May 26, 2004 GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

The Committee met in the Assembly Chamber at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Manning): Order, please!

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to our second session for the Government

Services Committee in dealing with the Department of Transportation and Works,

and Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. We are going to do Aboriginal Affairs

first, but before we do that I need a motion to adopt the two sets of minutes

from the Wednesday, May 19 meetings dealing with the Department of

Transportation and Works and the Department of Government Services.

Could I have a motion to adopt those minutes?

MR. SKINNER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Ms Jones.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: With that, we will move into Aboriginal Affairs.

The first thing I would like to do is, they have asked us from downstairs to

go through everybody and introduce yourselves and your position again, just for

the record, and to remind everybody that if you are asked a question, or if your

are asking a question, before you answer or ask, that your red light be turned

on in front of you, because that gives the signal for downstairs where they are

doing the recording. The cameras are not on; it is just an audio recording.

Apart from - the minister we do not mind, but if anybody else is answering the

question then we would ask you to identify yourselves before you answer the

question so that the people downstairs can keep track of who is who.

With that, I am going to start with Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SWEENEY: George Sweeney, MHA for Carbonear-Harbour Grace District.

MR. LEWIS: Andy Lewis, Research.

MR. SKINNER: Shawn Skinner, MHA for St. John's Centre.

MR. RIDGLEY: Bob Ridgley, MHA for St. John's North.

MR. DUTTON: Sean Dutton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Labrador and

Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Tom Rideout, Minister.

MR. OSMOND: Don Osmond, Deputy Minister, Transportation and Works.

MR. MERCER: Cluney Mercer, ADM, Transportation.

MS OATES: Lori Lee Oates, Director of Communications, Department of

Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. MOORES: Weldon Moores, ADM, Works, Department of Transportation and

Works.

MR. TILLER: Gary Tiller, Director of Human Resources, Transportation and

Works.

MR. BYRNE: John Byrne, Manager of Budgeting, Transportation and Works.

MS HANRAHAN: Denise Hanrahan, Director of Financial Operations,

Transportation and Works.

CHAIR: Thank you.

My name is Fabian Manning, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's and

Chairperson of the Government Services Committee.

I want to call the heads. As we have done before, we will open the

section of

Aboriginal Affairs and, instead of taking one head at a time, we will leave the

whole

section open for questioning to move things along.

I will call the heads 1.1.01 to 2.1.03. We will open the floor for questions.

Ms Jones, do you want to -

MS JONES: The minister did not have any comments, did he?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I made an introductory statement at our last meeting, so

I don't think I will have anything further to say.

MS JONES: First of all, I would like to acknowledge the fact that my

colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, is unable to be here this evening.

He may show up later this evening, but, as you know, there is a vote ongoing

today in Labrador with regard to the Labrador Inuit Association, and he has been

very much involved in that. Normally he would be here as the critic for

Aboriginal Affairs. I just wanted to note that for the record.

A couple of questions, Minister. First of all, I would like to start off with

some questions as they relate to the Labrador Metis Nation. Back in October, I

guess, when the election was ongoing, your Premier did an assessment of a

ruling, the Powley ruling that was issued by the Supreme Court, and looked at

what rights would accrue to Metis people in - I do not know if it was in the

country in general or if it was just with regard to a specific case. Anyway, at

the time, he made a commitment in writing to the Labrador Metis people that he

felt, indeed, the ruling of the Powley decision would apply to them. Subsequent

to that, in February, I believe it was, you yourself informed the Labrador Metis

Nation that such would not be the case and that, in fact, it would not be

recognized as part of the ruling of the Powley decision.

It was my understanding after that, that there was an agreement reached by

the Labrador Metis Nation and the provincial government - and, primarily, with

the Premier - that there would be a decision, or there would be a deadline of a

decision, by April 12 awarded to the Metis people. Now, I realize that there was

a strike ongoing at that time, and I think the Labrador Metis Association - I

had met with the president during that time and they were being very flexible

with the time frame, simply because there was a public sector strike and that

government's attention had been diverted to that. Can you give me an update

today on where the Powley decision rests in regard to the Labrador Metis Nation,

please?

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some of the observations that the hon. member makes are correct. There was,

in fact, a meeting with some of the executive members of the Labrador Metis

Nation and there was an agreement that both sides, the provincial government and

the LMN and their legal advisers, would meet and exchange research information.

That, in fact, did take place before the date that both sides had agreed to.

There has been no followup meeting since. Now, I do not say that in the sense of

blaming anybody. There have been many other things on the go with the LMN

themselves, in terms of other areas that they have been working on, forestry

agreements, a whole bunch of things, but there has not been a followup meeting

from the original meeting that took place back in - I think it was April, was it

Sean?

MR. DUTTON: The solicitors met in March.

MR. RIDEOUT: March, okay, and there hasn't been a followup meeting

since?

MR. DUTTON: No. The lawyers for the two sides have been trying to get in

touch with each other to arrange a meeting but, I guess, both of their schedules

have been such that they have not been able to arrange it.

