April 3, 2006 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

MR. RIDGLEY: Order, please!

I think we are about ready to go.

MR. SHELLEY: Are we ready to start?

MR. RIDGLEY: We are. We are going to proceed. First, my name is Bob

Ridgley, MHA for St. John's North. I will be acting as Chair, once we get the

election done. We will be seeing a bit of each other over the next few days.

The first item of business will be conducted by our Clerk, which is the

election of the Chair and Vice-Chair.

CLERK: Is there a nomination for Chairman?

MR. BUTLER: I nominate Mr. Ridgley to be the Chair of this Committee.

MR. FRENCH: I second that.

CLERK: It is moved and seconded that Mr. Ridgley be Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CLERK: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Mr. Ridgley was nominated as Chair.

CHAIR: We will do the Vice-Chair now.

MS JONES: I nominate Roland Butler, the Member for Port de Grave, as

Vice-Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: I second that.

CLERK: All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CLERK: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Mr. Butler was nominated as Vice-Chair.

CHAIR: You almost lost my vote for that.

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: I would ask the MHAs now to introduce themselves and everybody is,

kind of, centered there which makes it easier for the people who are controlling

the mikes. As with the House of Assembly, it is only a matter of waiting until

your mike is logged.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, MHA for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, MHA for Conception Bay South and Holyrood.

MR. F. COLLINS: Felix Collins, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's.

CHAIR: The other member of our committee is Kelvin Parsons, whom we will

be expecting shortly. He will be taking his seat here.

Minister, introduce your staff, please.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, we will do that. And opening remarks now, too, Mr.

Chair?

CHAIR: Well, if you would introduce your staff?

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. Well, I am not going to introduce every single person

behind me, as you can see why.

CHAIR: Just the ones who are doing the Labour component first.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, we will do a full introduction. Basically, under

Labrador Affairs and the Department of Human Resources, Housing and so on, but

what we will do is we will start from here and go right around. How about that?

Go ahead.

MR. FOWLER: Wayne Fowler, CEO, Labour Relations Agency.

MR. O'NEILL: Joe O'Neill, Acting CEO, the Workplace Health and Safety

and Compensation Commission.

MR. DUTTON: Sean Dutton, Acting Deputy Minister, Department of Labrador

and Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Those are the ones, minister, for this particular

section that we

are doing?

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) introduce everybody (inaudible).

CHAIR: At your pleasure, sir.

MR. HARDING: Harry Harding, MHA for Bonavista North and Parliamentary

Secretary to the minister.

MR. SIMMS: Len Simms, CEO of the Housing Corporation.

MR. KENNEDY: Gerry Kennedy, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation.

MR. AKER: Dave Aker, Accounting Team Leader, Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation.

MR. PENNEY: Wayne Penney, Acting Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Labour

and Employment.

MS JEANS: Jennifer Jeans, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR. ROBERTS: David Roberts, Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment.

MS TUBRETT: Denise Tubrett, Director of Finance, Human Resources, Labour

and Employment.

MR. MARLAND: Alex Marland, Director of Communications, Human Resources,

Labour and Employment and Labrador Affairs.

CHAIR: Okay, I think we have everybody, other than Mr. Parsons who will

arrive shortly.

As it is my understanding, the rules we will operate under and if there is

any problem after I explain that, then we can deal with it now so that we all

understand, from the beginning, how we will go. We will allow fifteen minutes

for the minister to make his opening remarks, at which time somebody from the

MHAs will be allowed - the first person up will be fifteen minutes and then we

will do ten-minute segments after that. If a given person is speaking and there

is nobody else to speak and that person wishes to carry on beyond the ten

minutes, I am sure that we are all amiable to that as well.

So if there is no difficulty with that, minister, proceed.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for Chairing

the committee. I know it is the first one for the year, and I am sure it will be

a productive one.

As you can see as to why I did not introduce everybody, it is because this

department and these departments are wide-ranging. As a matter of fact, after

just several months of being in this new portfolio, I have to say that I came to

a much better understanding of not just the Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment, but also the important Department of Labrador Affairs.

So, with a combination of both of these, it takes in a wide range. There is a

lot to learn and a lot to appreciate. I think the best word in this department,

since I have been here now in four months, is appreciating, really, the

involvement of the different programs and, I guess, the size of the department

throughout.

Because we started a bit late today, we want to tell the committee, first of

all, that we will go to Labour Relations first and then into Labrador Affairs

second, and then on from there to Housing and Human Resources. I think that is

the route we are going to go, Mr. Chair.

I am going to shorten up my comments because we want to try and get moving on

here tonight but I have to say that, as far as the Human Resources part of the

department, which we will get to in a little while, the emphasis in the last few

months, since I have been here as the minister, has certainly been on the

Poverty Reduction Strategy and moving forward. Now, we saw a number of those

initiatives in the Budget and so on, and it is hard to capsulize because it is

such a complex and diverse issue, especially learning so much more about it as I

am involved in this department, but always remember that it is such a huge

issue. It is complex. There are no short-term fixes. I have understood this

issue a lot sooner than becoming minister for the department, believe me, and I

have always had a great interest in this particular issue. I am glad to see that

we are moving forward, but to say that it is complex and that it is a long road.

The idea and intent, especially of the poverty reduction, is over ten years to

see improvements in this area. Certainly, there is a lot ahead of us but I do

believe that we have made significant advancement with this particular strategy

and the initiatives announced so far, and I am looking forward to a lot more.

I will say this to all the committees and to everybody, that it takes a lot

of partnership and a lot of co-operation right from community organizations,

right on to volunteers, right on through the different levels of the department.

As I said, it is comprehensive. It is an integrated approach to poverty

reduction. There is going to be a lot of debate and a lot of issues raised over

the next number of months and years leading up to, I guess, the strategy -

which, by the way, will be released, hopefully, some time in June. I do not want

to say earlier or later because I do not want to get you on to a final date on

it but it will be released in June, an overall strategy.

In the overall strategy, aside from the initiatives already announced, the

fact of the matter is we will have further focuses, a way to monitor progress

and so on. We will continue on with research and development of where we go from

here and so on. The strategy is going to be a template of how we move forward.

So, I am looking forward to that. I guess that would be the main focus for the

department overall, when I am talking about human resources and so on.

I am going to leave it there, Mr. Chair. I could go on a bit longer but since

we did start a bit later - for the two committee members who just got here, we

have agreed that we will try to get to Labour Relations first, and I am sure it

will be explained to you. We have a Mr. O'Neill here, who will be in

negotiations here this evening with the price setting panel. We had a discussion

before we came in, that we would try to do Labour Relations first and then we

will go on to Labrador Affairs second.

I will not take any more of that time. We will try and get into the Estimates

and take it from there. We are starting with Labour Relations, Mr. Chair. I will

end with saying this, as you can see, there are many different things and not

even I realize, I guess, although you are around government a long time, the

breath and scope of this department from Human Resources, to Labour, to Housing,

to Immigration, to Labrador Affairs. There are a lot of things in this

department. I am still learning a lot. I have no problem in confessing that. It

is a steep learning curve but I have a lot of good staff. I know a lot of the

members here in this House. I have worked with a number of the officials who are

here tonight. I will try to answer the questions the best I can for you. At this

stage, if I cannot answer them I will ask some of the officials to answer them.

If we cannot answer them, then we will look for the answers and try and get them

back to you. That is the best I can tell you for tonight. We want to get

started, Mr. Chair, and I am delighted to take questions and comments from the

Committee.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I would like to ask the three other members of the Committee who just came in

to introduce themselves. We will start, I guess, here with Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. R. COLLINS: Randy Collins, MHA for Labrador West.

MS GOUDIE: Kathy Goudie, MHA for Humber Valley.

CHAIR: Okay, we have everybody.

I was just indicating that there would be introductory remarks if anybody

chooses to make them, other than that we can proceed directly with any questions

for the minister on the Labour component.

We have to get a motion.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: We are on page 203. We ask for a motion that 1.1.01 be carried and

then debate will commence.

AN HON. MEMBER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved.

Second.

MR. R. COLLINS: Second.

CHAIR: Second by Mr. Collins.

Are there any opening remarks from anybody or will we go right to the

questions?

MS JONES: (Inaudible) questions.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you minister and your

officials. We welcome you this evening.

I just have a couple of questions under Labour Relations. I would like to

start with the Budget Estimates under 6.1.01. Last year there was $35,000 left

in Transportation and Communications that was not spent. I am just wondering why

that was or why you didn't use up the money?

MR. SHELLEY: We just have to get straightened away here now so we can get

started with Labour Relations. That is .01, right?

CHAIR: We are on page 210, for those who have their big books with them.

MR. SHELLEY: Just a second now because we have changed over - I want to

get straightened away here.

MS JONES: Just take your time.

MR. SHELLEY: It is not in the book, that is why. 6.1.01 is not in mine,

that's why. Why it is not there, I have no idea.

MR. FOWLER: I can answer, if you want.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. You can go ahead Wayne. This is Wayne with the

department. It is not in my book, we will just get that filled in.

MR. FOWLER: There was a fair amount of staff turnover last year within

the Labour Relations Agency, as you probably already know. The CEO was changed

by being sent down to the Workers' Comp., the ADM was seconded to another

position. There were a few other positions there that would have been involved

in a fair amount of travel that changed places and faces.

There were a number of meetings also during the year, like the Atlantic

Ministers' meetings that were postponed, which caused savings with respect to

the travel budget. Also, in some of the meetings that we have had, that would

have went ahead and some that did go ahead. There was only one person who ended

up going on the travel versus another situation where there might have been two

or three. So the savings, I guess, came about because of the high number of

staff turnover.

MS JONES: Did you say the deputy was seconded?

MR. FOWLER: No. Actually, the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. O'Neill of

the Labour Relations Agency, went down to the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Commission in June. The ADM, which was Karen McCarthy, ended going

to another position in November. We had some policy people also who shifted

positions. So we had to have a new CEO acting, which was me, come in June, a new

ADM which came a bit later. There were also some meetings that were planned that

got rescheduled, like the Atlantic Ministers' meetings. Some of our other

meetings, which would have had more than one person attend, ended up just having

one person. That is, basically, where the majority of the savings came from,

along with some promotional, educational seminars that we did not go through on

because of the staff turnover.

MS JONES: Yes. So you are acting in that position now?

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MS JONES: Was the other position filled?

MR. FOWLER: The other position?

MS JONES: Karen McCarthy's position.

MR. SHELLEY: Your position.

MR. FOWLER: Mine? Yes. In terms of where I came from, the Director of

Labour Relations is acting also, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. In this year's Budget, the Salaries have increased by

$30,000. Was that a new position that was created?

MR. FOWLER: Are you talking the salaries, overall?

MS JONES: 6.1.02, Administration and Planning.

MR. SHELLEY: That was an upscale hiring (inaudible).

MR. FOWLER: If you are talking about under Administration and Planning,

yes. They specifically came to areas like the policy where - because at a

certain point in time we had two or three people who were seconded in the

positions, they came in at higher salaries than what the position was in order

to get them to fill that position. The people came in, upscale hired. So we

ended up running a bit of a deficit with respect to those.

MS JONES: Okay. Also, in this year's Budget, 6.1.03. There is a $30,000

jump in Communications, although you did not spend all the money last year.

There is also an extra allotment of $41,000 in Purchased Services. Can you give

me some details about that?

MR. FOWLER: That was, I believe, our increases that are associated with

the fishing panel. The $41,000 is monies that has been budgeted for the fish

panel that has just been established. I believe it is $26,000, plus $15,000,

which brings it up to the $41,000, that increase.

