PDF Version

May 2,

SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis,

substitutes for Tracey Perry, MHA for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South,

substitutes for Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail Paradise.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lorraine Michael, MHA for St. John's East Quidi

Vidi, substitutes for Gerry Rogers, MHA for St. John's Centre.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Finn, MHA for Stephenville Port au Port,

substitutes for Betty Parsley, MHA for Harbour Main.

The

Committee met at approximately 6:10 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Dempster):

Okay, if everybody is

ready, we'll begin.

Welcome

to the Estimates of Municipal Affairs and Environment. Before we get started, I

want to make note that we have some substitutions this evening. Mr. Parsons is

sitting in for Ms. Perry; Mr. Petten is sitting in for Mr. Davis; Ms. Michael is

sitting in for Ms. Rogers; and Mr. Finn is sitting in for Ms. Parsley.

We do

have minutes from this morning, the Department of Health and Community Services,

under the Social Services Committee, May 2. I need a motion to adopt those

minutes.

moved by Ms. Haley.

motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

I will start by letting the

minister introduce his team and offer a few opening remarks.

MR. JOYCE:

Eddie Joyce, Minister.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Jamie Chippett, Deputy Minister.

MS. SPURRELL:

Dana Spurrell, Assistant Deputy Minister.

MS. TIZZARD:

Heather Tizzard, Assistant Deputy Minister.

MR. LETTO:

Graham Letto, Parliamentary Secretary.

MS. HAYES:

Robyn Hayes, Departmental Controller.

MS. DOGURGA:

Sherrie-Lynn Dogurga, Minister's EA.

MS. SHEA: Erin

Shea, Communications Director.

CHAIR: Okay.

Mr. Parsons, the first responder, gets 15 minutes and then

we will go back and forth 10 and 10.

Mr. Parsons.

CLERK (Proudfoot):

Subhead 1.1.01.

MR. JOYCE: Can

I have a few opening remarks?

CHAIR: My

apologies, Minister. I'm really getting ahead of myself here. Go right ahead.

MR. JOYCE:

That's all right, Madam Chair, I know I'm pretty quiet and people don't notice

me.

First

of all, if it's okay with the Third Party, we're going to do Environment first.

One of the Members has a commitment that he wanted to try to get to by 7 o'clock

in his district, so we agreed to that.

I'm

just going to read a small prepared statement that we have just for a few

minutes. When we start Environment, just to let you know, it's on 4.1.01 of the

binder that I just passed out. That's where Environment starts when you want to

start asking questions.

February 22, 2017, the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment was

formed to advance the economic, social and environmental sustainability of

municipalities, communities and regions through the delivery of effective

programs, services and supports. This new department encompasses parts of the

former Department of Municipal Affairs, Department of Environment and Climate

Change and Fire and Emergency Services.

It is

structured as Municipal Infrastructure and Support Branch, which includes the

Municipal Finance Division, infrastructure and Engineering Division and

Municipal Support Division; second, Environmental Management and Control branch,

which includes the Pollution Prevention Division, Environmental Assessment

Division and Water Resources Management Division; and the Fire, Emergency and

Corporate Services Branch which includes Fire Protection Services Division,

emergency management service division, Local Governance and Planning Division,

Policy and Strategic Planning Division and Strategic Financial Management

Division.

I'll

just read out the priorities. The priorities for the department for the fiscal

year 2017-'18 include: amendments to the

Assessment Act, 2006 based on the results of the review process carried out

during the last year; conducting a comprehensive review of the municipal

legislative framework; moving forward with regional governments consultations;

beginning implementation of a new three-year multi-infrastructure program which

will provide better access to water and waste water systems and advance regional

collaboration through sharing of infrastructure and services; development of a

new drinking quality action plan; review of the environmental assessment process

to make it more responsive and efficient; and continuation of remediation of

contaminated sites.

These

priorities were included in the department's zero-based budgeting submission as

well as the requirements for the effective and efficient operation of the

department. Through this exercise, the Department of Municipal Affairs and

Environment was able to achieve savings of over $762,000. This exercise allowed

us to build our budget from the ground up. It was not about cutting budgets and

programs, but gaining an understanding of where the funding is required and

finding greater efficiencies across the table.

The

department's 2017-'18 budget reflects a net decrease of almost $8.7 million in

2016-2017. This is due in large part to leveraging federal funding, where

possible, but especially towards the municipal infrastructure program. Budget

2017-'18 commits $142.2 million under municipal the infrastructure program, with

almost 50 per cent being federally funded.

While

The Way Forward consolidated

engineering services within one department, the Department of Municipal Affairs

and Environment retained its engineers. The Department of Municipal Affairs and

Environment has 229 employees of which two are political support staff, six are

executive, 51 are management and 170 are bargaining units. The total salary

budget for 2017-'18 is $16.69 million. We are located throughout the province

with 10 office locations.

Madam

Chair, that will be my opening remarks and I'm assuming we're going to go with

the Member for CBS and Environment first.

MS. MICHAEL:

Can I suggest that we

introduce ourselves?

CHAIR:

You certainly can.

right ahead, Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Lorraine Michael, St. John's

East Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP Caucus.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Kevin Parsons, MHA for the

beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.

MS. BONIA:

Laurie Bonia, Researcher, Official Opposition.

MR. PETTEN:

Barry Petten, MHA for CBS.

MR. REID:

Scott Reid, MHA for St.

George's Humber.

MR. FINN:

John Finn, Stephenville

Port au Port.

MS. HALEY:

Carol Anne Haley, Burin Grand Bank.

MR. WARR:

Brian Warr, Baie Verte

Green Bay.

CLERK:

Subhead 4.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 carry?

Mr.

Petten.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much.

Thanks,

Minister. I got just a few questions to ask before we get to the if you're

okay with that.

MR. JOYCE:

It is all according to what they are.

MR. PETTEN:

They are not too bad.

Minister, the chemical water testing that was announced there about a month ago

I'm not sure, I got it there somewhere for the towns that water testing

wasn't done in those towns, it was going to be done over a 10-day period and the

results would be released. Has that been done? Have results been ?

MR. JOYCE:

Most of the towns' results

have been back. Part of the policy of the department is to wait for them all to

come in and they'll all be sent out at the same time. So that should be done

later this week or early next week.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

But the preliminary results

are saying there's no increase.

Just

for your information, there are two types of testing. There's one being done

every month. The part that wasn't being done was more for like iron and other

things in the water. So there was testing done every month, but the part that

wasn't done was done on a quarterly basis, and that's more for any chemicals in

the water: iron. And if there's any change in that, that usually goes over a

number of years.

But the

part that was done was for example, is if a moose falls in the water, there'd

be a spike in the water itself. In that case, that is being done every month

hasn't changed, that part. The other

part is quarterly. The results that we have

back are that there has been no change in any of the water systems. So they will

be posted either later this week or early next week.

MR. PETTEN:

So there was no risk of any

harm to anyone drinking it?

MR. JOYCE:

No, absolutely not.

And

just on that case, when we verified it on a Tuesday night, Wednesday the staff

contacted every town. The LSD tracked them down and said here's what's going on.

We had conference calls the next day. I think five towns were on one day. I

think there may have been four or five on the next day saying here's what we're

doing. We've been in constant contact with them. When we get all the results,

which we should have later this week or early next week, it will be posted

online, sent out en masse to every town, and that's the way we do it anyway.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

So they will be online.

MR. PETTEN:

The composting facility in

the Argentia Access Road, the EA, when is the expected completion or release

date or decision date on ?

MR. JOYCE:

The information on that, I

think, the final submissions are May 20 and the decision is May 25.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

Minister, recently in the

news, CFIB also made a motion about the fee for the iceberg water, the

harvesting fee. Two quick questions; two basic questions on that: What's the

anticipated revenue from this? It's a $5,000 fee, right?

MR. JOYCE:

I think it's $45,000. I

think the revenue is $45,000. I have been in contact with one of the operators.

There is a second one who called me. I haven't called him back yet, but I will.

We are speaking to them and I'm not sure what's going to happen to it, but I

think the revenue was $45,000 for it.

Part of

that is that there is a fee for the water plus a licensing fee.

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah.

MR. JOYCE:

It all came together at the

same time. That's why you have the massive increase. We are speaking

(inaudible).

MR. PETTEN:

So you have gotten

complaints, I guess, or there were concerns raised about it?

MR. JOYCE:

Oh yes, we got complaints;

we spoke to people. We got it from the small business Vaughn Hammond, I think;

got a letter from him, also.

MR. PETTEN:

That is right, yes.

MR. JOYCE:

We have received concerns

about that, and I have spoken to one of them down in which one was it, down in

OFFICIAL:

Twillingate.

MR. JOYCE:

Down in Twillingate I spoke

to him, and there was another person who called that I haven't called back yet,

but I will call back.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

One

more question before I get to the lines. MMSB, you're responsible for it now, so

I have two questions on that, basically. What role is the department playing

with the MMSB now? We don't hear a lot about the Multi-Materials Stewardship

Board. And who is the present chair of it?

MR. JOYCE:

It's moving right now the

MMSB is still under the Department of Environment. You don't hear much about it

because they're doing a good job of it, and they're raising money for the other

volunteer organizations in I'm not sure who's the chair.

MR. CHIPPETT:

I am.

MR. JOYCE:

I know, I'm joking Jamie.

MR. PETTEN:

Question answered.

MR. JOYCE:

So there has been a lot of

activity. I met with the executive director over there, as you know, on numerous

occasions, who is the deputy for it. So there has been a lot of work done with

the MMSB. There are some new proposals that they're bringing up. They're moving

forward with a lot of good initiatives and, as you know, a lot of the money they

receive goes back to volunteer groups. If you don't hear it, it means they're

doing well.

MR. PETTEN:

Section 4.1.01 on Pollution

Prevention under Environmental Management and Control, Environmental Management,

Salaries are down by almost $185,000. What's the reason for this?

MR. CHIPPETT:

So that was a part of our management structure review. In that process we

created a new position to encompass the duties of two former positions. So

there's a reduction in one management person. In addition to that, there's an

MOU that we signed with Health Canada that supports pesticide inspection. At the

time of the budget being done that hadn't been signed, but that would be another

reduction you would see there in Salaries. When we sign that MOU again, we would

recoup that revenue and we would provide those services on behalf of Health

Canada.

MR. PETTEN:

So what position in

particular was eliminated? What was the ?

MR. CHIPPETT:

So there were two previous managers. The two managers were a manager for waste

management and a manager for environmental science. Those two positions and the

responsibilities are now in a single management position for environmental

science and waste management.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Transportation and Communications, the decrease last year and increase now, it

is not a lot, but what is the reason for that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I think just generally in terms of travel costs being down the year before

that's why we didn't spend the full $71,000.

MR. PETTEN:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The $60,000 reflects our

zero-based budgeting submission, more in line than what we would expect to

travel, for people to travel. Part of that includes I'm sure you're going to

ask about the Purchased Services as well. So given the less travel to Hopedale

for work in the upcoming year, we'll be gearing up for the following year. That

explains why our travel budget is down, transportation budget is down.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

So when

you say you're zero-based on transportation, do you take that figure just based

on how historical do you go with that amount?

