Thank you, Mr. Testart. Mr. Guy.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Risk assessment is under way or is in progress; is that correct? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Mr. Guy.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that customers may want the service and it's a unique service. When it was NTCL, it was a private business. It wasn't subject to the same trade requirements, shall we say. If the GNWT is directly competing in private-sector markets both domestically and internationally, it could open itself up for liability as it relates to trade rules. This is something that has been expressed to me by both private-sector actors and just my own awareness of trade deals, including the new NAFTA. Is any thought being given to those issues, as it relates to the organizational structure of MTS? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Guy.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Crown corporation is also subject to different rules than the government, as an operating entity. You know, the Minister said famously on Small Business Day, when we pressed him on questions, that the GNWT is not a business; it's up to individual businesses to come forward.

Well, as it relates to MTS, it is a business, and it's in the business of shipping. The longer there is uncertainty around the arm's-length nature of this, the more liability the GNWT potentially brings itself on from the people who feel that the government is unfairly competing in both domestic and international markets.

It's imperative that we set MTS on a clear course forward. There has been a consultants' report that has made recommendations on what kind of model it should take. You know, even if that work was undertaken now and it became a Crown corporation or a special operating agency, the government could continue to subsidize its operations through direct funding or through subsidies. That would not be inappropriate, given its nature is still a government-owned business or a special operating agency.

From the evidence we have heard today is that, MTS, any decisions about its future will take five years, potentially. We might again accrue enough liability to potentially set us up for failure. Members are raising these concerns they have today. They have previously. They have in business plan reviews. They have on the floor of the House.

Is the Minister taking these concerns seriously? Can he commit to addressing these more fulsomely than just planning to address them sometime in the future? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member is kind of all over the place there. First of all, we need to pursue some of this private work. If we don't pursue some of this private work that's out there, the cost with running this operation would be enormous. I don't think the Member would like to see $5 a litre in the communities because, if all of a sudden, you shrink your market to where it's half the size of what you have and you continue to have a fixed cost to run this operation, the costs are going to be horrendous.

We are operating this asset exactly the way and pursuing revenues just like the company that ran it previously to us, without any effects on the market. Our staff was just recently in Cambridge Bay discussing with community members the challenges that we had this season. They made it quite clear to us when we were there, they do not want us to pull out of their market. They have made it very clear. They have had three other sailing ships that already service their community this year.

As the deputy said, there are a number of people in these communities that want their services, goods brought out of Hay River. They don't want to be bringing it from Vancouver or around from Montreal. There is a place in this market. It is a small market. Everyone's doing their own thing, and we will continue to pursue the private-sector business to offset our costs to run this operation.

We have clearly laid out what the deputy said with the data and information we are trying to pull together. We are going to make a decision in the long-run if we are going to make this a Crown corporation or other business models or what other options are available to us. It does not make sense for us not to pursue some of these other opportunities that lay out there. There are a number of people out there that can't do what MTS does. They don't have the low-draft barges. They don't have the type of equipment that we do. They don't have the staffing that we do.

At this point, on the floor of this House, we are going to continue to commit to pursuing other revenue sources. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. A short follow-up, Mr. Testart? Twenty seconds.

Yes, I just want to use this opportunity to clarify my comments. I'm not advocating for MTS to stop doing the work it's doing or pursuing revenues. I'm saying it's an inappropriate governance model to do so.

My concern is liability and the principles of fairness and competition. I think the Minister is mischaracterizing my comments in saying, "Stop." I'm not issuing a stop work order for MTS, Mr. Chair. I am saying that, if we are going to continue to do this work, we need to do it properly.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Your time has expired. Next, I have Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm not really sure where to start with this. I haven't been obviously impacted in the people that I represent, but I see that other people around the territory have been impacted by, I guess, we don't want to use the word "mistakes," but maybe a bit of a miscalculation on the part of the people doing this.