The new funding also for the $30,000, is also the implementation of the fish

price setting panel. They were the funds that were just allocated on February

24, around that area, when the discussion went through the special opening of

the House for the establishment of the fish price setting panel. This is the

additional of the monies allocated into that budget comes under the Labour

Relations Agency.

MS JONES: The government pays for all of the costs for this panel? Is any

of it borne by the unions or by the processing companies?

MR. FOWLER: All of it is paid except when the parties appear before the

panel, if they have to appear before the panel to present their case, and they

pay their own cost of appearing before the panel. But the cost of the panel is

budgeted by the government and has been allocated to the Labour Relations Agency

for funding, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. So, they are only out of pocket if they don't like your

decision?

MR. FOWLER: If they cannot reach their own deals and they have to appear

before the panel, they have to pay that cost that might be if they bring someone

in to present their case. Other than that, there is no cost to the parties

whatsoever.

MS JONES: Okay. Also with the Labour Relations Board, under 6.1.04. There

is an increase this year of $110,000 in Salaries. Is that for new hirings or,

again, is it step ups?

MR. FOWLER: Actually, $102,000 of that is to fund the salary of the

full-time Chairperson of the Labour Relations Board. A couple of years ago, I

think in 2004, Morgan Cooper, who was the full-time Chair, resigned and about a

year later they had another full-time Chair takeover by Valerie Marshall. There

was not an allocation of money for her salary put into the budget until this

year. The board had always been operating at a deficit because the salary was

not allocated. This year the $102,000 salary has been allocated to the Labour

Relations Board to cover the salary of the full-time Chair of the board.

MS JONES: Who is the Chair?

MR. FOWLER: Valerie Marshall.

MS JONES: But she did get paid last year?

MR. FOWLER: Oh, yes. We found the funds to pay her.

MS JONES: In terms of what happened in Stephenville with Abitibi

Consolidated, what was the involvement of the Department of Labour in that

situation? Were you guys involved at all in the mediation, the negotiations,

anything between the -

MR. SHELLEY: We were available but we did not get the request to - but we

made it known that we were available for anything that the board could do, any

officials from Labour Relations, but we were never requested.

MR. FOWLER: The assistance was offered from day one, but it was not

requested. Obviously, we were involved from an agency perspective with respect

to the departmental committee that was involved. Other than prior to this year,

when the agency is always involved in conciliation and mediation of contract

talks and grievances with respect to Abitibi, this year, no, the Stephenville

ones did not take up any of the assistance with respect to the mediation.

MS JONES: What about Grand Falls?

MR. FOWLER: Grand Falls has always been - the agency has always been very

actively involved with Grand Falls from a conciliation perspective for their

contracts and for mediation during the life of their contracts to deal with

their grievances and we have been actively involved, I should say, for the last

seven or eight years with respect to all the restructuring agreements that have

happened in the Grand Falls plant dealing with both Abitibi and the unions.

MS JONES: What about the FPI situation in the Province now where there

has been a lot of layoffs in plants on the South Coast and on the Burin

Peninsula? I know there have been ongoing negotiations between the Province and

the company. Have you guys been involved in any of that?

MR. SHELLEY: No involvement whatsoever at this point and no request for

involvement. I believe that is right, is it?

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: At this point, anyway, Yvonne.

MS JONES: What kind of stuff have you guys been involved in?

MR. FOWLER: The agency?

MR. SHELLEY: Overall, they are dealing with a lot right now.

MR. FOWLER: We do all the contract negotiations for both the public and

private sector. There are over 500 collective agreements in the Province which,

if the parties need assistance to reach a deal they come in to us.

As you probably already know, in order to get in the legal strike lockup

position you have to go to the agency, to the minister and request conciliation

assistance. We have been actively involved in what we consider to be a

preventive mediation program, which is offering grievance mediation training to

the parties during the life of the agreement. It is almost like preventive

maintenance on your vehicle, you do it during the life and it lasts a lot

longer.

We do training with respect - we just got back from Goose Bay, actually, to

do training for Voisey's Bay Nickel Corporation and the steelworkers to do

interest based negotiation training for them who are entering their first

collective agreement. Our assistance runs the full gambit.

We also have the division under Labour Standards which deals with 60 per cent

of the population that is not unionized, minimum terms of conditions of

employment. The Labour Relations Board comes under the auspices of the agency.

That basically deals with any union who want to get certified or any employer

who wants to get accredited. It also deals with unfair labour practices with

respect to contract and bargaining. The gambit goes everywhere, I guess, from

the labour relations, from the minimum wage to the minimum terms of conditions

and employment, right up to when you have a collective agreement or you have a

dispute trying to reach that agreement.

MS JONES: Do you guys have anything to do with the Labour Market

Development Agreements, or is that within the department?

MR. SHELLEY: No, that is in a separate (inaudible) of Human Resources.

That will come up tonight.

MS JONES: Okay. All right then.

I just have a question under Workers' Comp. I guess that is you is it, Joe?

MR. SHELLEY: That is Joe, yes.

MS JONES: You guys have been doing a review, I think, of the Workers'

Compensation program. Do you want to give me an update on where that is and what

has been happening there?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. Of course, March 31, I can tell you now, is the

expected date for the report to come in. I can tell you tonight that it has been

requested for an extension. They did do an extensive - eleven communities this

year, I think I have that number right, across the Province. I think that was

the most ever done. Since then we also did some round table discussions and a

number of groups since then, and continue with that. As of now, they are asking

for an extension. Other than that, we do not have anything back from them at

this point.

MS JONES: Do you know how many people actually participated in that?

MR. SHELLEY: I do not have the exact number. Do you have a number?

MR. O'NEILL: One hundred-and-sixty presentations.

MR. SHELLEY: One-hundred-and-sixty presentations, submissions. Quite

extensive this year and the most ever around the Province, actually.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: The request has been in for the extension and the extension

is being considered.

MS JONES: I am not sure because I did not look at the Estimates for

Workers' Comp but -

MR. SHELLEY: They are all the same.

MS JONES: Was there any increase in premiums or anything like that in the

budget?

MR. SHELLEY: No. The only increase you will see in the Estimates is a

slight increase in salaries and that was to do with the union negotiations, the

increase.

MS JONES: I do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Jones.

Is there somebody else with questions? Again, we are on the labour component

now, the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. PARSONS: Just one clarification, I guess, in the issue of the early

retirements that was alluded to by Ms Jones. Does that fall under this area we

are dealing with now? I am referring, of course, to early retirements in the

fishing industry.

MR. SHELLEY: No.

MR. PARSONS: That would not be, but is it in your department?

MR. SHELLEY: It is in our department, yes. It would come under Human

Resources.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

CHAIR: Is there anybody else with questions under Labour Relations?

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes, I have a couple.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. R. COLLINS: First of all, minister, thanks for the opportunity to be

here this evening and providing your officials on the Labour Relations Agency.

I just want to say that it is an agency that I have had a fair bit of dealing

with prior to coming into this job, I guess. I have to say that in my past job I

used to travel quite extensively across Canada and all of the meetings that we

had would deal with labour relations type of things. I have to say that we are

proud of the work that the Labour Relations Department does in this Province.

They have been quite effective. We have had opportunities to use them many, many

times, mostly when we are in trouble. So, we learn to appreciate them more. I

have to say that the people in that department have done an outstanding job for

a long number of years and continue to do so today. We appreciate the efforts

that they make.

I wonder if Wayne could relate how many times that the first collective

agreements are imposed versus negotiated?

MR. FOWLER: The Labour Relations Board, which is a quasi judicial body

that deals with the imposition of first collective agreements, I believe, Mr.

Collins, it is probably - memory. When it was first put into legislation there

was a fair amount of cases that went to the board for the first agreement; not

as many in the last couple of years. If I target, probably thirty, I am taking a

guess at the number of applications that have probably been up to the Labour

Relations Board. Again, not as many in the last couple of years as what it was

when it was first put in place. Parties seem to be reaching deals on their own.

I guess first agreement legislation, when it said the board would impose, part

of it was to have the parties realize they should reach it on their own rather

than have somebody put it in place for them. So, after awhile the education got

to a point where they got it themselves.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a good question because since I have been here, four

months, there was one request, I think, for the first agreement and that was

withdrawn. So, I never got to experience what would happen there.

MR. R. COLLINS: Has there been any consideration given to straightening

the Labour Standards Act in terms of giving the Labour Standards Board the power

to reinstate employees or to impose other than what the law meets? Like, impose

different types of settlements?

MR. FOWLER: The Labour Relations Boards?

MR. R. COLLINS: Labour Standards.

MR. FOWLER: Labour Standards. There has been a lot of discussion with

respect to the labour legislation in the Province. The Strategic Partnership

Committee - the committee of government, business and labour, of which we chair

the Employment Relations Sub-Committee, one of the four sub-committees - have

been discussing, from the partnership perspective, what might need to be changed

in terms of labour standards or labour relations or some of the other collective

bargaining legislation to bring it up to speed, where they feel it has been

lacking a little bit. Most of that discussion, Mr. Collins, is still in the

early stages. There was a meeting, about March 15, which had some lengthy

discussion on where it should go. I believe it is, probably, hoped that it might

even end up having some reviews of labour standards and labour relations within

the next year, eighteen months.

There are a number of items which I know the business and labour community

had been looking at for the last couple of years under the realm of the labour

standards area that will certainly surface. I think you, probably, hit on a

couple that will come forward and be at that table. That is where that,

basically, sits right now.

MR. R. COLLINS: Because it seems the system, at the present time - I mean

you can hold a hearing into a particular problem of - say, for example, if an

employee is discharged and the board can find, without cause, that the employer

violated everything in the book, but the board does not have any power to say

the person has to get their job back. That is totally unfair in that respect..

MR. FOWLER: The arbitration system is being looked at, too, in the

Province with respect to some changes they envisage there, and there are some

changes being looked at, possibly, in the Labour Relations Board area dealing

with grievance and arbitration and the failure to bargain or not to bargain, or

how that might work as well. I am not sure it would go that deep, through.

MR. R. COLLINS: What is the ratio now with regard to the number of

arbitrators on the list versus the - it seems to me, from looking at the list

periodically, that some of the people on the list have been there for quite some

time and probably have not been very active, by choice. Is there any attempt to

revive that list and get some new people?

MR. FOWLER: There certainly is. Of the twenty-five or twenty-four

arbitrators on the list there are probably only about fifteen who are really

active. The majority of the cases, if you look at what is coming out, because

they are required to file their cases, will show you that maybe five or six are

the ones that are really the ones being used; but the Labour Management

Co-operation Committee, I know you are aware, that committee which was

established by worker groups and employer groups and administered by that group,

is in a situation where they are now revamping the whole arbitration process

with respect to how it would operate, how arbitrators are trained, how

arbitrators are guaranteed that they are up to speed, the fee structure,

probably even envisioning the fact that we need to do something with expedited

arbitration because you need to make sure that the process is timely and that

you have to put some constraints and restraints on the process to make sure that

the decisions are done quickly. That is on the go right now, as a matter of

fact.

MR. R. COLLINS: That is all I have on the Labour Relations, but on the

Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Review Committee, what is going on with

this PRIME? I don't mean Prime TV either.

MR. O'NEILL: PRIME is certainly out of the starting gate as of January

1. It is making everybody at the Commission tear their hair out, literally,

trying to get the information out so that employers can be made aware before

their assessments come out in terms of whether or not they qualify for the

practice incentive under PRIME I. So we are getting that, trying to run that

through now, with a target of getting that done as quickly as we can so that

employers will know whether they qualify; because, as you know, in PRIME I, if

they qualify for an experience rating or the Incentive Practice refund in PRIME

I, the 5 per cent, then they go on to look at the experience rating in 2007.

As you know, Randy, the objective of this is to draw attention to employers

to take control over health and safety, working with their employees in the

workforce to look at health and safety, to put committees in place, to put

policies and programs in place. We are certainly hoping - certainly I am hoping

- that, at the end of the day, it would be seen to be done for the right

reasons. I mean, that is where we will see the good return on investment if we

begin to see or we continue to see a decline in the lost time incidents rate in

the Province. As you know, it has been declining in the past four or five years

since the task force of 2001, and we are certainly hoping that it will continue

to decline. We seem to have plateaued a little and we are levelling off, and

PRIME was introduced along with the new Claims Management Model and the

Web-based strategy. We are hoping now that, once we get that implementation

done, and that is the big hurdle right now, to get that moving, to move that

through, get it implemented, and hopefully we will begin to see the rewards, but

it is taking a tremendous amount of effort.

MR. R. COLLINS: Are you getting any complaints about it from workers?

Because I know that there are a number of workplaces in this Province with

employers, if you have an injury, then, I tell you, you are subject to a lot of

things that you should not be in terms of, number one, returning to work early,

and there is a group actively at work in the Province now who, I understand, is

lobbying to try and make it mandatory that employees, when they are injured,

have to see a company doctor. Is there any -

MR. O'NEILL: There is no question that we are seeing an increase in

that activity. There are two things. One, of course, is that there was no

question it was anticipated that would happen. Part of the challenge we have is

that the Claims Management Model is now following PRIME, and we are also trying

to implement the Claims Management Model to ensure that, you know, good

monitoring is done with respect to an injured worker's file when they come in;

but, you are absolutely right. What we are seeing, particularly in the last

couple of months, is an increase in activity with regard to really monitoring a

claim from the time it is sent in, and pressuring to have an early return of

that claim or to ensure that the claim does not go on for longer than certain

consulting companies or individuals feel that the claim should be in place, and

there is no question that is going to be a continuing challenge for us.

MR. R. COLLINS: Do you think that PRIME is causing a lot of employers to

contest each worker's complaint?

MR. O'NEILL: I think so. I think that is part of the side effect of it,

there is no question, because now PRIME and an employer's experience rating

with regard to injuries will impact their assessment rate in the out years. I do

not think there is any question; no doubt that is a by-product of it, for sure.

MR. R. COLLINS: Because, I tell you, there is going to be, in the next

few months, a considerable campaign from this Province against what is

happening, because some of the stories that are coming out from some workplaces

around this Province where people have been injured are certainly horror stories

in anybody's imagination. You know, there is a great fear that this incentive,

that was put there maybe for all the right reasons, is having a negative effect

upon injured workers.

MR. SHELLEY: Randy, you are right. You know, with PRIME, as we move

through it now, you are right and there are some good suggestions, but you have

to remember, the stage we are at now, those are things that we will have to look

at and review and improve on. I mean, that is a system that was put in place for

this particular reason, but if we have to make some changes and do some things

to improve it then we have to.

MR. R. COLLINS: I know that the report is not out yet, but has government

given any consideration whatsoever to change the CPP clawback that was

introduced in the 1990s?

MR. SHELLEY: I can tell you this now, although we haven't had the

report, on many occasions already that particular issue certainly was, I

understand, raised a number of times, and I can tell you that there will be some

consideration given to it, definitely. It has been raised in all corners of the

Province.

MR. R. COLLINS: That is all I have.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions on Labour Relations or Workplace

Health and Safety?

MR. BUTLER: Just the one on the Workplace Health and Safety, that is on

our line-by-line, 7.1.01., under Property, Furnishings and Equipment estimates,

it is up by $5,000. I was just wondering what this is for, and if you could

provide -

MR. SHELLEY: On the furnishings?

MR. BUTLER: Under 7.1.01.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I am sorry, up by $5,000.

MR. O'NEILL: Actually, it is a reallocation of the money from Purchased

Services down to Property, Furnishings and Equipment. That is exactly where the

$5,000 was taken from to put in another area, reallocated to this area because

it is going to be needed for next year.

MR. SHELLEY: The line above it.

MR. O'NEILL: The very one above it is Purchased Services.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: Five thousand dollars taken off Purchased Services into

Property, Furnishings.

MR. O'NEILL: We took it out of the Purchased Services to bring it down

below for the reallocation of the funds.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions on Labour Relations or Workplace

Health and Safety?

Since we are going to be moving to a different department, what we are going

to do, at this point, is clean up sections 6.1.01. to 7.1.01. and we will have

those carried and dealt with. Then we will move to Labrador and then we are back

to this one again, but those three sections will have been dealt with and we

will leave those clean.

Is that acceptable to everyone?

CLERK: Subheads 6.1.01. to 7.1.01. inclusive.

CHAIR: Subheads 6.1.01. to 7.1.01. inclusive. Shall these subheads carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those are carried.

On motion, subheads 6.1.01. through 7.1.01. carried.

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, I just want to thank you for moving this up

because Joe and Wayne have to leave, so if there are any other questions or

anything at this point - you are fine with that?

MS JONES: I want to thank your officials for their time and their

responses.

MR. SHELLEY: I want to thank the officials because, Randy, you are right,

since I came into this department in particular, the Labour Agency, and that

side of it, they go and do their work. I have gotten nothing but compliments

across the Province from every group I have dealt with, and you have dealt with

them a lot more than I have, but they have been efficient and effective, I think

it is safe to say, so good job.

Thanks guys.

CHAIR: Thank you, gentlemen.

We will return to HRLE again so that, when we do it at that point and we ask

for the total to be carried, these subheads, 6.1.01. to 7.1.01., will be

included then in that total of HRLE. when we ask for the total to be carried.

Right now, at this point, we are going to move to Labrador Affairs on page 53

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

CHAIR: Again, we would ask for subhead 1.1.01., for somebody to make a

motion that it be carried.

MS GOUDIE: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Ms Goudie - get your name in the book this evening -

seconded by Mr. French.

Are there any comments, Minister, in this department, or did you want to go

right to questions?

MR. SHELLEY: Just that - well, the members know anyway - this is split

into Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I will handle the Labrador Affairs side of

it for today. Go ahead.

CHAIR: So we will go right to the questions.

Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to move right to the Estimates. I would like to start with the

section under General Administration. It looks like the Salaries spending was

down last year from what was budgeted, and so was that under Professional

Services. I would like to know why that was but, more importantly, the spending

in Employee Benefits was up although the Salaries were down. I am wondering if

you can give me an explanation.

MR. SHELLEY: Where are you now, under Minister's Office or -

MS JONES: Subhead 1.2.01.

MR. SHELLEY: Subhead 1.2.03.?

MS JONES: Subhead 1.2.01.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, 01., under Executive Support is where you are,

is it?

MR. DUTTON: The question was, why are Salaries down and Benefits up?

MS JONES: The Salaries are down, the Professional Services are down from

what was budgeted, but the Employee Benefits are up. Actually, they are more

than quadruple the amount that was budgeted.

MR. DUTTON: In this case, the Salaries are down because we had some

vacancies during the course of the year, and there was an assistant deputy

minister position that was vacant until late December. The Employee Benefits are

up. It is a modest amount that is budgeted, $500, and there was some increase

due to costs for conference registration fees and things of that nature.

MS JONES: Okay, why were the benefits up?

MR. DUTTON: The Employee Benefits -

MS JONES: Employee Benefits.

MR. DUTTON: Under Employee Benefits, conference registration fees and

memberships are charged to this account.

MS JONES: Oh.

MR. SHELLEY: That was conference registration fees in this -

MS JONES: Oh, okay. All right.

MR. SHELLEY: You don't mind that, do you?

MS JONES: Oh, no. I just -

MR. SHELLEY: No, that is where it came under, the registration fees for

the conference.

MS JONES: Okay.

Isn't that an unusual place to budget that, Minister?

MR. SHELLEY: I found it a bit strange myself but that is where it comes

under, the Employee Benefits. I guess that is the best place. I have no idea why

it would go there, but that is what it is, the registration fees.

MS JONES: Okay.

I guess there was money there for a short time.

MR. SHELLEY: It was money to use, yes.

MS JONES: Under 2.1.01. - oh, no, that is the Aboriginal Affairs. We will

leave that one for now.

Under 2.1.02. -

MR. SHELLEY: Under 2.1?

MS JONES: Yes.

There is a 28 per cent increase this year in Grants and Subsidies, which I am

very pleased to see.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes.

MS JONES: I just need to know where I would pick up the application and

how I get the money, but I am also curious about where it is going to be

allocated and what it is for.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, this is the breakdown right here. Part of that is

under Aboriginal, the Suicide Prevention Initiative, so you can talk about that

in your - but I will mention now the $120,000 to suicide prevention -

MR. DUTTON: This is Aboriginal Affairs, Minister.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is what she just asked for.

MR. DUTTON: She is reading from (inaudible) Labrador Affairs.

MS JONES: Yes, not the Aboriginal Affairs one.

MR. DUTTON: The main reason for the increase is the increase in the

airlift food subsidy.

MR. SHELLEY: That is the $100,000 increase in the airlift.

MS JONES: Oh, okay, that is where the money is budgeted?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS JONES: So, it is not under Works and Transportation?

MR. SHELLEY: No, that comes under Labrador Affairs. We administer it,

right, and that is the additional $100,00.

MR. DUTTON: Yes. Our department began administering the program last

year.

MR. SHELLEY: It was under Works and Services.

MS JONES: Yes, for a number of years. Okay, that is why there is an

increase there.

That is about it for the numbers, but I have some questions. I guess the

first question goes back to the commitment that was made by Stephen Harper and

his government during the election campaign to Goose Bay. At the time they

committed, if elected, they would relocate 650 troops, have them mobilized on

the ground in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I guess I am wondering, what have your

department and your government done to follow up to that commitment, and when

can we see some mobilization of people on the base in Goose Bay?

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier has spoken to the minister - I do not know the

exact date - what was it, about a week ago?

MR. DUTTON: About a month ago.

MR. SHELLEY: About a month ago. That was a direct contact from the

Premier's Office to the minister to follow up. Of course, we are still waiting

on answers from that, as you know. I guess I will be following up, too, with

some ministers, hopefully over the Easter break, but as of now we have no final

answer back from the government. That was made directly from the Premier to the

minister.

MS JONES: Did you guys have anything in writing on that during the

campaign? I know the commitment was made verbally.

MR. SHELLEY: You are talking about commitments, because there was a list

that came back from all four leaders. That is what you are talking about, right?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: I do not recall exactly what it was, the commitment. Was it

in writing?

MR. DUTTON: It was. Mr. Harper's letter was released to the public.

MS JONES: Do you have a copy of that?

MR. SHELLEY: We can get it for you.

MR. DUTTON: It should be on the government Web site. We can send you a

link.

MR. SHELLEY: There was a list there, as you know.

MS JONES: It is on the government Web site?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS JONES: I can get it myself, then.

I guess the Cashin report would be my next question. Because of the RMS

legislation there was, as you know, some chaos in the industry across the

Province and the government made the decision to hire Richard Cashin to go out

and study what would be a model solution to our fisheries woes.

In his recommendation, when he recommended a new mechanism for the crab

industry in the Province, he did ask that Labrador be exempt from that policy,

and he asked for very specific reasons. One, he is very familiar with the

fishing industry in Labrador, having worked there for a large part of his life

with the companies; and, secondly, because in previous years, especially going

back in the last five years, in the fishing industry in the Province, at times,

for example, when the shrimp fishery was shut down on the Island, the Labrador

shrimp fishery continued. Although there was only one plant, it continued

because they were not able to close their doors. They would have lost millions

of dollars, they would have lost an extended period of operation, and their

window of harvest is so small compared to the rest of the Province. Because they

were not bound by the agreement that was in place, they were able to continue to

operate. The same thing when the crab fishery shut down in the Province; they

continued to operate because they were not bound by the agreement.

In the Legislature a while ago there were amendments made to the act which

now ensure that they are bound to these agreements. I am really concerned about

it, and I have to ask the question: Why was Labrador not exempt, especially

after the author of the report specifically requested that they be? Yet, they

weren't.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, first of all, I know you know the history behind that,

as the member has explained in the House a number of times. I know what Mr.

Cashin has reported, but at the same time Minister Rideout has explained in the

House the rationale and the reasoning behind the exemption, or not exempting. It

had to do with the road system in place now, and the competition between the

Island portion of the Province and Labrador. That is the reasoning and rationale

that he set behind it, and that is what the government's position is on it

now.

MS JONES: Who did government take their advice from? Because they didn't

get it from Richard Cashin. He recommended something entirely different.

MR. SHELLEY: It is something government has considered from all sides,

from the entire Province as a whole, and the entire industry. They had to, of

course, make their judgement on that. Not everything from Mr. Cashin was

accepted as a whole. These were things that we had to consider, and Minister

Rideout's position has been stated clearly in the House in Question Period, as

you know.

MS JONES: Did government solicit opinions from the union on that issue?

MR. SHELLEY: Minister Rideout, I am sure, can answer to that, where their

opinions came from. I will reserve that question for Minister Rideout, and I am

sure he will give you that answer. He can speak for himself.

MS JONES: The only thing, Minister, I would like to raise for your

attention is, in this particular area of the Province, in my district right now,

I know that I am going to have about 500 plant workers displaced from their jobs

by the end of June. I know that most of them are not going to get any more than

200 hours of employment, maybe 250 hours of employment, in a fish plant. Last

year was the same situation; this is nothing new. Last year was the first time;

we had four plants close down overnight and these workers were all out of a job.

Last year, the provincial government did put in place a crab worker program

which helped them get through the next three to four weeks of operation. I know

the same thing is going to happen this year. This year it may even be a little

bit more serious in Labrador simply because the price of crab is way down, yet

the price of fuel and bait and everything else is very high still, so the odds

are that it is probably going to be, even if it could be, a worse situation this

year than last year. I would like to ask your department to consider this under

Labrador Affairs and to look at putting some initiatives in place to deal with

the situation, because we know we are going to be faced with it come the first

week in July.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the member, I understand and I know how serious it

is going to be. It is going to be serious throughout the Province, not just in

Labrador but on the Island portion also, what is facing us with the prices and

so on and so forth. Those things will all be considered, I would say to the

member. This fall, especially, we are going to be looking at initiatives that

will help alleviate some of the stress on some of these communities, especially

on the Coast of Labrador, so certainly those will be taken into consideration

and we will make some decisions on it throughout the spring and into the summer,

I would say.

MS JONES: Of course, cod workers are affected as well in the Gulf region.

We will know, I guess, after tomorrow if there is going to be an increase in the

cod quota. If there is, that will certainly help in a big way in that particular

area of the Province, on the Southwest Coast and the Northern Peninsula and the

southern end of the Labrador Straits. If not, of course, they are still in the

same situation as well.

I would like to ask a couple of questions with regard to the Lower Churchill

hydro project. Have you been engaged in that file, as the Minister Responsible

for Labrador?

MR. SHELLEY: I am engaged to a point. Of course, the Minister of Natural

Resources and the Premier have been taking a lead on that particular file, but,

yes, I have been engaged to a point. As you know, we were in Labrador and had a

very successful - I believe - open public forum which you attended, and that set

the stage. As we make progress in developments on the file we will certainly be

doing the consultations with people in Labrador and as we move the file forward.

I think we started off on the right foot with the meeting that we had in

Goose Bay, and we will continue to update the people of Labrador as we progress

with the file. That is the most I can tell you at this point.

MS JONES: Of course, I have a district that pays very high rates for

electricity under a diesel-powered electrical source. I think right now

commercial operators in my district are paying about nineteen cents a kilowatt

hour versus maybe about eight cents a kilowatt hour on the Island and much, much

cheaper in my colleague's district down here, probably at four cents to five

cents a kilowatt hour. It is a huge difference and it is having a huge impact on

the small business in the region. Right now, even when we talk about doing

forestry development, it is almost impossible to think that you could have

investors, when their overhead is so high, be able to produce anything in that

region. I know that there are discussions around the Lower Churchill but my

question is: Is there a commitment from the government to do an effective energy

regime in Coastal Labrador, even in the absence of a Lower Churchill deal?

MR. SHELLEY: Well, as you know, the Energy Plan is being developed by the

lead Department of Natural Resources on that file. Those are all things that are

being considered in that Energy Plan. Certainly, everybody recognizes the need

for a power source and for industrial development throughout Labrador, so those

are all things being considered and, as the Energy Plan rolls out along with the

potential development of the Churchill River, then, of course, those types of

things will be addressed.

MS JONES: Well, we are just making an assumption that if there is a Lower

Churchill deal we are going to have a power line and we are going to have

cheaper power. My concern is, in the absence of a deal, making sure that we

still have cheaper power and available power, whether it is in the form of a

power line or some other form, you know.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS JONES: The Trans-Labrador Highway, I know that the government has

already said they are prepared to commit $10 million a year over the next five

years for a total of $50 million to do paving on Phase I of the highway, and

that money would have to be matched by the federal government dollar for dollar,

I understand?

MR. SHELLEY: Right, that is matching dollar for dollar with the feds.

That is right.

MS JONES: If the feds do not come across with their money, are you still

going to spend the $50 million?

MR. SHELLEY: Well, our plan is to match the federal government. We

believe that is going to happen, so we do not plan to fail on that, and we hope

that we can match dollar for dollar, and we will spend $50 million over the ten

years which we plan to do.

MS JONES: So, are you expecting a response soon, then, from the federal

government?

MR. SHELLEY: I would hope so. As a matter of fact, I do expect something

pretty soon. As you know, the new government, in transition, has been settling

down, going through their Throne Speech, I think, as early as tomorrow, so those

points have been already raised with the various ministers now and I am looking

forward to some answers, actually, very soon on that file.

MS JONES: Of course, you would know that Phase II of that would be my

district -

MR. SHELLEY: That is right.

MS JONES: - which would take in from Red Bay North to Cartwright, which

is all gravel road, and the Red Bay to Lodge Bay portion of the road, I think,

will be six years old this year. I drove over it yesterday and -

MR. SHELLEY: How was it?

MS JONES: It was a rough ride but, you know, it is the spring of the year

so you have a lot of runoff and you have the ice melting and all the rest of it,

but a trip that normally takes me an hour took me two yesterday.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I can say to the member, just so you do not feel left

out, I have gravel roads in my district and there were roads barred off today

because of that very reason. It is the time of the year; it is soft and so on. I

know it is tough. It is like a washboard driving over it. I can understand where

you are coming from, put it that way.

MS JONES: I certainly accept that, and I know that they can't do

anything about it until you get some of the water out of it and stuff.

I guess my question is: When do you see a plan being put forward by yourself

or the government for Phase II, to look at paving?

MR. SHELLEY: If I were going to say some time now I would be guessing, to

the member, but you do know we have the committee in place now, transportation

and this committee. Those are the type of things we are looking at, time frames

and so on, how we move forward. I think in the next couple of months, hopefully,

and certainly into the fall, we will have a good idea of the time frames that we

are looking at.

MS JONES: On the infrastructure fund, there has been a call in Labrador

for a number of years to have a Labrador infrastructure fund. It used to exist

under the federal government, of course. It was called the Labrador

comprehensive development fund. It is not there any more, and there is still a

lot of need for infrastructure in Labrador communities, especially in the

communities that are non-Inuit, because they have a separate agreement with the

feds.

MR. SHELLEY: Are you talking about the fund that was suggested one time

through Labrador?

MS JONES: Yes.

I guess what I am asking is: Is there any consideration being put into

setting up a Labrador infrastructure fund? I know that the government is

continuing to sell recall power on the Upper Churchill. I know that you are

making a profit; I think it was $48 million or $49 million this year. I am sure

you will make that much in the next four years or more. I guess the request is:

Is there any consideration being given? Because, this recall power was really

there to be used in Labrador communities but, because there has not been an

industry demand or there has not been a power line going into places like Goose

Bay that you could actually wield that amount of power anyway, we have been

unable to develop industry around it. I guess selling it was probably the

smartest thing that we could do to make money.

Now that the government is in a better fiscal position than it ever has been,

because of the price of oil, and we do not expect that is going to go down any

time soon, I am asking that some real consideration be given to - and I think

this is something that you should champion, as the Minister of Labrador Affairs

- taking the money that is being earned, which is a clear profit to government

right now, on recall power, and putting it into a Labrador infrastructure

program, a fund whereby communities can access a portion of that money to match

other federal-provincial shared agreements to do infrastructure work in their

communities.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. Well, first of all, I have heard you make those

comments before. As a matter of fact, I think at the forum you made the same

suggestions.

MS JONES: Oh, absolutely.

MR. SHELLEY: I believe you did, yes.

MS JONES: I have told it to the Premier, to the Minister of Energy, all

of them, and I don't think I have convinced any of them yet.

MR. SHELLEY: No, not at this point.

MS JONES: I am still working on it.

MR. SHELLEY: I know, and I know your point and well taken. As you said,

throughout this Province there are a lot of infrastructure needs. I can tell the

member this so you do know, we will stick with the - instead of speculating and

so on, that $175 million has been now allocated for infrastructure in Labrador

over the next four years. I think that is pretty substantial. It is certainly a

step in the right direction. It is not going to address nearly the concerns at

this point in time but it is certainly in that movement.

As far as a separate fund; no, there has been no consideration given to that.

We are going to look at an infrastructure plan for the entire Province.

Certainly, that will be all in consideration of that. I think the transportation

initiative committee that is set up now will deal directly and focus in on

Labrador initiatives and things that we can do in Labrador when it comes to

infrastructure and transportation. I think the commitment is pretty evident in

the last number of weeks and months in Labrador. I am very proud of that. I

think we have answered many questions that were put to us from the forum when we

were there months before that. So, we will continue to move ahead, understanding

the needs, but at this time there is no consideration given for a separate fund

for infrastructure, no.

MS JONES: I guess the only thing I would like to say in response to that,

and it is not really a question, is the $170 million that is going to be

committed over the next four years.

MR. SHELLEY: One hundred and seventy-five over four years.

MS JONES: It is about 70 per cent of what you are going to take in on

recall power. We are still looking at about an $80 million surplus that is going

to go into the government coffers that needs to be used.

The other point that I want to make is that the $170 million that is being

spent, not $1 of it in a rural community in Labrador. It is all being spent - in

how I define rural, okay. All that money is being spent in Labrador City and in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay. None of it, not one dime is being spent on the South

Coast or the North Coast, which are the other twenty-three communities that are

in Labrador.

The reason I am continuing to make this point is because I have communities

in my district - Black Tickle is a prime example and I will just use that one -

that have no clean drinking water. If they have to come up with 20 per cent of

the money for capital infrastructure they will never, ever have clean drinking

water because they cannot afford to do it. That is the reason we are so

desperate. That is just one community, one example, and I have about ten of them

in my district. They do not all have unsafe drinking water or water as bad as

Black Tickle, but they do not have community water systems. So, they all have a

need for that kind of service. I know, firsthand, that without some kind of a

fund like this to help them, they are never going to be able to access that

capital money. You can increase it in Municipal Affairs for ever and a day, $50

million for three years, $100 million for four years, whatever, they are never

going to access that money because they do not have the 30 per cent, and this is

a way to do it. So, I just have to stress that point because, although it is

$170 million, it is being spent in two communities, and God love them, it needs

to be spent but -

MR. SHELLEY: The Trans-Labrador Highway is between Cartwright and Goose

Bay. That is -

MS JONES: Yes, but this money is still left in the Initiative Fund. You

do not have all that spent yet.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Next year you will be able to (inaudible) that one.

MR. SHELLEY: That expires this year.

MS JONES: Yes. The $25 million is coming out of it though for this year.

MR. SHELLEY: Ten million left in it.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the member, there are many circumstances throughout

this Province of what you just explained. Certainly, the government recognizes -

I have them in my own district, small communities who cannot afford their 20 per

cent. We are considering something to help alleviate that. We understand the

circumstance of communities with out-migration, the numbers of taxpayers in

these small communities who are moving out, and certainly no revenues coming in.

So, that is something that is understood by government and something that we are

looking at through Municipal Affairs.

MS JONES: The only other thing I want to comment on is this Labrador

Transportation Committee that you have set up in Labrador. While I am all for

having committees that will consult with people and will advise government, I am

really wary that this is a process of procrastination more than anything else,

and I will tell you why.

There are three studies that were released from the Department of

Transportation that concern Labrador. One of them was on ferry rates. It was

completed a year ago. It was in the Department of Transportation and Works and,

I guess Labrador Affairs, for a year. Then it got released to the public. At the

same time it got released, we had a Budget that jacked up ferry rates 5 per cent

in my district. Okay? Then the minister says we are going to send this report

out to a committee that I have just appointed to review and report back to us.

Well, first of all, if that was the case, I do not think the rate should have

been increased, to start with, until there was a review of the report. Secondly,

I do not think it is necessary to have this committee deliberate over ferry

rates for another year after it already had been in the department for a year.

The other study was on the configuration of marine services. The study was

completed in May of 2004. It got released to the public about ten days ago,

which is almost two years. It was with the policy division of Memorial

University for eight months, from there it went to the Department of

Transportation and Works for two years, and now they are sending it out to an

appointed transportation committee in Labrador to review for another year. I

have a problem with that stuff because after two years in a government

department, being looked at by every single bureaucrat - and I guess your

department as well, Labrador Affairs, you would have to critique it - and still

no action on it, and now being told that it is going to be another year and this

committee is going to do more consultation and so on and so forth. I really am

wary about that stuff.

The third study was on a regional airport for my district, in which there

would be six communities that would use one regional airport. The air services

have been totally eroded in that area, because since the road went through it is

not feasible to be landing on four or five different airports for any airline

and make money.

It took three years for the consultant to do the study. It was in the

department for almost a year after they submitted it. Now, no one can tell me

why it took three years to do it, maybe you can help me because I do not know. I

think I would have fired him somewhere along the line, but it took three years

to do the study. I cannot find out how much it cost, no one can tell me that

either, but now the study has been there for a year. They have reviewed it and

again they are sending the study out to this new committee to review, which is

going to take another year. They are telling me now that they have to do public

consultations, which was done four years ago. The public consultations were

completed so long ago that everybody has forgotten about it.

MR. SHELLEY: That is why we need to do them again.

MS JONES: That is the time it took to get the study. What is that?

MR. SHELLEY: That is why we need to do them again, they forgot about

them.

MS JONES: The thing is, I am all for consultation but I really feel that

the committee which has been set up, has been set up to take pressure off

government, to field out these reports that have been in departments for up to

two years in some cases with no action, and to just delay this whole process for

another year, because I wanted some action on marine service rates for my

district starting this season. It has been almost three years, and nothing. I am

not going to get it for another year, but I did get the increase. That wasn't

a problem, to increase it before the review, but not decrease it.

I would like for you to respond to that because I really do think that it is

just an exercise in delaying any action, any spending and any decisions on those

three issues in Labrador right now.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. I would like to say to the member, first of all, one

of the suggestions or requests coming out of Labrador is for more consultations

on the ground, especially -

MS JONES: Not on the regional airport study though.

MR. SHELLEY: - when we talk about transportation.

As far as the delay, the only thing I can say to the member is the approach I

would take, if we are going to take on such a huge task, which it is, and to do

it right, then it is not to do it quickly but to do it right over a longer

period of time, to look at a longer run. We are talking about one more year with

a committee that is on the ground, that everybody believes will do a good job of

consulting and so on. I think it is worth that extra wait of one year, so we

could have a good plan to move forward with. I think we will hear good things

back with reports from the committee, and we are looking forward to it.

MS JONES: Well, hopefully, next year in the Estimates Committee I will

not have to read that response back to you. I will have all that done and ready

to move on.

MR. SHELLEY: You will have all that answered, that's right.

MS JONES: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister, because I am going to

take my leave now. I do not have anything to do with Human Resources and

Employment -

MR. SHELLEY: You can go.

MS JONES: - but I, certainly, thank you for your responses and your time,

and also to thank Mr. Dutton for being here.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions on Labrador Affairs?

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes, I have a couple.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. R. COLLINS: I must say, though, Yvonne covered off a few of them.

I would like to start off first by just saying about the kilowatt hours,

where Yvonne alluded to the price on the coast and the price here in St. John's,

and how it is much cheaper in Labrador West. It is cheaper but we are not very

happy with the fact that it is slowly climbing and will get to where everybody

else is. I just want to say to the minister - and he knows, he lived there for

seven or eight years, and one of his jobs was hauling around and filling up

people's tanks.

MR. SHELLEY: That's right.

MR. R. COLLINS: So, he knows about the oil. I do not know about the

electricity.

MR. SHELLEY: Not so much about electricity.

MR. R. COLLINS: But, you know, I gave the Minister of Natural Resources a

couple of power bills. One from the place I have here in St. John's, where my

son and his girlfriend and my wife happened to be out for a month, and I was

here for most of the time. The amount with the four of us living in that house -

I forget the price - the kilowatt hours that were burnt was 3,700 for a month.

In my house in Labrador City, for the same period, with nobody in the house

whatsoever, no hot water being used, no washers or dryers or stoves or anything

like that, for the same period of time, with the door only being opened,

probably, for two minutes a day with someone bringing in the mail, the kilowatt

hours consumed at my residence in Lab City was 9,370. So, it was almost three

times as much power consumed in a house that nobody was living in because the

temperatures were so severe that the furnace just did not stop, and it is an

electric furnace.

MR. SHELLEY: What months of the year was that, Randy?

MR. R. COLLINS: That was between December and January. That was an

electric furnace that did not cut out for the entire period of time because of

the weather. So everything is not always relative to price, it is also to

consumption. I had a Ford, so I did not need to plug that in. So that wasn't

burning electricity.

There is a relevance there, and I think it (inaudible) on government

sometimes, because all they do it look at the price that you pay rather than the

amount that you are required to use in order to live in cold environments.

I would like to ask the minister if he has had any involvement or any

discussions with representatives of LabMag Iron Ore Project? What would the

discussions have been, if he did?

MR. SHELLEY: No. The Minister of Natural Resources is taking the lead,

totally, on that. He updates me on the file but he is dealing directly with that

issue. I can only tell you, what you know already, that the prospects are

looking very good. Actually, we are all hoping, I guess, that we will hear

something on it fairly soon.

MR. R. COLLINS: Go back to the road. Yvonne alluded to the road there for

the $15 million, hoping that the federal government will come on board with to

jointly fund. They have committed to that during the election campaign.

Hopefully, it will be soon enough for something to be done during this

construction season, which at the best of times is short in Labrador.

I would also like to point out that the six years that the road has been open

on the South Coast - and you said you have roads in your district. We have also

had a gravel road between Lab West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the past

twenty-four years now and there has been a lot of destruction on that. So, the

sooner that is done - and I always say, when I talk about the chip seal - I

mean, call it what it is. Never mind blacktop or hardtop, it is chip seal. I do

not have a problem with that. It is used extensively on the Alaskan Highway. It

is used in the Yukon.

MR. SHELLEY: That's right.

MR. R. COLLINS: It is used in a lot of places in Northern Canada and many

people argue that it stands up better than traditional asphalt. So I think we

should start calling it what it is rather than turning the cheek and saying:

hardtop or blacktop, or something of that nature.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. From the response we had back from Labrador, a lot of

people prefer it. I know it is a bit rougher to ride over, a better grip, and

better in the winter and so on.

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes. It has worked out quite well, actually.

I would like to say to the minister also, seeing he is representing Labrador

Affairs, when I talk about that road, I talk about putting the chip seal on from

Lab West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. When John Hickey talks about it, he talks

about putting it on from Goose Bay to Lab West. I am hoping that we will meet a

happy medium and work at both ends toward the centre.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I think that is the plan.

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes. So, hopefully that will happen.

I want to take a different take on the committee. I am glad the committee is

put in place, the transportation committee, and I know that, from my district,

Mayor Jim Farrell is on that committee and he will certainly -

MR. SHELLEY: An excellent representative.

MR. R. COLLINS: - be a very knowledgeable and valuable contributor to

anything that happens there, and I look forward to - I understand there is a

meeting next week in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with the Minister of Transportation

and the committee. I am hoping that they will get on and get some positive

feedback and things will start to happen.

MR. SHELLEY: I am of the same view as you, by the way. I think we have a

great committee there and I am looking forward to their deliberations over the

next little while.

MR. R. COLLINS: I think they work well together.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. R. COLLINS: Could you tell me how much money from Labrador Affairs

budget is spent directly in the Labrador West area, and what it would entail?

MR. SHELLEY: Break it down, you mean?

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I suppose we could break it down for you one bit at a

time and give it back to you, but there are different programs that overlap,

Randy, so we would have to break it down to tell you, but we could do that. We

could break it down and give you percentages of what - because some programs

overlap in Labrador West and in the east and on the coasts.

MR. R. COLLINS: Is it a lot of difficulty to do that?

MR. SHELLEY: I do not think it would be too hard to do that, would it?

MR. DUTTON: No. I guess as far as the regional breakdown on our budget,

we have two offices, one here in Confederation Building and one in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, so much of our expenses are related to the salaries and

operating of those two offices. We also -

MR. R. COLLINS: I won't need to know that.

MR. DUTTON: We do not have a lot of programs because we are mostly

developing policies; so, other than what money would be spent travelling back

and forth to Labrador West, there would be very little. We have -

MR. R. COLLINS: That was the point of my question, because we have -

MR. DUTTON: Yes, we have miscellaneous grants that anybody in the region

can apply to, but that is basically it.

MR. R. COLLINS: No, that was the point of my questions because, for the

last number of years, since there has been a Labrador Affairs office, there is

nothing that I could point to, you know, where I could see it tangible that

something was done by Labrador Affairs.

MR. SHELLEY: No, because most of them do not. Basically, like Sean said,

it is mostly policy but we do some miscellaneous grants. We could break those

down. Of course, you have gotten your share of some of those but, for the most

part, there is not a lot of funding comes from the department directly like

that.

MR. R. COLLINS: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: We lobby, though, to get money for you through other

departments, including my own.

MR. R. COLLINS: Well, that is good. Keep that up.

I do not have anything else, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Do any other members have questions related to Labrador Affairs?

If not, then the only subhead that is stand-alone in this department, as far

as we are concerned tonight, would be subhead 2.1.02., and the other subheads

would have to be considered when Mr. Rideout sits.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Aboriginal Affairs, and then 2.1.02. would be carried as part of

that total.

I would ask the Clerk, then, to call 2.1.02.

CLERK: Subhead 2.1.02.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 2.1.02. be carried?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.1.02. carried.

CHAIR: Minister, we will move, I think, given that the next line behind

you is the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing people, we are moving to Housing

and then we will do the Human Resources aspect of it.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I think that is the plan.

CHAIR: Is that the plan?

We will move, then, to Housing on page 245.

Again, given that we are under a new department, I will ask for someone to

move

section 1.1.01.

MR. FRENCH: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. French.

Seconded by Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins will see action here, the other Mr.

Collins, Mr. Felix Collins.

Minister, did you want to open with commentary on this one or did you want to

proceed right to questions?

MR. SHELLEY: No, let's go right into Housing. I am ready to go right to

it. We have our officials here with Housing. I am sure you know Mr. Simms and

the other officials. Did you introduce yourself to them?

OFFICIAL: We did earlier.

MR. SHELLEY: That is fine. We are ready to go.

CHAIR: I guess Mr. Butler is going to carry the ball.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Minister, and your staff, for the opportunity.

To begin with, I do not have all that many questions, probably other people

do, but I think I said it last year and it is worth repeating again this year: I

don't know about every other district in the Province but we have a wonderful

working relationship with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. You don't always

get what you call for - you call on behalf of your constituents - but I have to

say the staff there are always available, not only by phone but you can drop

over to meet with them. I think that goes a long way and our constituents really

appreciate that.

Just a few questions. The first one under the subheading 1.1.01., there is an

amount of $5.5 million increase from last year, $9.65 million. I am just

wondering. what is this particular increase? Is there a plan to invest in the

creation of more affordable housing units to meet demands and needs and so on?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, there is $5.5 million. We do have a breakdown on it. Of

course, there was a negotiated wage increase. Of course, that is across the

board and we know that is a 3 per cent increase this year. We had some $823,000

towards increasing the heating cost. Gasoline cost another $100,000. We had a

reduction in the municipal land sales of some $200,000. Then, of course, the

poverty reduction one, which I wanted to highlight here tonight, too, the

education incentives. I know when you get the Budget out sometimes you do not

get the real feel for some of these incentives, initiatives, but I would just

like to point those out tonight, and poverty reduction. The rent geared to base

income now was on gross before. That is for people with employment living and

housing. Now it is gone to net. That is a great incentive, by the way. We are

getting good feedback on that, and it is going to help people a long way.

Fifty dollars a month, is that...?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) rental.

MR. SHELLEY: It works out to about $50 per month on rental.

Also, the education incentive - I would like to tell the member this because,

again, you do not get it in the Budget sometimes - the education incentive is

about people living in Housing in the Province now. If your children are in

Levels II to IV, there is a $25 rebate for every child in Levels - so, you could

have two children or three children, $25 per child would come off your rent.

Also, on top of that, if the parents are in any post-secondary whatsoever,

registered in any post-secondary, it is $25 for either one of the parents. For

example, two parents - like, we have those circumstances - and two children in

high school, that is $100 off the rent a month.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. If the children stay in high school and the parents are

in a post-secondary, it is $25 for every person in that household. That has

helped quite a bit, and it is great, because I know there are disincentives for

people remaining employed and so on, and staying in school, so these are great

incentives that work towards - it is $25 per child in Levels II to IV and $25

per any adult in that household who is in a post-secondary institution.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

MR. SHELLEY: Also, by the way, the biggest one, we can't forget, and

you probably have questions coming on it so maybe I will go right into it

because I am excited about this one also, the EnerGuide and the REEP, $2.9

million here. Of course, as far as the REEP program goes, the seminars had a

great response. As a matter of fact, we have had to increase the seminars across

the Province; we have had such a good response to it. Over 1,000 people so far,

by the way, and they are great things to take. As a matter of fact, I am going

to try to take in one myself, just to see how they are going, because there has

been such a great response to them. We are doing them throughout the Province,

of course, on saving energy. Then, a part of that incentive also are the meters,

which, by the way, this Blue Line - is it Blue Line?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Blue Line has done right here in this Province. The meters

go inside your household now, and it goes by cents and dollars, so every time a

light goes on or a light goes off, the children or anyone in the household can

see exactly how much energy you are burning. Surveys have shown, I guess, the

research, that it is at least a 10 per cent decrease in your energy cost per

household. So those meters are available free of charge.

OFFICIAL: No, $10.

MR. SHELLEY: Ten dollars, a nominal fee. They cost approximately $250.

OFFICIAL: Two hundred dollars.

MR. SHELLEY: These meters cost approximately $200. Actually, we did

consider free; but, for a nominal fee of $10, people can have these meters in

their homes.

MR. BUTLER: That is in your Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units, or

anybody?

MR. SHELLEY: No, in general.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

OFFICIAL: You have to be - sorry, Minister.

MR. SHELLEY: Go ahead.

OFFICIAL: You have to be (inaudible) $30,000.

MR. SHELLEY: Sorry. Yes, $30,000 or low-income people, but they do not

have to be in Housing. It is anybody with $30,000 or less that these meters are

available for a nominal fee of $10.

Also, of course, in that same program with REEP is the furnace upgrading. You

can have your furnace upgraded.

OFFICIAL: Furnace tested.

MR. SHELLEY: Furnace testing done for efficiencies and so on, so that

program is really being well received. As a matter of fact, I would encourage

all members to have a look at some of these seminars that are going around the

Province. We may have to do more yet, maybe.

OFFICIAL: There are a couple more being done here in St. John's.

MR. SHELLEY: There are two more being done here in St. John's. We can

certainly give you a

schedule of where they were and so on, and let you know

about those.

MR. BUTLER: The one with the meter, is there an application you pick up,

or it is on-line, I guess, is it?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

Mr. Simms?

MR. SIMMS: Essentially, this is part of the bigger program, the

provincial REEP program that was announced in November or December, I think it

was, $6.9 million over the next four years. The biggest component of that was

the $1,000 top-up at the invitation of the federal government, at the time, to

put on to the EnerGuide Program that they announced at the same time.

Regrettably, that has not proceeded yet. That is the reason there has been no

application form, because we have to wait for the new federal government to -

MR. SHELLEY: Sign it off.

MR. SIMMS: - sign off on that former federal government's program. Once

we get that, we are finished, we are ready - we have our arrangements and

negotiations gone with CMHC - we are ready to go on-line with our application,

but we cannot put it on-line until we get the other component of the EnerGuide

Program. It is not much point in putting an application on for furnace testing

only, or for the power meters only; we intend to do it all the one time.

MR. SHELLEY: That is $1,000 in top-ups (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Except for the seminars; we did go ahead with those.

MR. BUTLER: When we got your letter saying the applications would be

available the last of January -

MR. SIMMS: That was the plan.

MR. BUTLER: I have about forty-five or fifty out there now constantly

calling and saying: Where is my application?

MR. SHELLEY: I know. We are getting it too, actually, and it is really

bothersome, but really it is just the sign-off. It is a technicality, as far as

a minister signing off, but we are ready to roll.

MR. SIMMS: At the time that was announced, just shortly after that, the

government fell, so that is what happened.

MR. BUTLER: What are the numbers like on the list now, waiting for the

provincial repair program?

MR. SIMMS: PHRP, is it? About 3,000.

MR. SHELLEY: Three thousand, yes. I recall that number, yes, about 3,000,

and that is back to 2003, right? We are still back to 2003. We are back to 2003,

Roland, so we are doing it on a priority basis as they come in and so on, unless

there is an extreme circumstance of health or a safety issue. Otherwise, we try

to be fair to everybody. I am sure you can agree with that, that the corporation

handles that very well, I think.

MR. BUTLER: That is down significantly from previous years, isn't it,

down to 3,000?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it used to be 6,000 (inaudible) about five or six years

ago.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, it is down to half. We have cut it in half. It has

improved but, you know, it is still a big wait list.

MR. SIMMS: We are the only Province, by the way, that puts more into the

PHRP program than we are supposed to under the original agreement of 75-25.

MR. SHELLEY: Now we are 50-50?

MR. SIMMS: We are 50-50, and we are the only Province that does that.

MR. BUTLER: The other thing, how many inspectors do you have? I guess

when I ask the question, being a critic for this area, that is the problem I

have with it. I am the critic for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, but

Mr. Barrett looks after Labour and Mr. Langdon looks after Housing. That is the

way it was divided up (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Break it up (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: For instance, how many inspectors are there? I guess I am

asking a question in general for the greater Avalon area. How many inspectors do

you have who go out and visit when the time comes? There cannot be that many of

them now, is there?

MR. SIMMS: The PHRP program specifically?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: There are probably what, half a dozen?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) number.

MR. SIMMS: Three. Less than half a dozen for the Province maybe. No, more

than that; there is one in each office. There are three for the Avalon region.

MR. BUTLER: I am not complaining, but lots of times you get people

calling and I know it takes a while. I guess that is the reason why, if you only

have three inspectors. They have to do some going if it is all the Avalon area,

you know.

MR. SHELLEY: That is true, I agree with you, it is hard to spread that

around. At the same time, with a 3,000 waiting list, the more is inspected the

more the demand comes in and the more the line grows, I guess; but, you are

right, there are times when you have to wait long to get an inspector there. I

have heard that complaint myself.

MR. BUTLER: I will ask this one because I am going to ask this at every

meeting I go to. I will ask it now because it might take in Housing, it might go

to your general HRLE question.

MR. SHELLEY: Sure.

MR. BUTLER: In the Budget, it says the Province's public buildings are

required regular investments to maximize the value of these properties. We will

invest $8.5 million to maintain public buildings. This is the one I am

interested in: Another $8 million to remediate or remove buildings as needed.

I am just wondering, are there any buildings under your scope, whether it be

Housing or HRLE, are there any plans for building removal?

MR. SHELLEY: Building removal at the time?

MR. BUTLER: I am just wondering, because it is there. I do not know what

department it is, so you would have to ask the question of every department when

you get before them.

MR. SHELLEY: I cannot answer that right at this time, but I can certainly

find out for you. Basically, right now we are into remediation and upgrading of

the buildings we have.

MR. SIMMS: There are none for demolition or anything of that nature. The

only incident we might have to face is Stephenville.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, the Stephenville circumstance where the flood area

was. Otherwise, other than that, I am not aware, at this point anyway. I will

ask my officials.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Nothing, no.

MR. BUTLER: The only other one was in the Auditor General's Report.

This is just a short question, that was the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation Employee Computer Purchase Loan Program. I am only going on what the

Auditor General said. I did not know anything about it until then. I guess the

concerns that he had, that has been addressed, I take it?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I will answer that. I know that issue fairly well. Of

course, the officials are here, too.

MR. BUTLER: First of all, has the issue been resolved?

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, absolutely! We have written back the Auditor

General. I can tell you that the program has been in place since 1989. As a

matter of fact, I was not aware of it until I came into the department. It has

been on the go since 1989. It has worked really well. As a matter of fact, it

has been looked at a few times but continued on because it has worked very well.

What it was - what I understand, and you can correct me on this - is that it was

an idea for people to take their computers home to get - of course, like I said,

since 1989 - better at using the computer systems and so on; to learn them at

home and so on. It was a loan program but they do pay it back. There were very

little incidents. I think there was an incident of $290 or something in

seventeen years, less than $1,000. That was the only thing that was not - but we

corrected that. Otherwise, it has been working very well and there have been no

problems with it whatsoever.

MR. SIMMS: I think the point of the criticism was that we had this

program at the Housing Corporation and there are other agencies as well, Mr.

Butler, that have a similar program. The central government itself does not have

a similar program or benefit from it. I think that was the AG's criticism. It

is not consistent with central government benefits.

MR. SHELLEY: But Housing has it since 1989. It has worked very well and

it is continuing. Every loan has been paid back, like I said, up to - if I

remember it right, it is $1 million now so far over the seventeen years that it

has been in. Out of the $1 million, less than $1,000 there was a problem. That

has been - yes, two items. Otherwise, it worked very well.

MR. BUTLER: No, I was just referencing where it said one senior official

was terminated and two others were suspended.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is where we dealt with it and that was the only

incident we had.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) shut it down.

MR. SHELLEY: In seventeen years, that was the only incident.

MR. BUTLER: Good.

The only other thing, and I guess this is not a question as such. I have,

from time to time - and those gentlemen here know I call from time to time about

this. In my area there are people who are looking for housing units. I think

most of them that are in the Bay Roberts, Clarke's Beach, Carbonear or Harbour

Grace area, a lot of them are three bedroom. People from time to time - and they

are not being considered.

I know of one case, not even in my district. It is in Mr. Hedderson's

district, but they call me as well as call him. There is this couple, and she is

very ill and they are looking for a unit. Because there is only a three bedroom,

they are not being considered. I can tell you, the place that they are in is not

a very appropriate place to be, in the best of times, let alone if someone is

sick. I guess there are no plans in the future that more units will be built in

that area with single bedrooms, double bedrooms or anything like that, is there?

MR. SHELLEY: Actually, I am glad you raised the point because it is

something I raised when I came into the department and noticed. We are doing a

complete review of inventory and everything of the entire Housing Corporation

right now. That is something that has come up. As a matter of fact, there is all

the change in demographics. The fact of the matter is, all these units have been

built over - what, the last forty years?

MR. SIMMS: Fifty.

MR. SHELLEY: Forty to fifty years, and they were all for bigger families,

which we had in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were two, three and four bedroom

units. We have a problem with that. So we are trying - of course, over time, I

guess - to move those into one - which is the biggest demand for now - and two

bedrooms. The fact of the matter is, that is where it all happened. In the last

thirty to forty years they were all built for bigger families and so on. Now we

have to try to move towards, of course, more efficient one bedroom and two

bedroom, which are the demands.

Do you want to add any comment to that?

MR. SIMMS: I was just going to add - for information purposes, I guess -

fifteen, eighteen years ago the demographics were such that 80 per cent of our

needs were for families that required three or four bedrooms. Today, it is about

20 per cent in that category. Eighty percent of our needs now are for one and

two bedroom units. We have not built a new unit - I mean, a new number of units

or anything since 1989. I think that was the last time we built. There has been

no funding for building brand new units.

We are doing a pilot project down on Froude Avenue, which involves a

section

of a building that had been vandalized several years ago. It is right next to

the community centre, if you have ever been down to the Froude Avenue Community

Centre. We are renovating that building to provide for two units, one on the

bottom, one on top. The one on the top will be a two bedroom unit. There will be

four of them in that row of houses. The bottom four will be accessible units,

which is the other big demand that we see these days in needs for social

housing.

That is a small, minor start. We will see how that works. That is a

federal-provincial agreement. That tender should be called fairly soon, we

think. We are just waiting, again, for the sign off. If that works we might be

able to do some more work, but it is going to be on areas where houses come out

under the devolution agreement, not in our existing portfolio that are recently

built.

MR. SHELLEY: So it is recognized and noted. We realize that we have to do

something with it.

MR. BUTLER: Those are the only questions I have. I guess there is nobody

else here, so you can move right along.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions?

MR. BUTLER: Unless our friends behind us have something.

CHAIR: Minister, I am personally excited about that education motivation

component with the housing.

MR. SHELLEY: That is a great one.

CHAIR: I am not sure how it is going to tie in if a person is not a

client of Housing but is still very low income. Is that available to them as

well?

MR. SHELLEY: It is only in Housing units.

CHAIR: I know that, but a person who is on social assistance or on income

support but not in Housing.

MR. SIMMS: It will apply to them as well. What we are going to do is give

them a bursary of sorts. We obviously cannot reduce their rent because their

rent is paid by HRLE.

CHAIR: When is he putting this in? When is it going to be effective?

MR. SIMMS: It is effective now and we finalize the details on it today.

Our Housing officers will be told tomorrow of the details. What will happen with

the educational idea, the educational initiative, is recognize the fact that the

problem is that a lot of kids do not stay in school who are in our units, our

families, unfortunately. We are thinking this may be an incentive for both the

parents, and maybe the children, to stay there because they will get a little

bit of money back and that will be beneficial for them. It is effective now, but

what they will do is at the end of each quarter - was it? We decided today, I

think, each semester or whatever you wish to call it. They will bring in a

letter from the school verifying, simply, that the child has been a full-time

attendee at school, and so on and so forth. They will get a rebate, say, for the

next three months. They will do it at the end of June and at the end of January.

Those are the two times of the year. It is a great incentive.

CHAIR: It is something I have advocated for personally.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, you have.

CHAIR: I think it is forward looking. I think it is tremendous -

MR. SIMMS: Now, th other one -

CHAIR: - and education - pardon me, I know you are excited about it.

MR. SIMMS: I am, very, yes. Not only about that one but the other one,

too.

CHAIR: Indeed, but education is the key, I think, to raising and changing

poverty in the Province.

MR. SIMMS: Absolutely!

The other one, Mr. Chairman, just to elaborate quickly on, is the rental

incentive that the minister referred to. That is there to encourage people to

work because if they are working families then they are going to benefit more

because they will get the break. It might encourage the people next door to go

out and work.

CHAIR: I think it is all going to make a big difference. Once people get

their heads around it, I think it is going to make a tremendous difference.

MR. SHELLEY: Do not forget the points on the these poverty reduction

initiatives. They came from all these consultation processes. These were people

who were actually living in poverty who said: Listen, it might not sound like a

lot to some people but this would mean a lot to me.

CHAIR: A lot of money.

MR. SHELLEY: It all connects back to the initiatives and the incentive to

go to work.

CHAIR: Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, if there are no further

questions we will clean this whole subhead, heading and the whole works up in

one swoop and then we are done with it.

I will ask the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Department of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, total heads,

carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation

carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation carried without amendment.

MR. SHELLEY: I would just like to say before - I am closing that, by the

way, and I agree with Roland. I mean, I have been dealing with them over the

years, too, the corporation. It has gotten better and it has improved. The

biggest thing is that complaints have dropped and we have gone, in the repair

program now, from 6,000 on a list to 3,000. We have cut it in half and we are

still working on those. So, there are improvements there.

I want to thank the officials. Thank you.

CHAIR: I thank the officials.

We will return, then, to the Human Resources, Labour and Employment category

and we will deal with the last group or the back row. I guess we can move them

up, minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: They say the last shall be first.

CHAIR: Move up the backbenchers. What a great idea.

MR. SHELLEY: The last shall be first, yes.

CHAIR: We are on page, what, 203?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

I will just make a couple of opening remarks on this one.

CHAIR: Okay. Should we call the subhead first?

CLERK: I think you did, 1.1.01.

CHAIR: We did it already?

CLERK: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, we are done. So we can carry on? Okay, very good.

Minister, carry on.

MR. SHELLEY: I just want to make a couple of comments on this one, just

to open it up but I will not keep it long.

Of the poverty reduction initiatives - of course, there are some major

initiatives. I think one of the key ones was the 5 per cent increase in the

amount. Just to give you a comparison - whenever you say a percentage, you do

not really take into account until you compare it to something. This was a 5 per

cent increase this year. It is the biggest increase ever in a one-time, one-year

increase. But to put it into perspective, over the last fifteen years, in nine

of those years there was no increase whatsoever and six of those years, out of

the fifteen, there has been less than a percent - .75 per cent, if I want to go

by the Minister of Finance's numbers. About less than a percent of an increase

in the six of the fifteen years, no increase in nine years. I know a lot of

times people say how much you have increased it, but until you compare it to

what went on - I am really pleased with that 5 per cent increase. It has been

the biggest in one shot.

What a lot of people - I found there were comments from some people who sort

of criticized it, I guess, is that they are forgetting about the indexing, which

I think is even bigger. In the next six years there will be indexing for six

years straight, which averages out now, with the consumer price index, of

approximately 3 per cent a year. So, a 5 per cent increase now, 3 per cent for

the next six years, that is 18 per cent. That is a 23 per cent increase in

income support rates in the next six years. I believe that is pretty

significant. Is it enough? It is never going to be enough when it comes to some

of these people who live in these circumstances, they will tell you, but I think

it is a step in the right direction. I just want to make that point in opening

it up tonight. It is one of the biggest initiatives for us in this department,

the 5 per cent, but keep in mind the indexing. That was a big part of the

initiative, and there are some other great initiatives in here that are similar

to the Housing ones, which sound like small amounts but they mean a lot to these

people.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am willing and ready to move on now to the questions

of the committee.

CHAIR: I am not sure if you wanted to start with some opening comments or

just go right on to the questions?

MR. BUTLER: Go right into, sir.

CHAIR: Give it to her.

MR. BUTLER: A lot of the ones I have here now is like that program that

used to be on, Reach for the Top. They are snappers. You get on the air and

(inaudible).

CHAIR: Short snappers.

MR. BUTLER: I have quite a few questions here and you might say some of

them, probably, go back - I know some of them go back before your time becoming

the minister and things like that.

MR. SHELLEY: Sure, yes. Fair enough.

MR. BUTLER: Just to begin: Are there any plans to open any of the HRLE

offices that were closed?

MR. SHELLEY: No.

MR. BUTLER: I told you they were snappers, didn't I?

MR. SHELLEY: No, no. That is fair enough, but I am dwelling on the

comment. I do not mean to be curt on answering.

This was a long process and there was a lot of thinking that went by your

Administration and discussions went on for a number of years, from my

understanding. I have been in this department for four years but I know what the

previous minister went through and so on. I just want to make this comment: No,

there are no plans to reopen any of those offices. But I will say this to you -

and this is something that I found out firsthand because I went through the

offices. The West Coast were the first people who put this new delivery system

in place. Yes, when you go through a transition of changes there are

differences, but the goal which your Administration started and we continued on

with, is to put more focus and emphasis on career and youth development, career

services and youth. That is exactly what it has done. It has proven that on the

West Coast. Basically, the actual getting in to check and the efficiencies with

the computer systems now and the telephone systems we have, CAPs and so on, it

works very well.