MR. CHIPPETT:

You want an idea of what makes up that figure. Freight and courier costs are a

part of it, cellular phones are fairly standard in that line item, then the

divisional travel to build up to that relates to, in particular,

federal-provincial committees the department would be a part of. There's a big

list of them. As an example, the Canadian Council of Ministers for the

Environment, travel to that would be funded under this line item and travel site

visits as well. So if we're working on a contaminated site somewhere, all of

that would build into that $60,000.

MR. PETTEN:

I guess I didn't make it

clear. So you come up with $60,000 for this year's budget. Last year it was

$71,000 and there was $56,000 spent, so you budgeted $60,000.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

So is that a fair estimate

based on how many years back over the budgets, or is that just a figure based on

last year's spending?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right. This is a buildup of what we anticipate doing this year

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So building from the ground up, not a focus on historical spending. As I said,

going through the number of federal-provincial meetings we would expect to do,

the number of cellphones that we have to fund out of that activity, what we

anticipate as freight and courier freight, delivery costs, and that would make

up your $60,000.

MR. PETTEN:

Under Professional Services,

I guess both of them together, Professional and Purchased Services, a big drop.

Well, it is an increase over what was revised, but there was a big drop over

what was budgeted last year: $275,000 down from $518,000.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So there are two pieces

going on there. The main item I'll speak to first what the Professional

Services budget for '17-'18 is. That's the $250,000 that was announced in the

budget for environmental site assessments of military radar sites in Labrador.

Last

year, the $518,000 would have been budgeted based on the professional services

associated with the Hopedale remediation. There was funding in there for Shoal

Point and some of the work that was done there and work for, generally, the

department's work on impacted sites.

As you

can see, when I jump to Purchased Services, this year the focus with respect to

Hopedale is negotiating a federal-provincial agreement with the federal

government to gear up for the following fiscal year which will be the final

contract for land-based remediation in Hopedale.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

The two

revenue items there, federal and provincial I know federal is down to nothing

but your provincial revenue what do both of those entail, I guess? The

provincial revenue is really a big drop, almost a million dollars.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The provincial revenue

relates to funding or revenue from the Multi-Material Stewardship Board that had

been used to assist with the environmental cleanup in Hopedale. So again that

lines up with the reduction in the Purchased Services that we talked about.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So that's why we're down to

the $164,600. The federal government revenue is the MOU with Health Canada that

we talked about previously with respect to pesticides. So that just wasn't

renewed at the time of the budget being done.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

4.2.01

CHAIR:

Mr. Petten, we haven't

called that yet.

MR. PETTEN:

Oh, I am sorry.

CHAIR:

If it's okay with you, even

though you have three minutes on the clock, I'll just move to Ms. Michael and

let her ask her questions on 4.1.01.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Actually, any question I was

going to ask has been asked by Mr. Petten.

CHAIR:

Pardon me?

MS. MICHAEL:

My questions have been asked

by Mr. Petten, so I won't repeat.

CHAIR:

Okay, so you're okay for me

to call that?

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm okay to vote, yes.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subhead 4.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

4.2.01 to 4.2.02 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.2.01 to 4.2.02

carry?

Mr.

Petten, would you like to finish your remaining ?

MR. PETTEN:

Thanks again.

I'll

get the right page here. There's a slight increase in the Salaries of $1,800

compared to Estimates last year. Was there any reason for this? I'll explain

myself better than that.

Based

on the Estimates last year, the 2016-2017 Estimates, it showed a budgeted amount

of $1.909 million well $1,909,700. Now this year it is $1,911,500, but the

numbers don't add up to the starting amount transferred over to this year's

Estimates. Do you know what I'm trying to say?

we're starting off with $1,911,500. Last year the figure was $1,909,700, but it

seems like the starting figure doesn't add up to last year's figure.

MR. CHIPPETT:

As I understand it, any

differences with respect to what was in the

Estimates book and what's reported

this year would be well, the budget, the revised number could be different

based on what was actually spent. I'm not sure I can answer your question based

on the budget.

MR. PETTEN:

Last year, the budgeted

amount for 2016-2017 in the Estimates documents was $1,909,700. This year, under

the 2016-'17, under the budgeted amount, which was basically a carry forward, is

$1,800 more.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Okay.

MR. PETTEN:

The starting figure doesn't

add up to the Estimates from last year.

MR. CHIPPETT:

I'm going to delegate that

one to Robyn.

MS. HAYES:

There was an adjustment made

during the year for Labrador benefits. That's why there's a slight difference of

$1,800.

MR. PETTEN:

So it happened during the

year?

MS. HAYES:

During the year, yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay. Perfect.

Under

Salaries, the reduction of $259,000 in Salaries from what was budgeted last

year, what's the reason for that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The main difference in

Salaries in this item, again, relates to two things; one is a similar process

here as to what we described in the previous item with respect to two management

positions being combined into a single item, into a single position. And then

there was also a salary forecast reduction, which was basically a decision in

the previous budget of $100,000. But that was offset by $60,000 for Job

Evaluation System and salary step increases. So you've got all those things

going on, but the overall decrease is the $259,000.

MR. PETTEN:

How many positions were

eliminated in that did you say?

MR. CHIPPETT:

This year there was one position eliminated.

MR. PETTEN: A

manager?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Which was two managers becoming one manager.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications is the drop of it

seemed like a bit from estimates to revised, spent less; it's at $201,000 this

year down from $271,000, but it only revised at $186,000. What would be the

reason for that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In terms of the $271,000 to the $186,000 the big difference there was helicopter

time. We didn't require as much helicopter time under that particular item. Then

in terms of the Transportation and Communications for '17-'18 it was a result,

again, of the zero-based budgeting process. So again building from the ground up

$201,700 was the tally for what we knew would have to be expended under that

item.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Professional Services has a drop of $200,000 or thereabouts

$180,000 from last year to this year.

MR. CHIPPETT:

That's the same basic rationale in terms of the decrease is the zero-based

budgeting exercise. Just to give you an idea of what's in Professional Services

here, we're talking about consultants in particular, for example, weather

forecasting. So we do weather forecasting, as you know, for Badger for ice and

potential flooding. We do satellite imagery for Badger for the same purpose. We

do hurricane alerts. So when you see Environment Canada do their forecast and so

on, that data is fed into our consultant who develops models to inform certain

communities that in this particular event you may be subject to flooding because

of a hurricane alert.

We have

consulting services in there for the next phase of our dam safety inventory. So

it's basically a buildup of the contracts we know that we will enter into for

Professional Services. Some of those carry over from other years.

You'd

be familiar with, for example, the boil-water advisory reduction initiative

under Community Sustainability Partnership. That's still ongoing three years

after. So that would be one of the things we would be using that funding for.

MR. PETTEN:

Under the revenue, two

revenue items there, federal and provincial, I guess I'll basically lump them

together. What does both of those entail, those revenues? What are they ?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The federal revenue, the $50,000, is funding that the Department of Environment

and Climate Change, at the time, applied for under the National Disaster

Mitigation Program. So there's actually about $100,000 worth of work that needs

to be done to update our dam safety inventory in Labrador, but the federal

government are contributing $50,000 towards that expenditure.

On the

provincial side, it's basically higher revenue for application fees and so on.

For example, the issue you raised earlier with the minister, this is where you

would see some of those fee increases show up.

MR. PETTEN:

On that point, Jamie,

because that was something I was wondering too, there were a number of fees in

Water Resources increased last year; it doesn't appear that after there has been

a huge increase in revenue. Would I be accurate in that assessment?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I think that's accurate based on the numbers, but I guess I'll give you one

example. As the minister referred to earlier, the licensing fee, for example for

somebody who bottles water it is often a five-year licence. So it would only be

as those five years would come up that that licence fee would be charged again.

Whereas, the water-use fees are based on the amount of water that somebody would

use, so those would be annual charges which would be fairly consistent and you'd

be able to predict based on whatever the type of industry was and how much water

would be reported by that industry as being used. But it's difficult to predict

exactly the water-use licence fees because it happens as

MR. PETTEN:

So there used to be peaks

and valleys in that fund, I assume, is it?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Those

are all my questions on that section, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just

have some general questions. I had all those line item ones so they're taken

care of. One of the things that you cover is the administration of the

hydrometric agreements with the federal government. The last report we can find

goes back to 2011, I think it was. Could you give us some sense of what's

happening there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We continue to be a part of

that agreement. I don't have a detailed answer to your question, but I can

certainly get one and send one to you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Please.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Basically, the hydrometric

agreement and the data from that in particular are used around water flows and

volumes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So used by a lot of

industry, but also the general public for recreational perspectives and so on

and people for planning from a municipal perspective in terms of what water

flows they may see. In terms of details, we'll certainly get you an answer on

that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

I know

that the number fluctuates, but there are a lot of numbers that are constant for

many years. Do you have the latest figures on the number of boil-water

advisories and the number of communities? Or is that in the binder?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's not in the binder. I do

have an answer though. Actually, I'll give you the answer based on a specific

date.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

As of March 31 of this year,

the number of boil-water advisories is 193. It's actually the first time in over

the amount of time the department was keeping records, which started in 2001,

that we're less than 200 boil-water advisories in the province.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's good to hear.

MR. JOYCE:

Just a note on that, Madam

Chair. What we're working with, with a lot of municipalities, a lot of

municipalities have a chlorination system, but they don't like the taste of

chlorine so they don't use the system. That's the struggle for us to say you

should use it, but a lot just won't.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. JOYCE:

You can't force them to use

it, so we're trying to put incentives in place to help people. It is working.

It's gradual.

We had

one town that was on it for 20 years. They're finally off it and we're working

with them. We are picking the ones that we feel want to get help, need help and

the ones that are saying: Okay, come, what can we do here? We have people in

place that are and we're gradually knocking it down bit by bit. But a lot of is

some towns just don't want chlorinated water. There's nothing you can do. You

can't force them.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is there any area in the

province where it's more concentrated than others or is this sort of fairly

evenly spread out?

MR. JOYCE:

It's broadly based.

MS. MICHAEL:

Broadly based, okay. Thank

you.

Could

you give us an update on our participation and the Atlantic Climate Adaptation

Solutions Association that we're members of, and what is happening?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We are, and we still participate. I think we're near the end of the funding for

that, though. The Climate Change office actually participates on some of the

committees under that, so you might wish to direct a question that way.

MS. MICHAEL:

To that way, yes, of course.

Could

we have an update on the groundwater pollution around the Torbay airport, what's

happening there with regard to the remediation by the federal government?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I'd have to check and get you I'm familiar with the issue that you raise, but

I'd have to get a recent update on where discussions are. I know there were

discussions with the federal government, and of course you're referring to the

stuff around the airport and the firefighting substance and so on.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We could certainly look into that for you and get you an answer.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

Yes, it

had to do when they had the federal firefighting training down there.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, thank you.

