Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Prior to actually moving ahead with the construction of the new hospital, there was a technical evaluation and investment analysis done on the old hospital which clearly demonstrated that the renovation and upgrading of the old hospital would have been far more costly than building the new hospital. There are a number of issues there: age, condition, and costs associated with renovating that building and bringing it up to a standard acceptable for the GNWT.

Having said that, we did move forward with the construction of the new hospital. When the building is empty and the new hospital opens, that building will likely be declared surplus by the Department of Health and Social Services. Once that is done, then it becomes the responsibility of Public Works and Services, who would go through the normal

disposal process on that property. At that time, we will absolutely be looking at the building to see if there is any way we can repurpose that building without investing a huge amount of money, given, as I have said previously, the age, condition and operating costs of that. We will look in house to see if there are any operations or use in the government. If not, and there’s deemed to be no useful purpose for that building, we will look outside. If not, if it proves that the building is in rougher shape than we anticipate by looking at it from the outside, we would move forward with demolition. We will certainly absolutely look at other options for that building before we take that step. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he would concur that there are different standards of types of buildings within the inventory of the GNWT and that probably hospitals are one of the more costly and more technical types of buildings. They’re more costly to build. If we were looking at a repurposing or re-profiling of this building and it were not for a hospital, for something else, does the Minister concur that the standards that might be applied to that evaluation would be considerably decreased? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question, we’ve already done the technical analysis of the building and it is completely inappropriate to use that building as a hospital in its current status. It is certainly cheaper to build a new one than to try to bring that building up to the status of a hospital.

At the same time, yes, office buildings are a different standard than a health centre, but we still have an obligation for public infrastructure to make sure that our buildings meet code. We tend to build above the standard building code for Canada. We would have to bring that building up to a certain code, which may not be the same as the hospital but it would certainly be consistent with other infrastructure that we are putting in, before we can consider using it for certain purposes. It really depends on the purpose.

As I have mentioned to the Member, we are going to look at this building. I will share the information that we have with my committee, the Regular Member committees, and we will certainly have discussion moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with the new health care facility in Hay River, I believe there are at least eight activities currently being carried on in the H.H. Williams Memorial Hospital which there has been no provision made for in the new health care facility. I could try to list them off, but maintenance, for example, has a large area within the hospital as it currently exists. I do not believe

that maintenance has the kind of infrastructure at the new location that they had at the old location.

Has the Minister or would the Minister consider looking at those activities that have not been built into the new health care facility potentially being accommodated within the existing building with some minor renovations? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this exact issue came up when I was travelling through Hay River earlier this summer. Residents of Hay River asked roughly the same question. At that point, I did go back to the Department of Health and Social Services and the Minister. We talked about the individual programs that are currently offered or may be offered. I was assured at the time that all the functions that exist within the hospital with the exception of the 10 long-term care beds were accounted for in some capacity in Hay River, whether it’s in the new building or somewhere else in the community I do not recall, but it is my understanding that all the functions are taken care of. In this capital plan we are discussing right now, there are accommodations for those 10 long-term care beds. It is my understanding that everything is covered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I would just like assurance that before this facility would leave the hands and the submission of the GNWT under the Department of Public Works and Services that there would be ample time to entertain proposals for other sorts of things. I have suggested in the past perhaps even like NGOs that deal with certain types of social issues and things like that. I just don’t want to see us run out of time and go, oh no, here comes the wrecking ball, let’s tear the building down. I still think it has value. I’m a little biased.

Will the Minister assure me and assure the House that there will be ample time to consider all options for that building before the wrecking ball rolls in? Thank you.

The short answer is yes. The steps required for the disposal of the Hay River hospital include a number of different steps. The Department of Health and Social Services, as I’ve indicated previously, must first identify that they don’t have any use for it. If they have some uses for it, then we will work with them to find a way to make that building meet those needs. If the old hospital is actually deemed surplus to the needs of the Department of Health and Social Services, the disposal of the facility would follow our normal provisions, which I’m sure the Member is familiar with, and that’s under our policy 32.05 in the Improved Real Property Policy.

Once we get the notice of surplus, Public Works and Services will obviously follow the guidelines, and if the GNWT departments have no further interest in the property – and that’s any other department, not just Health and Social Services – the surplus property will be offered to sale to certain property interests that may be NGOs in the community or others. Our priority on that list is priority one. The Northwest Territories public corporations obviously have an opportunity, that’s the NGOs, community governments will have an opportunity, non-profit organizations and, finally, if nobody else is interested, it will go out to the general public. The surplus of the property may be sold for the highest successful bid without priority interest groups, and all surplus GNWT real property requires a real estate appraisal so we can set fair market value. The provision within an estimated value of $50,000 can be done by us. If it’s more than that, it’s going to go through an independent provider like Coldwell Banker or some other organizations. But bottom line is we will work with committee. We will share our information with committee and we will make sure this property is disposed of in the best and most appropriate way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The time for oral question period has expired. Item 9, written questions. Item 10, returns to written questions. Item 11, replies to opening address. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Mr. Moses.