a hospital — and it should be used as such. I find when the hospital and its departments make decisions to turn patient lounges — and, I’ve heard recently, the nursery — into office space, that causes me a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker. The administrative staff should be relocated out of that hospital so the hospital can in fact be a hospital.

I’d like to again ask the Minister what plans she has, and the department has, to address this, so we can take a look at getting the administrative office staff out of that hospital, so that the health care professionals that work in that hospital and the patients who need it have the required space to conduct the work that’s needed there.

Mr. Speaker, the Member is aware, as well as all of us, that the option of moving the admin office staff out of there has to be part of the capital plan. All of us work together on our capital needs and where that money should go.

It is true that the facility is about 25 years old, and it has not gone through mid-life retrofit. But it is in line with all the other facilities that are looking for attention.

I could advise the Member that we will be look at the possibility of moving the administration office out of there as part of the plan for looking at the seven critical areas. That would be discussed in the upcoming capital plan process.

You have to look at all of the programs and services and recognize the fact that the hospital is being used in a very different way than it was meant to be a long time ago when it was built. It was supposed to be an acute-care facility, but it has turned into doing lots of other things it was never

meant to do, and the space has not caught up with that. That is part of the process, and I expect to have some of that work included in the next business plan session and capital plan session.

Mr. Speaker, I know the capital planning process — I believe it was $27 million that was earmarked for Stanton over the next few years — is one issue. The issue I’m getting to is that if you have a morale problem and you have an issue there with not enough space to conduct the services that our residents require, why would you exacerbate the situation by continuing to make decisions that turn patient lounges — and now, it looks like, the nursery — into office space? It pokes a red hot poker right into the eye of the health care professionals who work at Stanton when the departments make decisions like that. I think the public deserves better, and the health care professionals who work at that hospital deserve better.

I’m going to ask the Minister: is the decision to turn the nursery into office space a done deal? Is that going to happen?

It’s their authority as to who is responsible for making their internal decisions about how to use their space in the most practical way possible with the resources they have. A means of doing anything larger than that, such as moving administrative offices out of there or reorganizing their work and units, would include planning on the part of this Assembly. The department is reviewing the space used there as a part of a human resource review plan that is being worked on.

I am aware of the fact that the space issue and the work safety issue were identified as some of the major issues. I look forward to reading to the Members, in the next business planning cycle — which is the proper way for us to do it — to see what options we have available, including the possibility of finding other spaces for administrative offices if we can’t do anything else.

I’m just having a bit of trouble understanding how the department and the hospital could make decisions where money is going need to be spent on renovating a patient lounge, the nursery and washrooms into office space. I think that money could be better spent taking the office administrative staff that are in the hospital and putting them in another space, perhaps downtown in other office buildings around Yellowknife. They don’t need to be in the hospital, Mr. Speaker. That’s the type of work I want the Minister to commit to today.

I don’t disagree with the Member with respect to the best use of the hospital. I’m trying to remind the Member that the resources that

we put into all health care authorities, including their facilities, are decisions of this Assembly. It is my job to come up with the options and make sure that we have the right information for the Members to consider. I’m telling the Member again that this will be part of our discussion. Members know also that this is our first chance to make those kinds of decisions in the upcoming review process.

A point of clarification. At this time, in his position as Premier and Minister of Finance, is the Premier aware of any mechanisms we could use to put the Deh Cho Bridge before this House for a go–no go vote?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the will of this House trumps my initiatives or cabinet’s initiatives or even initiatives of past government. There is an avenue that is always available to this House. The Deh Cho Bridge project is on the books, and Members can decide if there is continued support for that. We would have to have a debate about the risks of doing that at this time.

The other avenue, which Mrs. Groenewegen asked about earlier, is if, through the final work that is happening on signing off through the lawyers, they were to come back and request any changes through the concession agreement or what would be required through the FMB, that could bring it back to this floor. Then we’d have that discussion as well. Thank you.

Again I want to continue with some questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services. I didn’t get an answer to the question of whether, in fact, the nursery on OBS at Stanton Territorial Hospital will be turned into office space.