MR. RIDEOUT: But it is still ongoing. Nothing has transpired in any

negative sense. In fact, I think there probably will be some announcements on

some advances over the next day or so, as far as the LMN is concerned.

MS JONES: Okay. Can you tell me what the legal advisers were tasked to do

on government's behalf?

MR. RIDEOUT: We had agreed that we would exchange our research, the

research that the Province had conducted into the Aboriginal claim of the

Labrador Metis. The LMN had agreed that they would exchange the results of their

research with us, and it is my understanding that was what was agreed to. We

also agreed that we would not precipitate any further legal advances while that

was taking place, that perhaps we might look at the possibility of rather than

proceeding to court on the basis of getting some further jurisprudence on the

whole Labrador Metis issue, that we would explore the possibility of proceeding

along the lines of looking for a declaration from the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland rather than on the lines of proceeding on charges.

These were some of the legal issues that were discussed at this meeting with

the Premier and the LMN, myself and others, and it was left to our legal

advisers to follow through on that. As Shawn indicated, it is still being worked

on but it has not been advanced much beyond what it was at that point in time,

as far as I know.

MS JONES: Have you, or anyone in your department, made representation to

the federal government since you took office in November with regard to the

Labrador Metis land claim?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. In fact, I had a meeting personally with the previous

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Robert Nault, in Corner

Brook back within a month or so of us being sworn in. At that time, I encouraged

the federal government to make a decision on whether or not it was their view

that the LMN had a claim. As you know, that is the first step in the process. If

the federal government, after their assessment, agrees that there is a claim,

then there is a process of negotiations put in place, and it goes on from there

to the point of where we are with the LIA today.

There has been no decision made, as far as I know, by the federal government.

In addition to my meetings with Mr. Nault, after Mr. Mitchell became the

minister, I wrote him on a number of Aboriginal issues relative to our Province

encouraging him, again, to have a decision made on whether or not there was a

basis for a land claim by the LMN. That has not happened to this date. In fact,

I had two meetings arranged with Mr. Mitchell in the course of this past spring:

one to advance orally or to have discussions with him on those issues. One of

them went down during the strike and the other one went down since the election

was called, because I believe it was for the twenty-first, really, so it went

down since the election writ was dropped.

The answer is yes on both cases, both with Mr. Nault and Mr. Mitchell.

MS JONES: Okay.

Also, when the Metis - they were negotiating a MOU on forestry with the

government. Can you give me an update as to where that is?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. I think I can say that there has been substantial

agreement on that matter and I would not be surprised that perhaps over the next

day or two there would not perhaps be a public announcement regarding it.

MS JONES: That sounds final, sounds finalized.

MR. RIDEOUT: I think you could draw that conclusion.

MS JONES: Okay.

With regard to the Innu, has the reserve status been granted to the Innu at

this point?

MR. RIDEOUT: Reserve status has been granted in Natuashish and, in fact,

it was granted before the end of the calendar year, I do believe. It has not

been granted yet in Sheshatshiu. There have been particular complications in

Sheshatshiu as regarding land title and so on because, you know, it is not like

Natuashish, a new community created where the title to the land was Crown before

we got into individual ownership and so on, but I think it is fair to say that

both levels of government and the Band Council are working towards finalization

of the reserve status for Sheshatshiu, and we are expecting that it will happen

during this calendar year, but it is difficult to put a time frame on when it

might happen. We were trying - and I guess the previous Administration was - to

do both of them at the same time, but Sheshatshiu, for the reasons I just

referred to, fell off the table and did not get done, but we are proceeding to

try to do it as quickly as we can reach an agreement on land title.

MS JONES: Okay.

The transfer for health services for the Innu communities, does that go

directly to the Innu Nation or the Band Councils, or does it go to the Province?

I am not really sure.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am going to ask Sean to respond to that one, if you don't

mind.

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

In terms of non-insured health benefits, those funds are provided directly by

the federal government to the Innu and they administer that program themselves

through their health commissions. We do receive some funding from the federal

government to help the Labrador corporation for child and family services in

both communities, which we have been getting since June, 2002. That goes

directly to Health Labrador.

In terms of other health programs, primary health care is still provided by

Health Labrador. We are hopeful that we will be able to reach an agreement with

the federal government that they will assume the cost of the nursing station at

Natuashish, which they do pay for on other isolated reserves everywhere else in

Canada, except in Natuashish, for some reason, so we are still working on that

one. Health Canada also provides some direct health programing in the Innu

communities as well, particularly in the area of addictions and mental health

and so on.

MS JONES: In the Estimates, under Aboriginal Affairs, will you guys be

laying off your negotiators now that the Inuit agreement has been finalized and

all that piece has gone to a vote?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that will not happen immediately for sure. We are all

optimistic that there will be a positive vote tonight, but the process is not

over until ratification by this Legislature and by the Parliament of Canada

takes place.

What is the long-term plan, Sean? I don't think I have asked the question,

to be honest with you.

MR. DUTTON: We did have a position of Director of Land Claims that has

been vacant since that individual was promoted to Assistant Deputy Minister of

Wildlife, so we have one less person on the land claims since, I guess July or

August, than we had previously.