That

question was asked already. I think that's it for me for 4.2.01.

CHAIR:

I'll call the next one, Ms.

Michael.

4.2.02

is (inaudible).

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

I just

have one question there and it's the provincial revenue. So 4.2.02, the

provincial revenue, $89,300 less used of the total last year and back up to the

$922,300 this year. Why that $89,300 difference, or drop last year?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That is, as I understand it so this is the water quality monitoring agreement

and

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

used to measure quality in ambient water bodies, not drinking water, per se,

but any pond or water body in the province that we test. It really reflects the

payment of invoices, so there's an industry piece to this as well.

In some

cases, industry is billed from the perspective of some of the water quality

monitoring stations they have. So there'd be one for Vale, there'd be one for

Long Harbour and so on. This was just the timing in when invoices were paid, so

the full amount didn't come in, in the past fiscal year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

This

has not been the question written by my researcher and he might say why is she

asking that, but it is just dawning on me it would be difficult I suppose to

do it. Do we have a sense of the percentage of our water in the province that is

fairly clean?

MR. CHIPPETT:

If you mean generally

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

in terms of all the water

bodies and so on, we'd be able to get you a printout of results for particular

water bodies. Anywhere we test under this agreement

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

the lens on that is the

recreational guidelines from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So it wouldn't be the same

as bacteriologically or chemically what we'd test drinking water for

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

but I think generally

speaking we have fairly high-quality water. One of the issues which do manifest

itself in drinking water systems is high amount of organic material which can

lead to some of the chemical by-products when they interact with chlorine. But I

think overall, from a recreational perspective, we're in pretty good shape.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's my sense; I think of

all the places, even just around St. John's, where we swim in the summer. So

that's what I'm thinking about. I think it is something we should be proud of

actually.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Sure.

MS. MICHAEL:

So to just get a sense of

how much of that is the case. Thank you very much. So that wasn't a bad

question.

That's

all the questions I have up to there, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Petten, I don't know if you had more questions up to 4.2.02 and if you don't,

your colleague does have one.

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah, I have a couple and I

was going to say my colleague has a question to ask too. I only have a couple.

Under

the provincial revenue under this division, what's included? Where does that

revenue come from, I guess?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Is this 4.2.02?

MR. PETTEN:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Okay, I just wanted to be

sure.

As I

said earlier, these relate to real-time water quality stations.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT: S o

I'll give you an example of some other examples. I mentioned Vale, Voisey's Bay,

Long Harbour, IOC, Tech Duck Pond operations, Nalcor-Lower Churchill,

Nalcor-Exploits, Wabush Mines, Canada Fluorspar, Deer Lake Power.

We run

these water quality monitoring stations on behalf of the companies and they pay

us basically for doing that and for collecting that data on their behalf.

They're usually set up as a condition coming out of environmental assessment.

MR. PETTEN:

On that note, being the

Environment critic and also the critic for Climate Change, am I right in saying

that Minister Trimper is still with the methylmercury file? That's what we've

been told. I just wanted clarity because I know that this part here, that's what

you're monitoring basically in those, is the methylmercury with that water.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are two real

responsibilities in terms of methylmercury; one, Minister Trimper will be the

lead spokesperson for the government, the lead minister with respect to the

independent expert appointments advisory commission. But the legislation that

relates to water resources or environmental protection is the responsibility of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment. So from a strictly regulatory

perspective Minister Joyce is the responsible minister.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

One

other question; it's basically a general question to do with the full

environmental management control, so I guess I'm talking about the full

environmental piece here. What are the overall reductions in that division, the

total number of positions that have been reduced? Do you have a general answer

or ?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In these sections?

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah, in overall because

it's all under your Environmental Management and Control under your

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right. The only thing that

would have been implemented with respect to this budget would have been the two

management positions. Robyn, am I correct?

MS. HAYES:

Two management.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Two management positions

where we combined duties of two managers together. Otherwise, obviously there

are differences from the whole department perspective because of Climate Change

office being part of Executive Council and

MR. PETTEN:

Wildlife and natural areas

and stuff.

MR. CHIPPETT:

wildlife and parks and so on. But in terms of reductions based on this budget,

there were two management positions: one in Water Resources and one in Pollution

Prevention.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Before

I pass it to my colleague, I'd ask a quick question. Earlier when I started my

general question, the minister answered under the water testing. It was a

follow-up. Why was there a lapse in the testing?

MR. JOYCE:

First of all, there was

testing done with the bacteriological testing which is done on a monthly basis.

That was done. That's, for example, if a moose falls in and it would cause an

immediate spike in the water if there's a problem with the water.

The

other

part is the chemical wasn't done. There was an issue out in the area.

We're going to find out exactly why it happened, but just to let you know, the

testing has been done. The next quarter starts in May. There is a plan in place

to have it done late May, to start again, to get on the same cycle as before.

We will

find out exactly what slipped up there from that and we'll make it public we

may make it public; it's all according to what the reason is. But I can assure

you there were no unsafe hazards to the water because it is over the long term.

There may be chemicals in the water, the sediments from the rock that's there

from the last 1,000 years, that's part of it.

But we

can assure you and the public that it has been done, it will be done in the

future, and we will find out and put safeguards in that it doesn't happen again.

MR. PETTEN:

I'll pass it off to my

college to ask a question.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Jamie, a question on the

Torbay airport and the water in the Torbay airport issue because

CHAIR:

Mr. Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Sorry.

I just

have a little follow-up from Ms. Michael's question on that. I know there are

eight wells that are dug there around the airport area: four are deep and four

are shallow wells to test. It is in my district, by the way. There are also two

rivers they're testing. One's called Kelly's river and the other one is called

south brook river. I know the town had some concerns over that about the

reporting that comes from I think it comes from Transport Canada as part of

Environment Canada.

So if

you could do anything on that to probably find out what they were. I know last

year the department went down and had a public meeting at the Jack Byrne Arena

and gave the results, but it was a while before that the Town of Torbay in

that area right now there's a development problem. They're only allowed to

develop so many homes in the area. There's also a thing with the Jack Byrne

Arena that they're looking to do an expansion and that's going to be called in

question to. So if you could give us an update on that, I'd really appreciate it

and give it to the town.

MR. JOYCE:

Just to let the Member know,

we did meet with the town council on that. We did go through it and we agreed to

help the town.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. JOYCE:

But we'll do what we can to

(inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

We sat in the House of

Assembly the night that you did it and I couldn't get down.

CHAIR:

Okay. So everybody's good

with that section?

CLERK:

Shall subhead 4.2.01

CHAIR:

I'll just get a motion to

pass that first.

CLERK:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.2.01 to 4.2.02

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 4.2.01 through 4.2.02 carried.

CLERK:

4.3.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.3.01 carry?

Mr.

Petten.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Salaries have increased by $86,000. What's the reason for this?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The increase in the salary vote pertains to new funding that is offset by

provincial revenue for environmental monitors in the Bay du Nord Wilderness

area. So it would have been publicly advertised, and WERAC would have done

consultations on the transmission line that's being constructed from Bay

d'Espoir to Soldier's Pond.

Given

that was basically in the bottom sliver, if I can use that word, of the Bay du

Nord Wilderness area, while the construction is happening we will have monitors

on the ground. In fact, that arrangement started last year. So you'll see

some of the revenue in the preceding year, and that's why the revised number for

salaries last year was up as well, it reflects funding we received.

Also, there was some funding in the Fisheries and Land

Resources Department, Wildlife Division, to monitor that construction and ensure

it happens in an environmentally acceptable manner.

MR. PETTEN: So

why, under Transportation and Communications, it's a jump from $20,000 to

$77,000?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The same reason; basically, operational funding to support the monitors in that

area.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Does your Purchased Services I know it's not a big amount

now. It went from $10,000 down to $6,000 and back up. It's budgeted at $9,500.

What's included, I guess is my question, under Purchased Services? It's only a

small amount.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Some of it reflects the new budget funding, but there was also a so it's an

offset between the new budget funding and then our zero-based budgeting process.

I'll just give you an idea of what's funded out of that

line in this division. If you look at Purchased Services, you've got vehicle

maintenance and repair. Xerox and printing/copier costs are a common item. There

would also be some purchased services around advertising. For example, if we are

doing public meetings we have a commitment to review the environmental

assessment legislation. We do public consultation or meetings around that, or

newspaper ads for some particular reason, then that would be a part of that line

item.

Again,

building from the bottom up; that's the Bay du Nord money, the advertising

funding, Xerox and printing/copier costs, and vehicle repair and maintenance.

MR. PETTEN:

Professional Services, why

was it just a one-time, $19,800 expense for the last year under the revised?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That was the funding for the methylmercury workshop that the government

convened. There was no budget for Professional Services but there was a

facilitator to be a part of that workshop.

MR. PETTEN:

Under your Revenue and

Provincial, $298,000, is that as a result of the increase to environmental

assessment fees from last year? Is that where the revenue is being reflected

there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The biggest difference I think is the monitor position. I think we left the

budget, in terms of the environmental assessment fees, the same as in the past.

Is that right?

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CHIPPETT:

So a $4,200 increase was the only difference in the environmental assessment fee

part of it.

As you

know, it's very difficult to predict because you don't know how many projects

are going to be registered and you don't necessarily know the level to which

they will be investigated. If it's an EPR there's a certain fee, if it's an

Environmental Impact Statement it's a certain fee. So it's difficult to be

specific about the revenue projection in terms of environmental assessment fees.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

One

other question, I guess it's more in the general term but I guess it's to do

earlier with environment where there was a lot of divisions were moved about

within other departments. We probably got it, but some kind of breakdown of

where everything went and where it's responsible. I know it's not as easy to

follow when you're on our side trying to find it.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right.

MR. PETTEN:

Even the methylmercury file,

we discovered is with Mr. Trimper, for more clarity because from my end of it,

I'm critic for both of them pretty well everything out of environment, but I'm

trying to find it. I found most of it but it would be nice to have it clearer

and provide some kind of breakdown to show us more because I know the

methylmercury file is a prime example. Monitoring carbon emissions, is that done

MR. CHIPPETT:

From a monitoring

perspective, anything that would be a legislative responsibility. That would be

one; that would be in our budget.

Even

from a methylmercury perspective, the budget for the work rests in the Water

Resources division, but Minister Trimper has been designated by the government

as the lead government spokesperson on that particular file.

MR. PETTEN:

So when we say carbon

emissions, they're being monitored by the department.

MR. CHIPPETT:

From a modelling

perspective, if it's projecting what the emissions would be and so on, the

Climate Change office would be responsible for that.

MR. PETTEN:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

But as the climate change

regulations or legislation is brought into force, then it would be monitored

through our Pollution Prevention Division.

MR. PETTEN:

Pollution Prevention, right

on.

