Thank you, Minister. Do we have any opening comments? Seeing none, we can begin consideration of the document. Our consideration begins on page 6. Industry, Tourism and Investment, comments or questions? Seeing none, I will call the page. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2017-2018, Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, economic diversification business support not previously authorized, $1,410,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2017-2018, Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, total department not previously authorized, $1,410,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Turning to page 7, Infrastructure. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would like to get an explanation of why we are delaying the Frank Channel Bridge. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister. Mr. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When they went to do the more detailed look at planning for rehabilitation of the Frank Channel Bridge, they consulted with a variety of stakeholders. It was determined that replacing the bridge was more appropriate than doing repairs and rehabilitation. As a result of that, they are going to be spending some money to fix it up and then planning forward to replace it in a few years. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. Chair. Who was consulted then with regard to this change? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There were a variety of stakeholders who were consulted. As to the specific stakeholders, if that is the information the Member is looking for, I don't have that with me today. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Is it safe to say the mining industry was consulted on this change? I just don't remember the Minister actually having any public pre-budget consultations. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Correct, Mr. Chair. The mining industry did have some input. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. What kind of pre-budget consultation was actually held, or did people just sort of walk into the Minister's office? How does this work? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. The Minister has indicated Mr. Stewart will field this. Mr. Stewart.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think the consultation that took place on this was specifically related to the Frank Channel Bridge and talking to user groups of that. Obviously, the mining industry would be one of those users. There were concerns expressed about the width of the bridge and the load limits and those sorts of things. I think that is part of that consultation that led to the decision to do a replacement rather than rehabilitation. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Since we are deferring this from Building Canada Plan, where is the money going to come from to build a new bridge? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The money is going to come from the capital budget with a contribution from the federal government. Then we will put our share in from the capital budget. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So do we have any idea how long this is going to be put off, or do we have any assurance from the federal government that they are prepared to fund a new bridge? How would a new bridge sort of ballpark figure compared to the $8 million it would cost to fix or at least maintain the Frank Channel Bridge? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding that the price tag on the new bridge is going to be $53 million. It will be built beside the existing bridge, and it will be built to specifications that would allow it to handle larger loads. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is helpful information to get and I appreciate the answer. Do we have any assurance that the federal government is actually going to come up with any of this money, the $53 million to build a new bridge? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, they have been at the discussions on the construction of a new bridge. The bilateral agreements we don't have yet. I am not sure when we are going to get them. I will find the information and I will share it with Members. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess more of a comment on this and then I have another set of questions. I think there needs to be some effort, then, to communicate to the public why this is not going ahead and that there is not going to be any serious work done on the Frank Channel Bridge for some time perhaps, until new federal funding is secured. In any event, I want to move on to a different line of questioning, if I can. Can anybody tell me what the position is of the supplementary reserve? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the change in the cash flow associated with this bridge project, the actual amount for the capital estimates will be going down by about $5.7 million. We won't have used up all of the capital reserve at this point in terms of the supplementary reserve.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Is the supplementary reserve in a surplus or deficit position and by how much? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. At this point, the supplementary reserve has a surplus of around $9 million because of the cash flow change that I mentioned around the Frank Channel Bridge. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess the information I had was that it was actually in a deficit position of around $9 million. Perhaps, can Mr. Stewart confirm those figures? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I clearly just read the table wrong. The Member is right that, when you include the purchase that was done for the double-haul barges, although that is intended to be paid back by marine services, it is about a $9 million deficit for the supplemental reserve.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Those barges, they are going to be moved out of the supplementary reserve pot of money. They will go into the revolving fund and over what period of time? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The expectation is that the monies we've provided to purchase the barges will be paid back over a 10-year period from the revolving fund. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure why it's going to be paid out over 10 years, but it seems like some of those carrying costs are going to be put on to the public purse rather than through the revolving fund itself, which doesn't sound quite right to me. What's the implication of having a deficit in the supplementary reserve and how does that affect our compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Policy? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