I can categorically advise the Member that the nursery at the hospital is not turning into office space.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister about the patient lounge on the medicine ward at Stanton Territorial Hospital. Will that, in fact, be turned into office space?

Mr. Speaker, I don’t have that information, and I’ll be happy to get back to the Member regarding that, but I am not aware of that unit being turned into an office.

I am really glad that I didn’t say the last sentence that was at the end of my questions about the Deh Cho Bridge project, because we have a few minutes, here.

The Premier raises the issue of liability. This issue did come up before. I wanted to get a sense of what kind of opinion had been sought on liability. I think we got to the point that no real legal opinion had been obtained. I reread Hansard, and it sounded like what the Premier was saying was that in his opinion, we would have extensive liability. And you know, although I really respect his opinion, I don’t respect it in regard to legal matters, maybe, in quite the same way.

I would ask the Premier: does the G.N.W.T. have in their possession any legal opinion which would speculate on this government’s liability if we did anything which could cause the Deh Cho Bridge project not to proceed?”

Mr. Speaker, we have not asked for an opinion in that area. I would again, looking at the file and seeing where we are at…. We made an assumption. Looking at the contract, a concession agreement has been agreed to and the builder has been offered a guaranteed price. If we were to back out now, in my opinion — I shouldn’t offer that, I guess, as I am not a lawyer, thankfully; stick to the business I do know — we would be challenged. We’d have to look at that.

The Premier refers to a contract that has been signed with a contractor to build the Deh Cho Bridge. That contract is not with the Government of the Northwest Territories, to my knowledge. That contract is with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. It seems like we use the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and our government interchangeably when it is convenient. If we want information, it is the Deh Cho Bridge project that we hide behind. But when we talk about liability, it is the government. Who is the contract with? Is it with the Government of the Northwest Territories or the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation? Who would incur the liability?

The fact is the liability issue for us isn't directly tied to the contract. The contract was a guaranteed price. That work has been done through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, with the builder of the bridge.

Our piece, our liability, is tied to the concession agreement, and if we were to affect that with our own decisions outside of their process or what work they were doing, that's the reference I would be making to it.

When we talk about significant dates, obviously September 28 is a significant date, because somebody signed a concession agreement on behalf of this government on September 28. October 1 was a significant date. That was Election Day.

January 31 was another significant date. What happened on January 31? That was only a week and a half ago. We passed another date of some sort. I'd like the Premier to explain: What was the significance of January 31?

The January 31 date is a date where it would have been a go–no go on the concession agreement if the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation hadn't met the requirements. They informed us by letters, and showing letters from the bank that holds the…. We would, for example, have to initiate the loan guarantee on our part. They have provided letters from their lenders that the money will flow after the lawyers dot the i’s and cross the t’s.

For our piece, the January 31 date was for meeting the requirements in the concession agreement — that is, their equity portion — and having the lenders signed on, on this.

It doesn't sound like January 31 was the go–no go date, simply because, in fact, there was another three-week extension after that to clarify the legal documents around that date.

It’s curious to me that that was such a go–no go, as the Premier described it. That was a go–no go date, January 31, but “take another three weeks.”

Who’s got the liability here? We have the liability here. If it’s a no go, our $9 million loan guarantee gets called, and the government steps up for $9 million. I don't see any liability on the other side.

I want the Premier to describe to us that February 22 date, prior to that. If this government… That's an “if” question. I have to think of a question that's not hypothetical. Thank you.

From everything that's been said and what we're hearing in the media, I'd just like to ask the Premier: it seems like we're focussing on trying to reduce our costs, but is there any way we're trying to increase our revenues by looking at areas such as taxation?

We had a debate in the 13th Assembly on

developing such a thing as a resource tax, and I believe if we'd put the tax in place then, we probably wouldn't have the financial problems we're facing today. With the reductions that we're looking at now, we're looking at the possibility of future

generations and ensuring that we're able to sustain programs and services for future years.

I'd like to ask the Premier if he has considered looking at the options by way of tax revenues as a means of being able to offset some of this debt by bringing in new revenues by taxation.