Debates of October 18, 2017 (day 2)

Thank you. Mr. Stewart.

Don Stewart

Hay River

Thanks, Mr. Chair. In terms of the Fiscal Responsibility Policy, as the Member would know there are a couple of important criteria in terms of the amount of carrying costs; it shouldn't exceed 5 per cent of your revenues, and that we have to have enough cash to be able to fund 50 per cent of our capital budget without having to borrow more than that amount. We are under both of those criteria even with the supps that are here today, so we're in good shape as far as the Fiscal Responsibility Policy. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly, five seconds.

Kevin O'Reilly

Frame Lake

Thanks, Mr. Chair, you're very generous and I don't have any more questions.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Supplementary Estimates, (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3. Oh, I have Mr. Testart. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On this specific bridge project, I know that this is an area of interest for a number of businesses, northern-owned and operated businesses in my riding. I'm interested to know if this future project will have opportunities for local procurement of northern businesses before I place my confidence and my vote in this appropriation, that that is something that is possible for the future bridge project. Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I would like to think that all of our projects have opportunities for northern procurement. I'm not sure what the exact procurement will be on this particular project, but I'm sure the Department of Infrastructure will keep Members updated as we move closer to the work on the bridge and what procurement, but we like to think that all of our projects have an opportunity for local and northern procurement. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that that's the Minister's aspiration, but all too often do we see these projects do not have an opportunity for involvement from northern owned and operated businesses, especially the small players. I've been through a few of these processes now and, again, I hear the same concerns from my constituents, no matter how much money we spend on infrastructure it doesn't seem to create local economic opportunities.

Can the Minister give me anything more than just kind of an aspirational statement that in the future everyone is going to benefit from this? Is there something concrete he can commit to? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I said in the future there will be opportunities for procurement, but at the same time we need to make sure we get a quality product on the ground and if they can provide a quality product I'm sure there will be some opportunities there to take advantage of the work that's going to be going on with this. As for the actual procurement itself, I mean, that's a decision that would be made by the Department of Infrastructure and they will keep the Members updated. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Testart, I see nothing further. Next, I have Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to clarify. With these double hull barges they're sitting in this fund and they're supposed to be moved to a revolving fund over 10 years, is this correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is correct, but the revolving fund or the MTS I think it is will be paying the money back to the government over 10 years. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister for the answer. So please bear with me so I clearly understand. We are going to be paying the covering costs and then over 10 years the revolving fund is going to put it in there. Why aren't we putting these double hull barges' costs into the revolving fund now? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, my understanding is the revolving account wasn't set up. We needed to purchase these double hull barges. We purchased them through this process and there's an opportunity there for the MTS to repay the money back to the government. I suppose if they had some good years where revenue was a bit more than expected, it's just like if we get loans; if we're able to put more money into it, I'm sure they would consider that possibility. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think I've got a clearer understand of it. What you're saying is for 10 years the supplementals are paying for these barges and that, you know, the money is coming back. We're paying them upfront and then money is coming from the revolving fund and it's going to come back into the supplemental pot of money, correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we've paid for the barges. We paid for the barges. The revolving fund was not set up. We paid for the barges and the plan is to have MTS repay that money over 10 years. As I said before, if there's any opportunity and if their revenue is higher than expected they might be able to put more money into repayment of the loan. If they had the revolving fund set up at the time these barges went up for sale then they would have used the revolving fund to purchase these barges, but time was of the essence and a decision had to be made and so a decision was made that we would purchase them.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you and I thank the Minister. I'm getting a clearer picture now and I appreciate that. So what we're saying, though, so if we just clarify: MTS is going to be with the government for the next 10 years to pay off this cost. Is this correct in my understanding of this? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I'm not saying MTS is going to be with us for 10 years, I'm saying that the loan is supposed to be paid over 10 years. I suppose if MTS were sold then we would get our money back. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and that's a little bit reassuring now, because I was sitting there going it means that MTS is going to be here for 10 years. Have we looked at MTS with all this equipment, have we looked at other options or are we just still going to be proceeding with this as they're going to be around for a while? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I apologize to committee for letting this conversation get off the rails. We're not discussing barges here, but seeing as how we didn't have general comments on the supps I've allowed it, so I'll allow the Minister to respond. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, MTS needed to be run as a business and a business decision was made to purchase these double hull barges because they would benefit the company to get into some of the coastal communities, so a decision was made. It was a business decision, and again, I say if there was an opportunity or there is opportunity that MTS was sold, then the government would recover their money, but it was strictly a business decision. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Seeing nothing further, Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2017-2018, Infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, asset management not previously authorized, negative $7,178,000. Does committee agree?

Speaker: SOME HON. MEMBERS

Agreed.

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2017-2018, Infrastructure, capital investment expenditures and total department not previously authorized, negative $7,178,000. Does committee agree?

Speaker: SOME HON. MEMBERS

Agreed.

Thank you, committee. Does committee agree this concludes our consideration of Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2017-2018?

Speaker: SOME HON. MEMBERS

Agreed.

Mr. Testart.

Committee Motion 1-18(3): Concurrence of Tabled Document 1-18(3): Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2017-2018, Carried

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the consideration of Tabled Document 1-18(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2017-2018, be now concluded and that Tabled Document 1-18(3) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Sergeant-at-Arms, you may escort the witnesses from the Chamber. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried

Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the chair rise and report progress.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor to report progress. The motion is in order and is non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried.

The motion is carried. I will rise and report progress.

Report of Committee of the Whole