Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think I heard that it would preclude the use of the funds directly, and I hate to put our law clerk on the hot seat here, but I guess I would like to get an outside opinion on whether any of the funds in the revolving fund could actually be used for remediation of contaminated sites? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There is about a minute left in your time for the law clerk to answer your question, and she will give it her best shot.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. Mr. O'Reilly, your time has expired. You will have another shot at this when we get to clause 2. Next on my list for general comments, I have Mr. Nakimayak.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am just getting back to the amendments. First of all, I would like to thank the department. I think, for my region, all four communities in my riding rely on seasonal shipping, so it also reduces the cost of living and the cost of petroleum, as well. I can't speak for others, but I know my colleague from the Sahtu also looks at this as an essential service. In short, I am supporting this. I know taking over a big operation like this is a logistical nightmare, and it can be, and $35 million is actually a drop in the bucket if something goes wrong with something like this, due to the costs of shipping on the ocean as opposed to shipping on the lakes and the rivers. Those two types of marine shipping vary, and they are quite different, actually. I am just giving my support for this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Next, I have Mr. McNeely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank my colleague from Nunakput for addressing some of that. I am quite satisfied with the discussions going on earlier, on the Minister's statement earlier in the day here on addressing the liability issue, for one, saying that the environment is taken seriously with respect to the MTS operations, and that a phase 1 environmental site assessment is going to be completed. I haven't been involved in some remedial projects here.

I am quite satisfied and happy to hear that a phase 1 or a level 1 site assessment is going to be done, followed by this program. It will continue over the next three summers to determine what remediation activities may be required. Given the fact that current operations are being prepared to get on with the sailing season and the issue of liabilities is on the books for discussions later, I am quite satisfied the way operations are going, and the preparatory efforts of the department to carry on. I am in support of the bill, as the previous couple of speakers have mentioned, and I just don't want to miss the boat. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my concern is: when asked the question are we going into business against a company that is in my riding? In my riding, we have a company that deals in the Sahtu and down the river to the Fort Liard in Nahendeh. Is this company, MTS, going to be in business against the company that is in my riding? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. My reminder might come a little late, but if the committee could focus their comments on the actual revolving fund, which is more of an accounting structure that they were discussing here for MTS, but I will let the Minister respond. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our intention when bought this was to look after residents of the Northwest Territories. As most people know, and I have said it a number of times, we have no intention of interfering with the barging company out of Fort Simpson. They tend to look after the Norman Wells Esso-type stuff in that region, and we will continue on with the core base of business that the previous owner had done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister for that answer. I think that alleviates some concerns in my riding about Esso at that point in time. I am good with what was spoken of. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. We have no further general comments. We will move to a clause-by-clause review of the bill. We will defer the bill number and title until after our review of the clauses. Can we please turn to page 1 of the bill. I will call out each clause. If you agree, please respond with "agreed." Clause 1.

Thank you, committee. Clause 2. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to prolong this any more than I need to, but I want to thank the law clerk for the helpful information about the scope of what the fund could be used for. I haven't really heard a commitment from the department that they are prepared to use any of the funds that might be generated for remediation. You know, the issue here is about a polluter pays principle, and these contaminated sites were created by this operation. If there is an excess generated, I don't understand why that excess couldn't be used to help remediate these sites, rather than spread it back to the taxpayers of the Northwest Territories. This was raised with the Minister in his department beforehand, but they didn't seem to be interested in moving on this. I am not suggesting that the operation be run on a basis to generate a profit, but if there are some profits, why couldn't those be directed to the remediation of the sites? I don't know whether the Minister has any response to that, but I will give him an opportunity within my 10 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if I am going to be able to convince the Member to vote for this or not, but first of all, I want to say that we are not saying that this couldn't be done; it could be done if we had chosen to. We are doing some low-cost cleanup this year with O and M on a small barrel cleanup that is at the site, but the biggest problem, I think, with trying to remediate the contaminated sites once they are identified going forward, is if we do that within the revolving fund, that is going to be a cost bearing on the communities that use this service.

If we are using that fund to do the remediation, that is not going to allow for other things that would maybe lower the cost of living for residents, and fuel supply to these other communities. The other thing I want to probably mention is, once we go through our environmental assessment, particularly phase 2, GNWT will have an option to approach the Government of Canada and negotiate responsibility remediation of some of these sites, under the terms of the Devolution Agreement. The federal government did run this site for a number of years, and we are hopefully going to be able to access some of these through a consultation with them and the Devolution Agreement, and their responsibility for remediating some of these sites. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Anything new to add to this debate, Mr. O'Reilly?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No. I would like to conclude, though, if I could. I want to thank the Minister for trying to convince me, and it was a nice try. I just want to be very clear: I am not opposed to the marine transportation system operating as a GNWT entity, and I support our government doing that, resupplying our remote communities.

If anybody wants to try to say that I am against MTS, that is not the case. To be very clear, I am opposed to this bill for the way that it is being set up internally, the accounting that is going to be done for it. I am also concerned with the process that has been used to develop this bill, that it has not provided for public input. It has been leapfrogged ahead, and I think we have discussed some liability matters here that, perhaps, could have been rectified if this had gone through a proper committee review, as well.

Unfortunately, that is not the case because it is being rushed through. I remain opposed to the limited purpose of this bill. Sorry, of the fund itself. I don't believe it's consistent with the polluter pays principle, and I believe that setting up in this way will also remove some of our abilities as Regular MLAs to have closer oversight on the capital expenses or capital aspects of MTS's operations. For those reasons, I'll be opposing the bill, but I want to thank the Minister and his staff for their responses today and our law clerk for shining a light on this as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Your concerns are duly noted. Clause 2.

Thank you, committee. Committee, now to the bill as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act, No. 2, is now ready for a third reading?