Mr. Chairman, the intention would be to offer public meetings and if people want to put in written submissions that is fine, and, of course, we use the media. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Handley. Ms. Lee, to the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I support this project and therefore this legislation that would allow the project to proceed, but I don't think I can support this motion because it does not address the concerns that the Members expressed. One is a concern expressed by the public as well, because the public understands that we are going to have a bridge that will be tolled. It is the first of its kind in the Territories and the public wants to be assured that there will be some kind of control over how much the level of toll will be.

The suggestion that the committee made was that there should be some section in there that says the toll should be fair and reasonable. While the definition and interpretation of what might constitute what is fair and reasonable for a toll, I do believe that that is a commonly used language in law and that over time there will be judicial decisions on that if asked, and any judicial interpretation will take into consideration the cost of operating and the reasonable profit for the corporation; cost of financing their mortgage and other types of things that would be seen to be reasonable and fair.

Also, the government will have the power to set out different sections in there that would speak to what is reasonable and fair. But the position of the government has been that that would be too restricting and they don't want to be subject to too much court challenge on that basis. Even when the committee Members suggested that we will more clearly define what might constitute reasonable and fair -- and that that includes three things -- we were very specific about that, but the Minister was not prepared to go with that and that is a concern to me because this motion as it reads basically says that it is really up to the government and the corporation as to how the tolls will be set. The only thing they have to do is to make sure that it is public and that it is in a Gazette or it is in newspapers, and I suppose letters will be sent out to various governments and MLAs that the tolls will go up. The notice has to be given 90 days prior. But if I were an MLA sitting in my office and I get this notice and the people hear about it through the papers and they say these rates are unreasonable, I am not going to be able to do anything about that, nor will the government need to do anything about that because the only obligation under this motion if passed and made into law is that they simply have to give a notice of it and if they meet the requirement for 90 days notice that is all they have to do.

So I would like to ask the Minister why it is not acceptable for the government to have a clause there that states that the tolls have to be not only advertised to let the public know as to what the level is, but that it should be fair and reasonable? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Minister Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have been around this one in the committee already, but let me point out first of all that there is a memorandum of agreement in place that has been posted. There have been meetings. So that determines the arrangement that we have with the owner of the bridge. As well, Mr. Chairman, as Ms. Lee knows, you have to read the bill as a whole, and clause 6(3) spells it very clearly that the tolls have to be used only for specific purposes. That is to pay the toll on the bridge and any of the costs that are associated with operating that bridge and paying down the amortization on it. So it is very clear that that is the only thing the tolls can be used for. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Handley. Ms. Lee.

But other than having this information, we are just basically going to be told what the toll is and that we will be told 90 days in advance where there will be any increase. This motion says here on section 2(c) that notice of copy of the proposed regulation and assuming that it is no notify of an increase that there will be a reasonable opportunity... Well, it says here, a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to interested persons to make representation. So we are saying in this legislation that people can make their presentations and say their piece, but there is nothing in this legislation that gives anybody any power to have a say on exactly what the rate of that toll is. So it is, in a way, an empty power because people could be notified and people could call and say they don't like it, but nothing is going to come out of that.

So I really do believe that it is not complete. It is weak. I do not see the justification for not allowing some kind of a standard to be put there because the sections that the Minister mentioned says, you know, a reasonable... The corporation has the right to make profit and cover the costs. But how can anybody know what reasonable revenue is? What is a corporation allowed to make? I don't want to create any impression that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation will be out there to gouge the people or anything like that or businesses, but I think the important point here is that this is a public infrastructure. It is going to be funded by a toll and I think it is the responsible thing to do for the government to have a provision there that would give an assurance to the people that the tolls being charged are reasonable and fair.

So I understand that some of these issues were brought up in the committee, but I state once again that the proceedings and the work that we do in committees are behind closed doors. It is between the Members and the Minister, and the rule of the game is that it is not something that is for public consumption. So this is a public law, it is legislation that is going to affect the people and I do believe that the Minister has an obligation to explain why, in doing a cost-benefit analysis of having that clause in there, why it is not desirable on the part of the government to have that. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Minister Handley.

Mr. Chairman, again I want to emphasize that this is the Deh Cho Bridge fund act. The legislation sets out very carefully and very clearly the purposes how that fund is collected and the purposes for which it can be spent. As I said before, those purposes are laid out in a memorandum of understanding that sets the terms. This act is very explicit in what the funds can be used for and the government is responsible for its regulations, both legally and politically. We have set up, gone much further than any other legislation I can think of in a public process for letting people know if there is going to be a change in the tolls and providing opportunity for input. If people feel that we are verging on going outside of the provisions in the act or have something that is unfair, there is already a process in there. So adding in other words, in my view, Mr. Chairman, is redundant. The act is very clear of what we can spend this money on. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Handley. I would also remind Members that although our committee process may be behind closed doors, we did have public hearings on this bill and any issues could have been brought up in public at the public hearings. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept your ruling there and I just want to correct the Minister that this is the Deh Cho Bridge Act not the Deh Cho Bridge fund act.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

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

---Carried

Clause 10, as amended.

The bill as a whole, as amended.

Does the committee agree that Bill 13 is ready for third reading as amended?

Bill 13 is now ready for third reading as amended. I would like to thank the Minister and witnesses for appearing.

---Applause

Before we go into the next item on the agenda, the chair is going to call a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. As previously agreed, we'll deal with Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2003-2004. Does the committee agree?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, requests authority for a reduction to operations expenditure appropriations of $627,200 and for additional appropriations of $35.038 million for capital investment expenditures.

Major items included in the request for additional operations expenditures are as follows:

1. $1.9 million for the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs to fund communities for increases to insurance premiums.
2. $1.9 million for the Department of Health and Social Services for additional expenses to be incurred as a result of the new agreements with general practitioners operating under standardized physician contracts and fee-for-service positions.
3. $1.8 million for the Department of Education, Culture and Employment for the additional expenses to be incurred as a result of the finalization of the collective agreement between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Northwest Territories Teachers' Association.
4. $1.3 million for the Department of Justice for additional resources for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The operations funding requests are within the reduced 2003-2004 supplementary funding reserve of $10 million. The reserve was reduced as part of the economizing measures introduced in light of current fiscal uncertainty.

Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1 also includes $10.6 million in operations expenditure reductions from the internal restraint measures being implemented by departments. The major request for capital investment expenditures is $34 million, and capital carryovers from the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The funding was approved and lapsed in 2002-2003.

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to review the details of the supplementary appropriation document.