I think

that's it for me on that section.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd

just like to get clarification on the Provincial Revenue; I didn't quite get

your answer to Mr. Petten. It's $152,200 more budgeted from last year's

estimate, and add another $50,000 on to that if you look at the revision. I

didn't quite get a full clear answer as to why it's so much more this year.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The biggest increase is with

respect to the revenue for the Bay du Nord environmental monitor.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So the increase of $152,200

reflects the revenue from Nalcor, from Hydro, the proponent for that

transmission line.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So as a part of that going

on they provide the funding but then we hire the environmental monitor and

actually do the purchase of equipment or vehicle or what have you for the

environmental monitor.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So that's the biggest part

of the increase in revenue.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The other piece is the

$4,200?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The $4,200 would relate to

increased projected fees from environmental assessment particulars

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, I got that part but I

didn't have a full explanation of the first part. So that's helpful.

Where

does that expenditure then show up when that money goes out for the monitoring,

for example?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In salaries in particular

for the positions.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So $83,000 is for the Bay du

Nord project under Salaries, Transportation and Communications and Supplies, in

particular, have increases as well for the Bay du Nord position.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

That's

all I have.

MR. JOYCE:

Madam Chair, for a second?

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. JOYCE:

In the spirit of

co-operation, which we're always into, if the Member for CBS wants a flow chart,

we can send you a flow chart of the department so we know where each department,

division is in. We could do that up and forward that to you in the next day or

two, no problem whatsoever.

MR. PETTEN:

I'd appreciate that.

Thanks.

CHAIR:

If there are no further

questions, we'll call that, from either party.

Shall

4.3.01 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subhead 4.3.01 carried.

CHAIR:

I guess now we will flip

back to the beginning.

CLERK:

1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much.

Under

the spirit of co-operation, like the minister just said, my very first thing is

I'd like to get a review and an overview of the restructuring of your

department, and have an organizational chart with all the branches, divisions

and responsibilities for your department given to us.

MR. JOYCE:

Just to let you know, Madam

Chair, as you always know, I'm very co-operative with the Member for Cape St.

Francis. We were going to offer that anyway. There's no need to ask for that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

No, but

the reason being is that when went through our Estimates this year and you'll

see in my questions there are a couple of general questions that I do have to

ask it was kind of hard to follow with all the changes in your department. We

looked at what was there last year versus what was there this year, so it would

be nice to get a breakdown of everything. Like I said, I'd like to know the

branches and the divisions also within that department. It's good to know the

responsibilities of each one of these branches as being a critic for it, too.

MR. JOYCE:

That will be done, Sir.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Thank you kindly. I

appreciate that.

The

other thing is I know the department has changed, but I'd also like to know

and you gave it to us in your

preamble today a breakdown of how many people

are in the department right now. I know you did that when you did your speech

there. There were 229, I wrote down, in the department.

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Can you give us something,

how that versus what it was in 2016? I know there are going to be huge changes

in the department but, again, it was difficult to follow a lot of the categories

in the department. So if you could give us that, it would be great.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We can actually answer that

now if you'd like.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Yeah, sure, perfect.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So 229 as the minister said.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The breakdown for that is

134 in Municipal Affairs, 23 in Fire and Emergency Services and 72 in the

Environmental Management and Control Branch.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

In 2016-'17 we had 365

employees over the same entities. That would include 230 in Municipal Affairs.

That number included Crown Lands. So you're right on the massive number of

changes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The 230 is basically the

reduction of Crown Lands. There were 25 in Fire and Emergency Services and 110

in the Environmental Management and Control Branch.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

When I

get into those departments there are a couple there that we'll ask. I just want

to know the positions and the titles of the positions.

Contractual positions: What's the total number there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's very low, but I'll ask

Robyn if she knows that answer.

MS. HAYES:

There are four within the

Canada-Newfoundland gas tax program and I believe there's one other under the

Executive Support.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Going

back to the positions that you named in each department because, again, I deal

with the Department of Municipal Affairs a lot and there have been a lot of

changes over the last little while, over the last five or six years actually. I

always like to know the person and the position because sometimes when you have

to make a phone call, it's great to know that person.

If we

could have, while we're doing it, the positions; because if it's something to do

with a community that calls me or whatever, I'd like to be able to direct them

to the proper persons rather than they call me back and say that fellow was no

good or this one was no good.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We'll include

MR. K. PARSONS:

Something like that. It's

important that we get that.

MR. JOYCE:

That will be done.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We've just done a similar

exercise actually for MNL for the weekend for their symposium. So we'll share

the same thing with you folks.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, great.

CHAIR:

I just want to remind

Members again: State your name before you speak for the purpose of the Broadcast

Centre downstairs.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MR. JOYCE:

Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. JOYCE:

We'll also supply it to the

Third Party also whatever we supply.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah and vice versa, too.

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know in 2015 the attrition

plan came into place. I was just wondering if the department still follows it.

How many positions are gone? How many layoffs were actually in the department

that wasn't included in that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I've got an update on that.

I'll do it by the entities rather than and it is Jamie Chippett, Deputy

Minister.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

I think that's the first

time I've actually said that.

For the

Department of Municipal Affairs, the Attrition Management Plan was concluded.

That included a budget reduction of $967,000 and the removal of 15 positions,

but that was through attrition. That was not layoffs or whatever; it was the

Attrition Management Plan.

The

Attrition Management Plan for Fire and Emergency Services, we have the position

reduction number completed and we still have salary savings of $74,800 to find

but it will be concluded by 2019-2020.

Last

but not least I can only give it to you for Environment and Conservation, not

just the Environment Branch there were 15 positions and $982,400 required of

that department under the five-year attrition management plan, and all of those

targets have been met by the former department. There remains, I think, one

position per year for '18-'19 and '19-'20 that need to come out, but they're

already projected to come out.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I have a question also for

vacancies that have not been filled. Are these positions eliminated? I know when

they did the restructuring there a little while ago they eliminated a lot of

they said that's where they were getting a lot of their numbers from. Have these

positions been eliminated?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The positions have been abolished as per the direction of the original Attrition

Management Plan. Any that were vacant, I think we've gone through or any that

were a part of the plan and as people left, or if we were able because somebody

retired in a different position to target that position, we've abolished

positions as they become vacant and we'd use them as a part of the plan, but

Robyn could confirm that for me.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So all the vacancies that

were there people were either eliminated or there is somebody in those

positions now, is that what you're saying there? Okay.

Doing

Estimates we've noticed doing some Estimates already that departments have

some errors in the book, so sometimes you can find them, sometimes you can't.

Are there any known errors in Estimates that you know of? The last one that I

did there was some errors that they acknowledged that were there before.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There was only one division where there was a salary reduction that was applied

twice

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

and that funding will be restored in the budget. No position impact or person

impact, but there was a salary reduction applied twice inadvertently.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Where was that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That was in the Water

Resources section, in the Environment side.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Sometimes it's hard to

pass anything if there's some errors in it.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I want to right into the

estimates lines. I'm looking at Executive and Support Services. Again, I

understand that there are a lot of changes in your department and things added,

things coming out and everything else, but last year the budget was for

$2,680,800.

CHAIR:

Excuse me, Mr. Parsons; we

haven't called that one yet.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That is the first one,

wasn't it?

CHAIR:

1.1.01 is all that we've

called.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's going to be part of

it because it's before it

CHAIR:

Where were you?

CLERK:

You just said Executive

Support.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Executive Support is right

here, right?

CLERK:

That's the next one down.

CHAIR:

That's the next one I'll

call.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Oh, I'm still under the

Funding

Summary for the start of it.

CLERK:

We are just at the very top

half of the page.

MR. JOYCE:

I think we are in the

Minister's Office.

CHAIR:

We're in the Minister's

Office and I haven't gone to Ms. Michael yet, have I?

Did you

want your time is pretty much run out on the clock

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, we can go to the

minister

CHAIR:

Now if you're not finished

in the Minister's Office, we can come back to you.

MR. K. PARSONS:

But we haven't gone to the

Minister's Office yet, see. What I've been doing, right now I'm in the Program

Funding

Summary which is the start in the Estimates. There is no subheading;

it's just expenditures.

CHAIR:

Okay.

You

haven't even begun yet on what I have called.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I haven't even started.

CHAIR:

Well, your time is out, so

we'll move to Ms. Michael. You can't go past 1.1.01 until we call.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, I'll go back to some

questions.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

I have no more questions

with regard to 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Okay. I don't know if Mr.

Parsons did. Did you?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I do.

CHAIR:

Yes. Are you okay to let him

continue on into I don't want to

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm slightly confused as to

what's happening.

CHAIR:

Well, we called 1.1.01

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, right.

CHAIR:

He hasn't got there; he's

stuck in the

preamble part asking some general questions. So I apologize for the

confusion.

MS. MICHAEL:

I don't have the

preamble sheet, so that's a good thing I would say. Then let me

come back because I think the questions that were being asked around Salaries

weren't specific then to 1.1.01.

MR. JOYCE:

No, it is not and we are

going to ask him to start now.

MS. MICHAEL:

He will start now? Okay, go

ahead; let him start.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, so I can go again?

Perfect, thanks.

CHAIR:

Mr. Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What I'm going to ask and

you'll see that the changes, in some cases, the description of the Minister's

Office is the same, yet the amounts change. I'll give you some examples of that.

Last

year's budget appeared which is different when it comes to Salaries. We're

looking at Salaries for last year. If you could explain to me what the

difference is in the Salaries there.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The biggest thing there is

the fact that we had a departmental secretary position and executive assistant

position that were transferred into the department from Environment and Climate

Change. In the previous budget, the minister was the minister for both SNL and

for Municipal Affairs.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

But the salaries for those

other positions were always held in Service NL. So when the new department was

created, those positions had to be brought in from Environment and Conservation.

Then, in addition, there was a minister's secretary position that was

transferred to SNL.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, because last year's

Estimates were like $62,000. That accounts for the minister's, but then it went

to a revised of $252,000 and this year it's down to $196,000. Why the difference

between the revised and what it came to at the beginning and then go back to

$196,000?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The revised figure reflected

the salary reductions that ministers experienced last year. There was $10,700

less in the salary vote. But what you've got there happening in the budget line

is or from '16-'17 to '17-'18 is basically the net difference between

positions being transferred to SNL and positions being transferred into

Municipal Affairs and Environment from Environment. So you basically went from

two ministers' offices and a partial minister's office, we'll say, in Municipal

Affairs, to two ministers' offices.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah, okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

SNL now has the full

complement of the minister, ministerial secretary and executive assistant, and

the same thing exists now in Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, so the positions that

are in this department now are down to ministerial secretary and executive

assistant and minister. Anything else is that what covers the $196,000?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That's correct.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's correct, okay.

The

ones that were removed are now over in Service NL?

MR. JOYCE:

They weren't removed; they

were just transferred.

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, they were transferred

because you were minister of both at the time. Okay, I got that.

Under

Employee Benefits, what's included there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Generally, employee benefits are things like conferences or registrations and so

on. So from a zero-based budgeting perspective, the $100 is for potential

conference or registration fees for the minister and executive assistant. But

that's generally what's included in those line items.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

I'm

trying to understand your zero-based budgeting, so I went and we got a copy of

what the Minister of Finance put out and it showed us some savings, but it

doesn't show any savings at all on this on Employee Benefits. It shows savings

on Transportation, Supplies and Purchased Services, but it doesn't show anything

on because I'm still trying to understand zero-based budgeting, to tell you

the truth.