For the most part, the weather, the ice, and all that is pretty well consistent from year to year. I mean, I'm not saying it's the same every year. I mean the one thing that's predictable is that the weather is not predictable. That's what I'm saying. When NTCL or a company like that operates or MTS operates, they would operate with that knowledge that the weather is not predictable.

I think that rather than a mistake or blaming Mother Nature, I think it was a miscalculation on the part of MTS. That miscalculation cost a lot of people a lot of money in the Member from Nunakput's riding and also for Nunavut. I also feel that it was a miscalculation on the part of the government, period, too, and by NTCL. Originally, I was not in favour of it but had no say in it. There were other companies that would bid for the work and felt that they had more knowledge of the shipping than what the government would bring in, but that's water under the bridge.

I have a question for the Minister. That is: after this year, what is MTS doing to debrief to make sure that they try to do better calculations when they are trying to ship into those communities that they were not able to completely ship in? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister.

Thank you, Minister. The first thing I want to highlight for the Member: I think us buying MTS had a positive impact on him because Lutselk'e had two years of delivery of goods and fuel in his riding.

What we are going to do from this point forward is, as I have said in various different statements, we are going to hire another communications person, work closely with the communities on goods and delivery of services to the communities. We are working with Coast Guard on the sea ice issue and a number of other issues that we are going to address, hopefully, with him going forward around navigational aids and all kinds of things around the sea ice conditions and marine infrastructure investment and stuff.

Like I have said in the House before, people continue to say this is an error, and it is not an error. There was a multitude of effects that got us to this point. I disagree with the Member; us buying MTS was probably the smartest thing we have done. If we wouldn't have bought this, the chances of even having delivery up there by us wouldn't have happened. I believe that company would have been stripped and sold out, and we would have had to rely on delivery to the Arctic coast coming around from Montreal or Vancouver, which would have added significant costs to the Government of the Northwest Territories and to the residents in those communities. That is a point we can ponder, but that is my point on it, and I believe that we did the right thing to service these communities.

An unfortunate event happened this year. We are taking the unprecedented step to help mitigate these circumstances. We are delivering all of the fuel to the communities that need it to make sure that they get through the winter. We are taking the unprecedented step of delivering all the goods and commodities to the community on a case-by-case basis.

We have reached out to every one of the customers in the communities. Paulatuk has 33, Kugluktuk had 11, and Cambridge Bay has 24, and we have talked to every one of them. There were some people that were clearly upset that the boats didn't arrive, but that is the challenge of living in the North, and that is the challenge of climate change. We are taking this step, which is going to cost us a significant amount of money, to be able to help those people up there, and they are quite happy.

Can you imagine what would be going on in this House right now if we didn't take the unprecedented step of flying in all of these commodities and goods into these communities? That could have been the case if it was in a private stakeholder's hands. I think we did the right thing, and we just need to remind people that this is a challenging environment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Does that answer your question about debriefing, Mr. Beaulieu?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when I was talking about not being affected, I was talking about what happened up there, I realized that stuff was delivered in Lutselk'e like it was every other year for years and years.

My other question is: the Minister referred to the cost of trucking fuel into Inuvik, for example, and I would advocate trucking fuel to Tuktoyaktuk, but Inuvik would be another situation. Has the MTS looked at the possibility of making or building something like a Synchro Lift that could pull the barges and ships up on shore in Inuvik to see if that is something that is feasible? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I have stated in previous questions, we are talking millions of litres of fuel. It does not make sense to build a Synchro Lift in Inuvik. We already bought an existing facility. The majority of the fuel comes on the railhead to Hay River. The railhead does not go to Inuvik, as far as I know, unless I am missing something.

We are talking 40 to 50 million litres a year. You start trucking that up to Dempster, the wear and tear, the safety issues, the environmental issues that come with that, the costs associated with that, I don't even have to do an analysis on it; I know it is going to be way more than you would ever ship out of Hay River.

Shipping by rail and marine is by far the most cost-effective way to do this, and that is why we have no intention of building a Synchro Lift in Inuvik, as long as I am the Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair.