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?

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?

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

Mr. Testart.