MR. JOYCE:

Madam Chair?

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. JOYCE:

I'll just explain.

Zero-based budgeting, before, with departments you would say, okay,

historically, here's what we would spend.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

What we said, all the

history, throw it out the window. Tell us what you would need this year to

operate your department. Like what trips, ministerial conferences would you have

to attend; not we're going to put in for five trips, we may only take two, but

the money is in the budget just in case you want to take five. So zero-based

budgeting is what is it you need to operate your department.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. So on this one here it

was $900 budgeted last year and this year it's down to $100. So there must be

something that you did last year that you're not going to do this year.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Essentially, the $900 figure is what would have been budgeted across all the

entities that made up Municipal Affairs and Environment. So this would include

the piece we haven't talked about specifically is in October, Fire and Emergency

Services became a part of the department as well. So in terms of Fire and

Emergency Services, Municipal Affairs and the Environment Branch, there would

have been $900 budgeted across those three entities in ministers' offices, but

because there has been a decrease in the number of ministers' offices, we're

down to $100 in the entire department, in the Minister's Office.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, but you would believe

that that would have been either consistent or going up when you added Fire and

Emergency Services, although it's in the minister's department.

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's basically for one

minister rather than multiple ministers.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Under

Transportation and Communications, can you explain the variance there, the

$52,000 budgeted last year?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right. The $52,400, again,

would relate to what the budget was from a combination of the travel,

Transportation and Communications budget from multiple departments.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Now, of course, we have one

minister for a larger entity and one standalone minister for Service

Newfoundland and Labrador. So this would be the travel that we would have

anticipated. Transportation and Communications travel and phone lines and so on

that we would anticipate for one minister based on the FPT tables and so on that

he would have to travel to, to participate in.

MR. K. PARSONS:

On the next line we look at

Supplies, again, there's a drop from last year and it showed the revised was

$600. Now it's gone up to $1,100 but it's still a drop from what was budgeted

last year. Can you explain the variance there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's the same; I don't know,

Robyn, if you wanted to explain it better than I could. It's basically, again,

the $6,000 would have been for what the minister for FES, Environment and

Municipal Affairs would have had budgeted but, obviously, if you only got one

budget and one minister's office you don't need multiple

MR. K. PARSONS:

While there was one minister

doing all that, he only spent, if you look at it, $600 there on supplies and now

this year you budgeted for $6,000.

MR. JOYCE:

No, you budgeted for $1,100.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Budgeted for $1,100.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under Purchased Services,

there's a significant drop right there. Can you give us a reason why this is

down again?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's really the same basic

explanation. Purchased Services, of course, would be things like meeting

expenses, printing and these type things, and you wouldn't require just as an

example, an environment ministerial suite, we would have had expenses for a

photocopier. We had one in the Municipal Affairs suite as well. So we had the

photocopier removed from the Environment ministerial suite because there's no

longer a requirement for it because we have one minister's office instead of

two.

Really,

that's what's driving a lot of the numbers in terms of the Minister's Office and

Executive Support. With a less number of executive, less number of ministers or

minister's offices, then there's a lower requirement for funding for these items

that we're talking about.

MR. K. PARSONS:

The total amount last year

when you did your Estimates and did a budget was $300,000 for the Minister's

Office in total it was $329,000. Then, in last year's Estimates, it was

$105,000. What you're telling me is that's the combination of three of those

departments into one. There must be three different sets of Estimates that would

add it up to the $329,000.

CHAIR:

Mr. Parsons, once Mr.

Chippett answers, I'll go to Ms. Michael because your time is out on the clock.

MR. CHIPPETT:

That's correct, that's the

way the number for last year's budget is built. In our Estimates, it's based on

the budget that would have been available in any of the entities that make up

the new Municipal Affairs and Environment Department. So you're correct.

MR. K. PARSONS:

You can see how difficult it

was to follow it.

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay, Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

I don't have any questions

for this.

CHAIR:

That's right, you don't.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yeah, they're all asked.

CHAIR:

Mr. Parsons, are you through

that first section? Okay.

Shall

1.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

1.2.01 to 1.2.04 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.2.01 to 1.2.04

inclusive carry?

If it's

okay with Mr. Parsons, I'll start with Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm sorry, thank you very

much.

1.2.01,

I do have questions. The first one of course is the Salaries. Obviously there's

been a big change in the salaries. Is that because of the restructuring? Could

you just explain the details for that line, please?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Just to speak at the entity

level first, obviously, as we said, there was a minister's office; there was a

set of executive from Municipal Affairs. There were executives associated with

Environment and Climate Change and there were executives associated with Fire

and Emergency Services. In the initial restructuring, bringing Fire and

Emergency Services into the department, and the second one that came about as a

result of this budget, there would have been three deputy minister salaries

which would have been Municipal Affairs, Environment and Climate Change, and the

CEO for Fire and Emergency Services.

would have gone from three deputy salaries to one. We would have had two ADM

reductions, where those positions were removed, and we would have also had two

ADM positions that moved elsewhere. The ADM responsible for climate change is

now part of Executive Council. The ADM responsible for Natural Heritage would

now be a part of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Then, obviously, you would

have the associated changes to both communications and administrative support

positions associated with the reduced number of executive. That's in a nutshell,

or as close to a nutshell as I think I can

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Thank

you very much.

Then in

Transportation and Communications, last year a difference of $32,600 between the

budget and the estimate, and then this year it's $24,300 less than what was

budgeted last year. You're probably going to have a similar answer to up above

to that one, but go ahead.

MR. CHIPPETT:

I did neglect to say there was a third ADM who moved elsewhere. The ADM

responsible for Crown Lands also moved to Fisheries and Land Resources; but,

yes, the answer is basically the same. It is part zero-based budgeting and it's

a part reflecting the fact that we have, overall, two less executive in that

overall group of entities.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Now

with regard to the so there are five ADMs altogether but three have been

transferred. Two positions are gone completely, are they?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The ADM for infrastructure and engineering position became merged with the

Municipal Support Division. Heather is our ADM for Municipal Infrastructure and

Support.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Basically, any element of financial support, whether it's for infrastructure,

Municipal Operating Grants or anything like that, would now be under Heather's

purview.

We also

combined the Fire and Emergency Services mandate with the former Corporate

Services mandate. Dana Spurrell is our ADM responsible for Fire and Emergency

and Corporate Services. We have a vacancy because our ADM for Environment

retired, but we're in the process of hopefully filling that soon.

Overall, we have three as a department. Previously we had four, but the movement

of the Crown Lands ADM would have brought us down to three. So we have three ADM

positions in our department now.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

Under

the provincial revenue, what is the source of that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That's actually the salary

for the CEO of the MMSB.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The way that works from a

financial perspective is we get the revenue come in from MMSB and then we pay

out through the Salaries line to Mr. Samson.

MS. MICHAEL:

Nice salary. Okay.

course that includes everything, salary and benefits, I would assume.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yeah, okay.

It's

not major but under the Purchased Services we do have a difference of around

$9,000.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Again, the primary piece

there would be our zero-based budgeting process, so building from the ground up

for that particular piece, as well as the fact that we have all those entities'

budgets coming together. Given we would have one Executive Support office with

less executive in it, we would require less from a Purchased Services

perspective.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Under

Supplies, is that the usual type of supplies, just the office type of supplies?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yeah, office supplies. There

would be a small amount in there as well for meeting coffee supplies and so on

for the executive offices.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

They're

all the questions I have for 1.2.01.

CHAIR:

Okay. Thank you.

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's the end of the

section

now?

CHAIR:

Yes, we're in

MR. K. PARSONS:

It was hard to a lot of

positions moved and

CHAIR:

You can go anywhere, Mr.

Parsons , from 1.2.01 to

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I'll just stay in this

section here, one, and then I'll go on to the next

CHAIR: up to

1.2.04.

MR. K. PARSONS:

because I only have one question in this

section here.

I listened to the Salaries explanation, but I have a simple

question for you: How many positions were in the department, and how many are

not there right now? I know you said there are three ADMs, right?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In this particular item, right?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Do you want to help me with that one, Robyn, please?

MS. HAYES: So

there would have been, at one point, a total of 24 positions among those three

entities, and it's now gone down to 11.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Would you have a list of the positions and if you don't have it to give to me

now, you can send it to us that have been eliminated in that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

No problem.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Right, so it'll be under the same thing, but it'd be nice to follow it in the

chart too that we're going to get also, so we'll know which one's (inaudible).

Madam Chair, if we could move on to

section 1.2.02?

CHAIR: It's

called. Go ahead.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Again, and I understand and I might be a bit of a pain

tonight, but there are a lot of changes from the Estimates that were last year

and just explanation. I know there's a lot of movement here. We go to Salaries,

there's a significant difference there in the Salaries versus last year, and I

know it's Administrative Support, not the office of the minister, so can you

explain why there's such a difference in that.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So there are two pieces to that particular salary line. There's only one

permanent public service position in there. That's the administrative assistant

on the front desk at Fire and Emergency Services. As you know, they're based on

Hallett Crescent, so that's part of that.

The remainder of that is actually our student budget. So

there are two things going on with the students. Our summer students are funded

out of that pot of funding. As well, if we do co-op students and we try to

avail of those whenever we can that are not associated with engineering,

because you'll see some of that funding in the engineering activities we'll get

to later, that's what's generally in that number.

So again, the $191,400 reflects

what would have been in all of those entities before for students and now

they're combined in one spot. The reason there's a difference from the budgeted

number last year to this year reflects the fact that some of that student

funding would have ended up with other departments. For example, Wildlife

Division or Climate Change, we would have split up a part of that number based

on the changes in structure.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So there's quite a bit of

money there for summer students in that. Minister, I guess I'll be giving you a

call.

Again,

the positions then have been added, okay.

Employee Benefits, again if you looked at it, there's a big increase from last

year's Estimates. We had $3,000 that was estimated there last year and now what

does that include? Where was it to and what does it add up to this year to make

it go to $76,000?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In Employee Benefits, again, the line item in Administrative Support activities

generally are usually for workers' compensation invoices for injury-on-duty

claims. What that reflects is the fact that you've got the combination of those

injury-on-duty claims from the multiple entities we talked about before. So

that's why there's $76,000.

MR. K. PARSONS:

In the next one, on

Transportation and Communications, there's an increase over last year. Again,

I'm going back to the Estimates that, as you know, were right before but there's

an increase over last year's Estimates and just give us the variance here also.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So again, the $134,200 would

have been the Transportation and Communications budget from those entities

combined from last year. If you look at zero-based budgeting and as we talked

about earlier, frequently in this item you're speaking about cellphones, land

lines and so on, we also have our postage costs for the entire department as an

example, we've got our freight costs, all of our phone lines for Municipal

Affairs, Fire and Emergency Services, and the Environment Branch to make up that

$120,400. Again, it was building what our known costs were in Transportation and

Communications into that item; also, of course, it's for travel for executive.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under Supplies, there's a

steady decline there. Can you explain that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's much the same as the

answer for the Minister's Office. Those supply budgets would have been for the

complement of executive that Robyn referenced earlier in terms of the 24

positions or 25 positions I believe she referenced. Again, we have 11, so we

would require less funding from the perspective of Supplies for that number of

executive and what we would expect to build in our zero-based budgeting.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Last

year you budgeted $433,000 for Purchased Services and there's a large revised.

What wasn't spent? Did you have something purchased or you wanted to use there

that you didn't?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That related to lease costs

for that's the big expenditure. The big expenditure in there is rent for

Hallett Crescent and Mews Place for Fire and Emergency Services. In terms of the

variance, so the $433,000 to $395,000, lower equipment costs. We also have less

cost for generally, we're going through an exercise of trying to reduce our

storage costs by being better with records management. There was a reduced cost

for equipment rentals from Xerox, storage costs for the Registry and actually

some electricity costs were down as well.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Under Grants and Subsidies,

I'm always interested in those, what's included here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

This is based on our

population and our support to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment. As for a lot of federal-provincial tables there are fees per

jurisdiction. This is what we pay for our membership in support of that

organization.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Why has it decreased?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I suspect it's based so we

would just be paying out what we're invoiced, so probably based on the latest

population data. That actual figure is what we would be invoiced for by the

secretariat for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

I also

wondered about the revenue line. The revised was $26,000. It was budgeted $5,000

and this year it's showing $5,000 again. What's the difference here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The increased revenue there

is actually rebates from Newfoundland Power for some of the environment

accounts.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

That's

the questions I have on that section, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay.

I'll go

back to Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

I do not have any more

questions for 1.2.02.

CHAIR:

We have called up to 1.2.04.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, I wasn't sure.

Well,

for 1.2.03, basically my main question does have to do with the salary line. If

we could just have a breakdown of what happened there, please.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This division is actually

Robyn's division. We're basically a strategic financial management division for

other departments in government. At the management level we had a manager of

finance budgeting and general operations for every department or group of

departments that we supported. With the reductions generally, and the

combinations of some of the entities that we talked about, we eliminated two of

our five managers of finance budgeting and general operations.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Naturally, because we have fewer departments now then we had.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Got it.

Thank

you.

For

1.2.04, just checking, is this the vehicle replacement budget in 1.2.04?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes, it is.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

That's

all the questions I have.

CHAIR:

Mr. Parsons, did you have

any more up to 1.2.04?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Oh, yeah.

CHAIR:

You do. So are you okay with

me going back to ? Okay.

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. We can come back to

the one Ms. Michael was just in that time. Again, I want to go to Employee

Benefits. The revised was down but this year it's budgeted for more than we

revised last year. Can you just explain the variance there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Sure. Again, in this

particular line item we're often talking about registrations for conferences or

certifications and so on.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We had budgeted at $5,000

based on more of a historical approach in the previous budget. There was

actually $800 spent, but in terms of to give you the breakdown for Employee

Benefits for 2017-18, again, we spoke about Strategic Financial Management

division. So the allocation of $1,800 is for course registration for staff

professional development, which included the Financial Management Institute, CPA

and other conferences. It's basically to keep certifications current for some of

the people in that unit.

MR. K. PARSONS:

The next line,

Transportation and Communications, can you explain the variance there also?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In terms of the final number

and the zero-based budgeting approach, in particular we put a strong focus on

making sure we're only paying for phone lines that we needed, so actually

budgeting and removing any extra lines and so on. There would be $5,000 in that

$7,000 for departmental office phone lines. There were some cellphone charges.

Not a

lot of travel in this division but there may be a trip to support departments,

for example, who had headquarters or units outside of St. John's. That's

basically what's in your $7,000. In terms of the $8,000 in the revised figure,

it was a result of higher than budgeted communication costs.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Under

Purchased Services, what's included here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Purchased Services: in

particular, equipment rental. So the reduction in that case is particularly

driven or actually the increase, sorry, was actually driven by the actual

rightsizing of equipment rental costs for Xerox.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. That's it for me in

that section, but I can go on to the next one before we

CHAIR:

No, so you're done up until

1.2.04?

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, I'm done to 1.2.03. I

just have a couple of questions in 1.2.04.

CHAIR:

Yes, you can go because we

called that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Here

I'm going to just ask a question on the Property, Furnishings and Equipment; a

change from last year's Estimates. It was like $5,000 and this year now it is

$32,000. Can you just give us why the change there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

You're in 1.2.03?

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, I'm in 1.2.04.

CHAIR:

Page 17.5.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This is our capital budget.

The only capital that the department has is funding for replacement vehicles.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The increase in the revised

relates to a particular vehicle that was required for Fire and Emergency

Services, so that's why it was up to $44,600.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, when we read that, we

kind of figured that.

Okay, I

guess that's it then on those lines.

CHAIR:

Okay, so we'll call that.

Shall

1.2.01 to 1.2.04 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 1.2.04 carried.

CHAIR:

Before we move, if it's okay

with everybody, we'll take a 10-minute break. We'll resume at 7:55?

MR. JOYCE:

I have no problem. Whatever

my colleagues want; I'm easy to get along with, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Staff may want a washroom

break.

MR. JOYCE:

Whatever they want; I'm easy

to get along with whatever you want.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Recess

CLERK:

2.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 carry?

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, on this one here,

I'm going to have a few general questions because it's pretty interesting to me.

There's a lot there, especially when it comes to planning and just some general

questions here.

The

Planning Division under Municipal Affairs here, have there been any reductions

in that area as it pertains to I know a lot of towns in my district have to do

their town plans. This is where they do that. As we all know, it takes a bit of

time and you get quite a few emails from me wondering where it is and whatnot.

I'm just wondering: Are there reductions and is there anyone gone out of that

department that we usually deal with?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We did have a reduction in

this area. As you know, the Land Use Planning

Section was a part of the Crown

Lands branch.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Crown Lands, yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

But when Crown Lands was

moved to the other department, to Fisheries and Land Resources, we felt it was

important to keep the land-use planning function within Municipal Affairs

because you're absolutely right, the main clients are municipalities.

We did

have a reduction in terms of the manager for planning operations, but the

director position in this division now and you'll see there's a new name for

this activity as well, that's being recruited now actually, we're hiring for

that position will include planning as a part of their job description.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

What

was it before?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Before it was just the Local

Governance division.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay and the Planning

section was just part of the ?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Was a

section on its own. It

was a separate Land Use Planning

Section reporting to the ADM of Crown Lands.

But, I guess, just to give a brief explanation of why Local Governance and

Planning.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Local Governance in

particular, or two of their functions, relate to amalgamation requests, boundary

changes for municipalities and so on. There's a natural linkage with planning

and the Urban and Rural Planning Act ,

so now the Local Governance division would be responsible for amalgamation,

boundary changes and also the development of town plans with towns and

consultants and so on.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Under

the town plans right now, as you know, there's a commissioner and they go

through the commission stages and they go through the general consultation

stages; but I know in my own personal experience dealing with this it always

seems like it takes so is this going to speed up that process any?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I'm not sure this particular

change would speed it up; it won't slow it down. We are planning this year to do

a review similar to what we did with the

Crown Lands Act on the Urban and

Rural Planning Act to look at it from a lean methodology. So to see if there

are steps that can be improved upon, to see if we can use technology more than

we do, to see if all the steps, for example, are needed. We plan to commence

that review of that process this year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Are

there any amalgamation requests in the department?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We have, I think, two that

come to mind immediately that are new. So there may be ones that have been

requests for a period of time. This year, of course, we have Wabush and Labrador

City. We have Botwood, and Northern Arm is a new one. I know there have been

ones that have been talked about for a while; for example, Glovertown and

Traytown would have been another one, but I think that may have been

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know that the department

has mentioned a lot about regionalization when it comes to different fire

services, recreation services and everything. Is there anywhere in this

department, in this section, I would imagine, that you would see where that's

encouraged?

MR. JOYCE:

The way we were trying to

encourage that is through the cost-shared ratios that we had in place, anything

that's regional for example, firefighting equipment right now is 80-20 but if

any two towns, two departments or more join, it would be 90-10 for roads and

buildings. The cost-shared ratios can move up if any project is regional, so

we're trying to encourage it through regionalization, through incentives.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What incentives are they,

fire and emergency

MR. JOYCE:

Fire and emergency services,

roads

MR. K. PARSONS:

Roads?

MR. JOYCE:

buildings, they can all

move up the percentage. For example if it's 60-40, if it's regional, it can go

70-30; if it's large enough, it could go 80-20. We're definitely not going to

force any amalgamation, but we're definitely trying to encourage regionalization

and shared services.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Good question;

regionalization, how would roads work in I mean, a road would either be in one

section or the other, how would it be ?

MR. JOYCE:

Well, you may have, say,

towns in a certain area that if, for example, the towns come together as one and

apply for it as one, the roads may, if it's regional the regional governance

part of it.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Under

the same general conversation, how about requests are for relocation? How many

of those are out there now?

MR. JOYCE:

Well, under the old policy

right now, Williams Harbour, as we know, is in the process. I know, Madam Chair,

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, was very strong, vocal and been

adamant that would be done, and that is being done as the Member knows

(inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

Have they had their vote

yet?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes. Also in Snooks Arm,

under the old policy. Right now, the only request that we have is Little Bay

Islands. There are some expressions of interest, but Little Bay Islands has

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's the one we had the

vote on two years' ago?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes. They had the vote, but

under the new policy. Snooks Arm and Williams Harbour is under the old policy.

Little Bay Islands now is under the new policy and the new regime in how to

vote.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What's the policy and

percentage now; has it changed?

MR. JOYCE:

That's still 90.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's still 90 per cent?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What policy changes would

make it interesting for them to change?

MR. JOYCE:

Those were the changes we

made there last year: the amount of time for residency, the vote has changed,

and then we sped up for a commissioner to hold hearings and things like that. So

we ensured that the residency part was more streamlined to actually who was

living in the area at the time, living there year-round, full-time residents;

also the timelines for the actual applications and then to have a commissioner

involved and for the appeals, that all has been streamlined to speed up the

process.

There

were public consultations that were done on that. When that came back, I know

you were at the press conference (inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know that the 90 per cent

issue I remember when you were on this side of the fence, that was an issue

with you with the 90 per cent. I still believe it is. It's an issue with me

also, to tell you the truth. Is there any chance of that being looked at or ?

MR. JOYCE:

When I was on that side, 90

per cent was a number that I believed in and 90 per cent is still the number

that we, as a government, said no matter what you put it at, there will be some

people who'll say it should be 70 per cent, it should be 80 per cent. So 90 per

cent is reasonable. Plus, with that there has to be a cost-benefit analysis done

and we changed that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. JOYCE:

Instead of a 10 year a 20

year, which was always 20 year, now it's a 10 year and that's because of the

demographics and the age. Is there a 10-year benefit over a 20-year benefit?

Before it was just 20 year so that's another thing that we changed.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Nippers Harbour was one

there a few years ago also. I believe the vote in Nippers Harbour was over 90

per cent. At the time, I think it was looked at the cost was too high or

whatever. Have they looked at it again?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There was close enough to

we do an expression of interest vote initially.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

It was deemed to be close

enough to 90 per cent to start the process. But what happened in the case of

Nippers Harbour was when the cost-benefit analysis was done, they didn't pass

the cost-benefit analysis at the current financial compensation levels that are

listed in the policy.

There's

a stipulation in the policy that says government, with the agreement of the town

at the request of the town, can lower the financial compensation so that they'll

break even. We did that, and we put that back to the community of Nippers

Harbour. They did request for us to do that, to work out the numbers so they

would break even. The vote then did not pass the 90 per cent.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay?

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

I'll

continue asking some questions in that same vein. Minister, is the notion or the

goal, or whatever word you want to use, of regional governance still there as a

goal, or is it more putting the emphasis into shared services on a regional

level?

MR. JOYCE:

In actual fact, we're going

to have consultations in conjunction with MNL on regional governance, just to

travel around the province and Labrador to actually see what people want for

regional governance and the structure of it.

Regional governance in some circles is the way to go, and others. There was no

one going to be forced into amalgamation. Regional governance is something MNL

has supported and is in full consultations with these hearings we are going to

have and report back to government. Part of that also is an incentive for people

to share services more than regional governance.

What we

have in place is to try to encourage two fire departments, which is five

kilometres away, that there should be one fire department. We hope to be a

financial incentive to help out with that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. I would imagine with

regional governance it is not something you can do it here but you don't do it

there. I think it has to be one model or the other.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes and there will be public

consultations on that to get the feedback. It will be all across Newfoundland

and Labrador to see what we can do, what people are expressing, what people

feel. I'm very proud that MNL are big supporters of this and are pushing for

this also.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yeah, like you, I've been

following this discussion with MNL. So it's good to see it getting to the point

where it is actually.

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah, and the committee has

been struck.

MS. MICHAEL:

Pardon?

MR. JOYCE:

There has been a committee

struck for it

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. JOYCE:

with different parties

involved, from different entities on it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. JOYCE:

They will be soon having the

consultations throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is that the Regional

Governance Advisory Committee?

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah, yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's what I thought, okay.

This is

a simpler question. With regard to civic addressing, how is that going?

MR. JOYCE:

In actual fact, we're

looking at civil addressing more through Fire and Emergency Services, the 911.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

That is something that I

know MNL has been pushing for the towns themselves. For the next generation with

the 911, that's when you need civic addressing. I know at MNL conferences

they're always pushing to get towns some are doing it, some aren't.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

There will be a need to get

it done for Fire and Emergency and for life. So we are continuously advocating

that, MNL is continuously advocating that. I know Fire and Emergency Services

are saying it's going to be a necessity for us.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's right; we really have

to have it.

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

If it's going to work, yeah.

I think

all the general questions I had have been covered. I'll go back to the line by

line now.

MR. JOYCE:

Sure.

MS. MICHAEL:

Am I correct, 2.1.01? Yes.

Once

again, could we have a breakdown of what happened with regard to the salary line

there? It's not a big difference. It's only $68,000, $69,000.

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's a combination. Again,

it's the net of a reduction of the manager that we mentioned in the answer to

MHA Parsons, and then there were lower salary steps. Some of the newer staff we

hired, their salaries were at lower steps. There was some savings there, as well

as lower budgeted savings for a vacant position in that area.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The combination is the

$68,700 difference that you see.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Thank

you.

Under

Transportation and Communications, last year it was underspent by quite a bit.

This year it's going up from the budget last year by about, what, $7,000, just

under.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This leads well from the

statements the minister made about the regional governance consultations. In

particular, speaking to the increase, we would expect the regional governance

consultations to be concluded in the fall of this year.

addition, we've had a number of requests. So in addition to municipal plans, the

government is responsible for the zoning along protected roads. We've had

numerous requests that we know will require hearings and commissioners and so on

in the upcoming fiscal year.

Really,

that's the reason for the increase. Last year, we would not have had as many

amendments to do. The other helpful note I've just been passed is the $61,600;

of course, everybody is aware at the end of September there are municipal

elections.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This division would be front

and centre in providing training to new councils, mayors and so on after those

elections.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

Under

Supplies, last year $9,000 underspent and this year going $800 above the $10,000

that was budgeted last year.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The general response is the

same as for the previous item; so, again, building from the ground up. As per

the zero-based budgeting exercise, we would need meeting supplies for the

regional governance consultations and the appeal boards.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

Under

the Professional Services, what are the professional services that would be

covered here? Just explain the variance in that line, please.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Professional Services in this activity generally relate to consultants, whether

that be for hearings. In 2016-17, the revised figure which is $12,400 higher, we

had legal fees. People would know the William's Harbour relocation was open to

judicial review. So this is where our legal fees would have been covered for

that.

The LSD

of George's Brook Milton is interested in becoming a municipality. So the cost

for the consultant for a feasibility study would be in that amount.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

And we required less by way of planning consultants last year, again, for

hearings and so on.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The decrease in Professional

Services for 2017-18 relates to building from the ground up. There would be

appeal board fees and planning consultants that we would need, as well as the

impact of the departmental restructuring. Again, the budget for land use

planning and local governance would have been brought together.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So we wouldn't need the same amount for one division as we would for two.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Before

I go on to the next line, you mentioned the LSDs. I have heard recently of some

LSDs who are looking at amalgamation. Is there more of a move happening in that

direction or is it just sporadic?

MR. JOYCE:

Of course, when you speak to MNL, LSDs should become towns or should become

bigger parts.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

There are some towns

expressing to become LSDs but there's no major, across the province, asking to

become LSDs.

MS. MICHAEL:

And move into becoming

towns.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes. Some want to become

towns, but I know from MNL and part of the regionalization is, right or wrong,

and sometimes when you get an LSD one end of the road gets everything plowed,

everything done, not paying any taxes, but up at the beginning of the town you

have the town, the town boundaries I know the Member for Cape St. Francis, who

is a municipal leader, heard this on many occasions. So there's a bit of an

issue there with it.

Jamie

just mentioned the LSDs on the corporate areas in the consultations also.

They're going to be involved with the consultations.

MS. MICHAEL:

They will be?

MR. JOYCE:

Oh, yes, they were invited

to be part of the consultations to see what we can do to make

MS. MICHAEL:

Great.

MR. JOYCE:

LSDs are like a lot of

towns, too, sometimes a necessity. You have to become larger to help share with

the services and that in the areas. That's a big part with towns where

regionalization is more to help with the expenses, two towns.

I have

a good example out my way and I don't mind saying it, I've said it: Lark Harbour

and York Harbour, the same church, the same fire department, the same school,

the same firettes, two of them going right to we did the study on the

amalgamation, that night both of them voted not to do it after everything was in

place.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. JOYCE:

There's no reason in my

opinion, and I told them, there's no reason why they should not be together.

MS. MICHAEL:

You can't force them.

MR. JOYCE:

A necessity eventually, it

will happen.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's right, exactly.

My time

is up. Could I just ask my last line question, if that's okay with Kevin.

CHAIR:

The Member gives you leave.

ahead, Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Just the Purchased Services,

what's included in that? This may be related to what you've been talking about

earlier in terms of the consultations, et cetera, but it's going up by about

$8,000 or so.

MR. CHIPPETT:

It is indeed related to the regional governance consultations, as well as the

advertising for road-zoning changes and so on.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Thank

you, I'll pass it over.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Parsons, did you have any more questions on 2.1.01?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah, I have a couple on

this section.

CHAIR:

Yes, okay.

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Again, the last question you

just answered there that time, that's for what, did you say again? Ms. Michael

just asked a question. What's the increase again?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's related to meeting and equipment rentals and advertising, so both in terms

of the regional governance consultations.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, regional governance.

MR. CHIPPETT:

As well as advertising for the protective road-zoning amendments.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Grants

and Subsidies, can you let me know what's included there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Generally, we either pay the Grants and Subsidies line directly to a

municipality if they want to pursue a feasibility study, for example, on

amalgamation, if they want to pursue it themselves. In other instances we'll pay

through Professional Services to the consultant.

As an

example, in Grants and Subsidies here for example, the department's contribution

to Wabush and Lab City doing a feasibility study would be in the Grants and

Subsidies line because we paid it directly to the municipalities.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Say, for example, if a

municipality is interested in this, one is interested and the other says, well,

you know does it go? How does it work when you have two municipalities? You'll

see some municipalities that have water and sewer and they have everything in

place and the other one says it's going to cost too much money to do it. How do

you delegate this kind of stuff, especially when it comes to amalgamation?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I think, Minister, it's safe

to say the policy in government is that there will be no forced amalgamation.

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, not forced.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Usually we would expect both

towns to be at the table and agreeing in order to proceed with a feasibility

study.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I listened to one last night

on the radio. Now it's not towns, not a municipality; it was two local service

districts. One was talking about the services they had in theirs. Then they also

said the government was after the one I just spoke to you about that time

giving $1.6 million to improve the water in the other.

seemed like the conversation was that one wanted it and one wasn't really sure

whether they wanted it or not. If government is funding that and there's no

force, so as long as one says we're not that interested, then there's no money

goes towards it. Is that the policy?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, if both of them come to

an agreement. Like I just mentioned, York Harbour and Lark Harbour, if they

don't come to an agreement and one says no, at the end of the process there's no

way.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

We're not going to force

them in that.

I know

the one you're talking about that is next to Clarenville. We tried very hard

last year to get them together with the water supply from Clarenville. I know

the money was put aside to ensure clean, safe drinking water.

encourage it, but there will be no forcing of it. I hope towns can realize. As I

said, eventually it's going to become a necessity, but right now some towns feel

they can do it on their own.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What's the percentage of the

vote that's required for it to become amalgamation?

MR. JOYCE:

Well, no vote. Two town

councils have to vote on it.

MR. K. PARSONS:

The town councils separate,

there's no vote put in the community?

MR. JOYCE:

No.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

In that

case it would be a little bit different, though, because they were local service

districts, I think. They have to have a vote outside I would imagine.

Okay, I

want to go to the Revenue line. What's included here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That reflects the revenue

from appeal board hearings. The fees and revenue from appeal boards.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Now

that we're into appeal boards, I have a couple of questions, general questions.

Like I told you, Minister, I'd be asking some questions generally. Can you give

us an update on the regional appeal boards? I know there are a lot of appeals

waiting to be done. Where are we with the appeal process?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are five members now.

Eastern, in particular, I think is the area you may be speaking about.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There were three new members

appointed recently who went through the Independent Appointments Commission, and

there are two other members. Of course, the full complement for those boards is

five.

There

are two other members who've agreed to continue to serve until we find

appointees for those two other positions. Appeals are actually scheduled I think

for, or will be scheduled after we do an orientation with the new members.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So two members from the

previous board remained and we have three new ones. Okay.

When do

you expect that to start, the appeals to start? I know that

MR. CHIPPETT:

Within a couple of weeks

from the orientation.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Do you know how many appeals

right now are needed, are out there to be heard?

MS. SPURRELL:

I have to get the exact

number for you, but I think it's in the range of 50 in the Eastern appeal board.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Fifty in Eastern. Eastern is

the part where there's no is that the area where you have problems with

members on the board?

MS. SPURRELL:

The Eastern region is the

one where there are some appeals that haven't been held for a while because of

the members, but now that we've got the members in place we're going to do the

orientation and try to catch up on that backlog.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

That's

it on that section.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms.

Michael, you were finished with that

section as well. Okay.

Shall

2.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.2.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.2.01 carry?

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I have a general question

right at the start of this one. Under the description there: the Minister and

Deputy Minister on corporate-wide initiatives. What are they?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In terms of corporate-wide

initiatives

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

you'd be talking about things like access to information, training and

privacy, requests from the public and so on. For example, our ATTIP coordinator

would be funded under here, planning from the perspective of strategic planning

and annual reports; basically, things that would be required from all government

departments and agencies.

That

would be, our occupational health and safety is handled through the Policy and

Strategic Planning branch legislation, as an example. Anything that would be

corporate review, central review of Cabinet submissions and briefing notes and

so on, that would all occur through this division.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. All right; I was just

curious to understand what you meant by that. Okay.

Under

Salaries, how many positions are included in this here?

MS. HAYES:

There are 17 positions here.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Obviously, there are some that were positions removed. What are they?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are a couple of offsetting things happening here again. We had three

directors of Policy and Planning in the three entities that came together. There

was a director in Fire and Emergency Services, there was a director for

Environment and Conservation and a director for Municipal Affairs.

We did

remove a director of Policy and Planning position and a management analyst

position. We also created that's one of the things I think, Minister, we're

most pleased about in our budget, a dedicated position to complete a review of

municipalities' legislation. In addition, there was one retirement. So that's

how we go to the $1.2 million in salaries.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. So there were 17

positions this year, and three are gone? Is it three or four?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Three positions are gone. One was a retirement; two would have been reduced

through the management structure review. That was offset by the creation of a

director of legislative renewal.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, last year it was budgeted pretty high. Just

explain the variance on that and why it's reduced so much.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Transportation and Communications; again, that would have been the combination

of all those entities coming together. There's not usually a lot of travel

associated with Policy and Strategy Planning. So we would have done a zero-based

budgeting approach to our Transportation and Communications.

I'll

give you an idea of what's in here. Of that $9,600, again, building from the

bottom up, we have $3,600 in office phone lines, $1,200 in cellphone charges and

our travel would be limited to travel to conduct our consultations on the

environment assessment legislative review, and then miscellaneous divisional

travel costs. So that's basically what's in Transportation and Communications.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

I'd

like to go to Grants and Subsidies. If you could explain what the Grants and

Subsidies are.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Sure.

There

are three grants under this division. The first one is a grant that is provided

every well, they're all provided every year. The biggest amount is $147,000

that goes to the Conservation Corps, so no change to that. The other two are

memberships in federal-provincial-territorial tables that we sit at.

There's

a group on local governance called PTOC. Our membership fee in that is $9,700,

which is paid out to that group as a grant. Similarly, we're a member of the

Eastern Canadian Premiers Secretariat, primarily involving environmental

initiatives, and our membership for that is $12,200.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Those

are the questions I have on that section.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Shall

2.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.3.01.

CHAIR:

No.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

2.2.01?

AN HON. MEMBER:

You called 2.1.01 twice.

CHAIR:

Okay. It's been a long day.

Shall

2.2.01 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.2.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

CLERK:

2.3.01 to 2.3.03.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.3.01 to 2.3.03

carry?

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah, let Ms. Michael go.

She hasn't

CHAIR:

And he was going to take it,

too, Ms. Michael.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

I didn't speak to the other

one but he asked all the questions, so that was fine.

Just to

make a comment; it looks like here in the Salaries it's pretty stable. So does

that mean the positions are stable as well?

MR. CHIPPETT:

They are, and the increase is we rightsized our budget. This item has

traditionally not included overtime, stand by and travel costs for staff.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT: So

we included that in our zero-based budgeting exercise and that's why you see the

$653,900.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

But, yes, no change in position complement in that division.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you.

Transportation and Communications; obviously, knowing what

we're dealing with, Fire Services, we see what a lot of that line would be. I

guess your answer is going to be the reason for the lower estimate for this year

is because of the zero-based budgeting.

MR. CHIPPETT:

It is, and actually you'll see an increase in the next line. So we did

re-profile some funds within this activity.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The Supplies budget, in particular, looks after training supplies for the

firefighter training school and for firefighter training.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Building from the ground up, again, we required more funds in that particular

line item.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Purchased Services is pretty stable also. What are the

services that are purchased here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

You're talking about things like vehicle repairs and maintenance. There's a

volunteer firefighter accidental death insurance policy.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are long-service awards and shredding costs. The biggest item in here is

the cost of running the training school which is held annually in May and runs

seven days.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you.

Coming down to Allowances and Assistance, this is constant.

I probably know this from last year but I can't remember what this line covers.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This is the workers' compensation premiums for volunteer firefighters.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, and no change in those premiums, obviously.

What about the Grants and Subsidies, what does that cover?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Again, these are consistent grants every year. There's been no change, and

there's an operating grant for the Association of Fire Services. There's a grant

to the Association of Fire Services for the Learn Not to Burn campaign.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

And the remainder is actually grants to municipalities for hazardous materials

response, hazmat training.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Also, if a municipality

responds or a fire department responds to an emergency outside a municipal

boundary, there's a subsidy provided through Fire and Emergency Services.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

course, that's in the briefing book as well I think, isn't it? Yeah. Thank you.

Moving

on then, I have no questions on 2.3.02, but looking at 2.3.03, Disaster

Assistance. I'm assuming that

MR. JOYCE:

2.2.03?

MS. MICHAEL:

Pardon?

CHAIR:

Yeah, it's been called.

ahead, Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yeah, it was called up to

2.3.03.

CHAIR:

Correct.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yeah.

Under

Disaster Assistance, there's a lot of variance here in places where there wasn't

budgeting happening. I'm going to ask you in a general way, I'm assuming the

major rainstorm event must have been a big part of that. Maybe you could talk

about that.

MR. CHIPPETT:

You're absolutely right.

Generally, with the three biggest areas, from a salary perspective we have one

manager for Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program which, of course,

is run by the federal government. The increase in the Salaries, both in revised

and in '17-'18, are temporary staff brought on to handle claims.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The expenditures under

Professional Services and Purchased Services relate to, for example, the

insurance industry; we partnered with them to do the assessment of properties.

That would have been a professional service.

terms of Purchased Services, we pay out directly to contractors sometimes, for

example, on municipal claims. Then in terms of Allowances and Assistance, that's

the payments for private claims.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Really, all the expenditures

there are related to that. Based on the level of damages that occurred, the

Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program federally will compensate us

for 90 per cent of those expenditures.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

I guess

a lot of that is in the briefing book, the breakdown that you've gone through.

MR. JOYCE:

Madam Chair, just one note

on that.

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. JOYCE:

When this Thanksgiving

rainstorm hit and the people at Fire and Emergency Services and Municipal

Affairs got involved, there were assessments done, claims sent out, claims

received, adjusters in place before other provinces even got the applications

out.

MS. MICHAEL:

Really.

MR. JOYCE:

That's the work that the

Fire and Emergency Services and Municipal Affairs did in that job. I just want

to recognize the staff that did that. When we were going around Nova Scotia,

some of the people didn't realize how quick we had it done. They were amazed how

quickly the professional staff at Fire and Emergency Services and Municipal

Affairs helped out municipalities, individuals, towns, businesses in the

province. I just want to recognize that.

MS. MICHAEL:

So I take it from that,

Minister, everything has been taken care of.

MR. JOYCE:

Everything is in the process

and being paid out. Some work most of the bills are even submitted.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's good news to hear.

MR. JOYCE:

Some money is getting ready

to be paid, been paid already.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you.

Under

Allowances and Assistance, though I understand the Professional Services and

the Purchased Services, but under Allowances and Assistance there was nothing

budgeted last year. I'm assuming the revision was because of the Thanksgiving

event. Why do we have $1,300,000 in it this year when there was nothing budgeted

last year?

MR. CHIPPETT:

From last year, there was

nothing budgeted because at the beginning of the fiscal year obviously we didn't

know the event would occur.

terms of the revised, the things that happened most quickly related to private

claims that could be settled quickly. There were 244, actually, private claims;

226 of those have been closed. The $1.9 million was money that we transferred in

from another activity to pay for those private claims.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MS. CHIPPETT:

And the $1.3 million is what

remains to be paid out, or was remaining to be paid out when the budget was

done.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Would

that be the same thing for the Grants and Subsidies as well?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The Grants and Subsidies

would be payment to municipalities.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CHIPPETT:

In terms of their

infrastructure, we always fund them because they own the infrastructure. So the

Grants and Subsidies relate to municipal claims.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Coming

down to Revenue I still have enough time left, I think. Under Federal

Revenue, it looks like that money was budgeted, the $14.6 million.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Again, we wouldn't have had

any revenue in last year when the budget was done. So these are actually the

final payments from the federal government for Hurricane Igor claims.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

You

finally got the last of the money on Igor.

MR. CHIPPETT:

That is it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, very good.

I just

have a few seconds left and I know that if I had another question, Kevin is

probably going to ask it, so I'll turn it over. They were all my questions.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Hurricane Matthew is what we had last year, so the claims you're saying that 244

of them and 226 are paid out already?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

What

was the total cost? Any idea what the total cost of that whole ?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I know we're over $20 million, but I'll ask Robyn to speak to whether that's the

right number.

MS. HAYES:

It is around the $20 million mark, which will be funded by the federal

government 90-10.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm just going to stay in

this

section first and then I'll clue it up because I only have one question and

then I'll go back to the other two questions. On disasters, there's a certain

portion before the feds will come in with their money. What's the amount that if

something happens, whether it's a flood or anything at all, before the federal

government will come in and say okay, this is and is it in this

section that

we find the funding for this?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It is where the funding for this would be, it would be in this activity but it's

only triggered of course if there's an event of a certain magnitude, as you say.

The first $1.6 million, the province is on its own. Then there are differing

splits. So the more you spend or the greater the damage is, then you work your

way up to the 90-10 category.

MR. K. PARSONS:

And that goes high? Does

that go to $20 million, $15 million, $10 million?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Whatever it is above the

MR. JOYCE:

Over the limit.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Over the limit, the maximum

limit whatever it goes over, it's 90-10 after that. You have to reach a

certain threshold for the 90-10.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Just to understand again

like I said, I'm trying to understand my zero-based budget as much as I can. In

a department such as yours where these things can happen, and it seems like more

things can happen, my understanding through the Department