As a matter of fact, I believe these are the numbers - now, you can correct

me, officials - 90 per cent of the people for income support now use that

system. They do not want to come into the office. I can tell you, I know a lot

of people on that system. I know them firsthand. They do not want to go and

talk. They do not like the stigma of going into the office. We have it now - as

a matter of fact, it is so far advanced on the West Coast now that - also for

Brail and hard of hearing. Those are all available now and they are delighted

with it. We have had surveys done on the West Coast because they have had it the

longest. They certainly like it, that they can avail of the income support and

actually applying online.

As far as youth services, now in the offices there is more emphasis on

Career, Employment and Youth Services, CEYS they call it. That has been working

quite well, too. I understand that on the East Coast here now it is basically

progressing. Our new office is about to open here. I might be answering some of

the questions you are about to ask, but the new offices are about to open now.

We are going to see - I am quite confident now, after what we have seen on the

West Coast, because they are certainly a year ahead of us.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: At least a year ahead of us and other parts of the Province.

We are getting these results back from the clients as well as frontline workers.

They are quite satisfied with it, the fact that it is much more efficient, and

they do not have to walk into an office and go through that stigmatization, I

guess. I am pleased with how it is working so far.

MR. BUTLER: I agree with you, Minister, to a certain degree, but then I

go back - and I wasn't going to start here - to the Auditor General's report

again, where he stated the department - and I agree with you, it started with

the former Administration. To me, two wrongs don't make a right.

MR. SHELLEY: No, fair enough.

MR. BUTLER: The department made the requirement for home visits

discretionary in the mid-1990s because they determined that home visits did not

add significant value to ensuring that only eligible clients actually received

benefits.

Where I am coming from there, I really believe, back at that time, and I am

not saying you have to go back to that, but I believe that at the time when the

workers did do home visits there was less abuse in the system; they knew the

people they were dealing with.

Why I am bringing that up, the office closed in Bay Roberts and that was a

disappointment. Nobody wants to lose an office. They moved to Carbonear, where

most of their services were provided from. All of a sudden, you get a call from

a worker. Some of them could not get there for various reasons, they did not

have vehicles and what have you, but it was not that far away. Then, all of a

sudden, you get a call from a client, you call down and no, that is transferred

now to Placentia. Now the workers who are dealing with them are out in

Placentia. Now, only recently, you get calls from them again and say now, my

God, they are dealing with me in St. John's.

My question, Minister, and the concern that I have, is: If someone is dealing

with a client of mine from St. John's or Placentia, they do not know them. I

am going to tell you, there are some weird and wonderful things happening out

there. I believe that the old system - not saying you should go back to it.

Technology, like you said, people want to use that system, 90 per cent of them

or what have you, but there are times when some of those people, for various

reasons, cannot handle themselves on the phone. I am not talking about them all

now, maybe 5 or 10 per cent, but still. They liked to go in. They used to go in

and meet with their worker, and they had the greatest respect for their worker

and so on, but that is gone and a lot of them have concerns about that.

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, I want to say this to you: If that is

happening, where they are being bumped out to St. John's now, or Placentia or

whatever, it is only in this transitional phase. As that system goes in place

and the workers are trained, and all the training is done, which is ongoing

right now - as a matter of fact, I visited the Carbonear office and spoke to

every single staff, asked them what their job was, what they were doing and how

it was coming along. They talked about the changeover, and sometimes calls would

get bumped on, or so on, but I can tell the member that I think that will settle

down so that should not happen.

On the second point, I will say this to you: Yes, there is that personal

contact sometimes and that can still happen. We have liaison workers, liaison

social workers, who were put in place to deal with people who want that service.

You are right, it is a small percentage. I do not know if it is 5 per cent to 10

per cent, but it is certainly a small per cent of people who want that personal

contact. Certainly, they can come into the office for career services and so on,

but also there will be liaison social workers who will, if need be, deal with

people on a one-on-one basis. Over time, that will be available, too, as the

system becomes more efficient.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The savings, was there much saving from closing the twenty officer per se?

MR. SHELLEY: Overall, in savings - pardon?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It wasn't much. It was pretty well levelled off, so that

wasn't the reason for it. It was the efficiencies. The biggest focus of all

was because - there weren't a lot of savings because we transferred it into

career and youth services, job opportunities, job training. I can go through

dozens of initiatives that were focused on career and getting people back to

work. That is where the focus was. There have not been a lot of savings, but

there has been a shift in - I will simplify it for you - the fact that the

efficiency now of the program for income support, in other words getting the

cheque, is quite easy. It takes very little time. Computers (inaudible) programs

and so on. Now, less manpower per se is used on that. No savings were taken from

closing down the office but now the focus has gone back on career development

and youth services. It has been a shift from being more efficient and getting

cheques out as opposed to working with people on getting people back to work.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Mr. Butler.

I understand downstairs they are having some problem identifying speakers. At

this point here it is simply Mr. Butler and the minister, but if there is a new

speaker would you just mention your name before you begin to give an answer?

Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: Do you have to do many cheques manually now with the new

system in place or is that totally gone by the wayside?

MR. PENNEY: We still do some manual cheques but -

CHAIR: Mr. Penney.

MR. PENNEY: Sorry.

Wayne Penney, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

We still do some, but very minimally.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other question I have, if you would explain to me the type of system that

is in place for an on-call worker, like whether it is in the evenings or on a

weekend.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

MR. PENNEY: We have staff in place. Staff do it on a rotational basis.

After normal working hours, staff are available through an on-call number. I do

not know how many staff in total are involved in that, but I suspect there are

ten or a dozen who actually take turns doing the on-call and we reimburse them

accordingly.

MR. BUTLER: I will tell you why I asked you that. I had a particular

incident, maybe about three weeks ago, and the gentleman found out, I think it

was on a Wednesday, that he had to come into St. John's on Monday and then

come back again on Tuesday for surgery. He called his office in Carbonear on

Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and was unable to get a hold of his regular

worker. He didn't call me up to that point in time. Now, you know when he

called me; he called me on a Saturday. The office was closed.

I said, the only thing I can do is call an on-call worker. He said, I spoke

with them and they told me there is nothing they could do for me and I had to

call back to my regular worker Monday morning, but I have to be in St. John's

8:30 a.m. and they are not going to be in the office. If they are, there are

only going to be there while I get in St. John's.

The situation was transportation cost for him. I called the on-call worker

and it was no time after that when they called him back and said yes, we will

look after you on Monday morning but now you have to call your on-call worker to

take care of you on Tuesday, and that is understandable.

I am just wondering why the breakdown. Why did I have to call and he didn't

get that response?

MR. SHELLEY: I am going to make a comment first. I will make this comment

first: Three days, that is too much. I would say to the member, any time you get

a circumstance like this, I would like for you to get it to the department.

MR. BUTLER: I didn't know about it until (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no, but if you do, because what I am saying is, I don't

think that should happen. I will get a specific answer as to why it would take

three days, but I wouldn't think that it would take three days to get an

on-call worker. If it did, it would be an unusual circumstance.

MR. PENNEY: Just to clarify, Mr. Butler, as I understand it, it took

three days for the client to get hold of their regular worker? He could not get

hold to him?

MR. BUTLER: He told me, when he got word from the hospital, he called

them on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Whether he got a message manager or call

back again or whatever, he could not get any response, but he called me on

Saturday.

MR. PENNEY: Yes.

Not to divert away from your question, but with the new service delivery

model that we are introducing that will not happen in the sense that we will

have a group of staff - a client will not have to get hold to a worker, so when

they call there will be no message managers or voice mail. They will get real

people and be able to respond.

MR. BUTLER: Thank God!

MR. SHELLEY: I want to make this point. The last thing he said is

important, that they will be able to respond. With the computer systems, he will

not need to get his own specific worker. That person on call, at the flick of a

switch, basically, can have all of that information and give him the service

that he needs.

MR. BUTLER: I am all for this new system, if that is what it comes down

to.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Where I used to get ticked off with it, and disappointed into

it, when the office was in Bay Roberts there was no such a thing. The same

workers moved to Carbonear. It has nothing to do with your staff, let me assure

you, but when they were in Bay Roberts you make that call and within half an

hour or that afternoon they were back to you. They moved into Carbonear, I

guess, a bigger set-up, a bigger area, and the lines were blocked, their message

managers were full, and that type of thing. If the system that you are talking

about is going to be like that, no doubt that is going to be a good system.

MR. SHELLEY: It is. That is the plan.

MR. BUTLER: The other one, the appeal procedure - like, for instance, if

anyone has to go to an appeal - I know there are two levels. The first one is

the review, I think it is called, and then it is the Social Assistance Appeals

Board. That is that name change, right?

MR. SHELLEY: Internal review and then appeals board, yes.

MR. BUTLER: I always thought there was a fairly quick turnaround. Then,

again, when you hear a particular case and someone calls you and says, I

appealed three or four weeks ago and I am still waiting for a reply. Then I call

the regional office and they call me back and say that it is gone to St. John's

for about two weeks. I call in to Mrs. Sampson, I think her name is, Sharon

Sampson - and, by the way, I am not complaining about any of the workers, don't

get me wrong, I wouldn't want one thing said to any of them because they are

all darn good workers - she said: Mr. Butler, I am sorry, I don't have

anything on it. So, she said, I will call back to the office in Carbonear, which

she did, and when she called me back she said: I only got it yesterday.

Here I come back again. I say, I know those workers. I have worked with them

since 1989, when I was an executive assistant, and I was thinking, this new

system, this is not working very good if there is a breakdown and some poor

bugger is waiting for his appeal to come thought over a month, back and forth.

Probably that is not the case, again, but I am just wondering, have you had

any major problems like that, or any other...?

MR. SHELLEY: I want to make a comment on that. First of all, that would

be very unusual for that long. I have not heard that long unless it is a

particular case. If you can get us some particulars we will certainly check it

out and investigate it for you.

MR. BUTLER: I can give you the name; that is not a problem.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and we will check it out. It is the longest I have

heard of, and the officials have been here a lot longer than I have, but is that

very unusual?

I want to make this comment, though. I can tell you, again, from the West

Coast, because they a year ahead, I went out on the ground out there and met

will all the officials, the people on the front line, went through this, and I

have been told by the people sitting at the desk and using this new system, who

have been in this department for years, saying that now they are decreasing the

number of appeals because they have actually corrected it - and no need for any

further appeal - within minutes of being on that computer system that is in

place now, because the information was corrected at the touch a button. Again,

they went back and they are actually getting to a point now where they can do

appeals within minutes, or certainly hours. It is very quick, and as this system

moves in through the Avalon and in through Central, I am hopeful and I am pretty

confident that we are going to see much, much shorter time for appeals. That is

one of the benefits, as a matter of fact, of this new system, that appeals will

be much shorter and much more effectively handled.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler, before you go on, did you want to finish up and then

we will switch to Mr. Collins, or did you want to switch and refuel?

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You can go on, it doesn't matter.

MR. BUTLER: I have three or four here and then I will go to Randy. Then I

will do the other few, if that's okay, Randy.

MR. SHELLEY: Whatever you want to do.

MR. BUTLER: The figure we have heard, I know it was in the Throne Speech

and we have heard it since then, I think 47 per cent of new entrants into the

system last year were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. I was just

wondering, do you have a breakdown of what regions, or are they all about equal,

what percentage would be for - is it any particular area? Would it be the

greater St. John's area or out in the outports?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't have it at my fingertips. I don't know if you

are going to comment on it, but we could certainly break that down region by

region. The only stat we have is th