There are, as you mentioned, a number of things to do to get through the

provincial ratification side. Even after the agreement comes into effect, there

will still be a need for some negotiating resources because under

self-government the agreement provides that the Inuit can take over programs

like education, income support, some justice programing, and so on, but there

will have to be specific agreements negotiated for each of those service areas.

I would anticipate that over the next number of years, in the early part of the

claim being implemented, we will still be relatively active on negotiations. It

is just that they will have a different focus and more of them will be on the

social programing side and probably less activity on resource related

negotiations.

MS JONES: Winston White is working up in Aboriginal Affairs now. What is

he doing up there?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am sorry, I missed the first part.

MS JONES: Winston White.

MR. RIDEOUT: Winston White has been hired as Executive Assistant to the

Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, so he is actually doing executive

assistant work for both Minister Taylor and myself.

MS JONES: Would that be in these estimates here?

MR. RIDEOUT: There is a vote in here somewhere that he would be paid

from. Can you tell us where it is?

MR. DUTTON: I believe he has been hired on a six-month contract and we

were to find savings in the department to cover the cost, so there would be no

net increase in our budget. We have one secretarial position that is permanently

vacant and we have another that is temporarily vacant while the individual is

off on long-term sick leave. As a result of those vacancies, we have those

savings to cover the cost of that salary for that period.

MS JONES: Those two vacancies would have been budgeted for under

section

1.2.01?

MR. DUTTON: One would be under Labrador Affairs and the other under

Aboriginal Affairs.

MS JONES: So, one under 1.2.01, I am assuming, is it? Okay, one under

2.1.01 and 2.1.02.

MR. DUTTON: Under 2.1.01 and 2.1.02.

MS JONES: How many positions are vacant in the department right now that

are budgeted for here?

MR. DUTTON: In terms of funded positions, they would be the two.

MS JONES: That is the only two that are budgeted for that are vacant?

MR. DUTTON: Well, we did have, as I mentioned earlier, a Director of Land

Claims and that position - there is still a PCN number. It still exists but, at

this point, we do not have the funding resources to fill the position. It wasn't

considered to be a priority, given where the land claim negotiations had

advanced at that point in time.

MS JONES: Were there any positions cut in this budget for your

department?

MR. DUTTON: In Aboriginal Affairs, or throughout the department?

MS JONES: No, Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. DUTTON: In Aboriginal Affairs we had one contractual employee whose

contract was not renewed after the end of March. It was a policy analyst.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms Jones, your fifteen minutes has expired. I am going

to ask anyone else if they have a question and go back to you again.

Mr. Skinner.

MR. SKINNER: No.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, for my own interest, how does you office operate

the office of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs? Where does the split take place

with responsibilities between -

MR. RIDEOUT: The Labrador Affairs side of the department, the political

responsibility for that is Minister Taylor and the Aboriginal Affairs side of

the department, I have the political responsibility for. In other words, I deal

with the Aboriginal communities in Labrador and on the Island. As you know, the

Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the Mi'kmaw Indians in Conne River, and

the Labrador Aboriginal community. So, my title is just as it says, Minister

Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. Now, I guess the line is fine, because quite

often on Labrador issues in general, people in groups will copy me, and just as

often on Aboriginal Affairs, I guess, they copy Minister Taylor, but the

ministerial responsibilities split along the lines as I have explained.

MR. SWEENEY: Do you operate out of the same office?

MR. RIDEOUT: Of course, I operate more time, I guess it is fair to say,

out of Transportation and Works than I do anywhere else, but at the same time,

there is a minister's office on the sixth floor of this block; that was the

office of the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I use that office on

a frequent basis. When I am over meeting with officials or meeting with

Aboriginal groups, I use the boardroom on that floor. My understanding is - I

cannot answer it to be certain - that Minister Taylor does the same. When he is

working on Labrador Affairs matters, he quite frequently uses that office and

the boardroom and so on. I think in the absence of us using it, when he is in

town the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labrador Affairs uses it as

well.

MR. SWEENEY: Who is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Member for Lake Melville.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

There is an expenditure there of $89,700. I notice there is a salary of

$62,000 there. What is that for? Whose salary is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: You are in the Minister's Office now, are you, Mr.

Sweeney?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Salaries in the Minister's Office is $62,900. Last

year it was budgeted at $204,000 and it was revised at $179,500. There are

temporary and other employees budgeted at $60,700, and overtime earnings are

budgeted at $2,200, which gives you your $62,900. The parliamentary secretary

and an assistant is covered in those salaries. I only draw one salary,

obviously, as a minister, and Minister Taylor only draws one salary as a

minister. I think our salaries are actually voted in Transportation and Works,

my salary is, and Minister Taylor's in Fisheries and Aquaculture. The salary

you see here is Parliamentary Secretary and an Assistant to the Parliamentary

Secretary - correct, Sean? -

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: - and a $2,200 allotment for overtime and other earnings,

which makes up the total of $62,900.

MR. SWEENEY: Can you tell me more about the Assistant to the

Parliamentary Secretary?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, all of our political assistants are charged to our

departments. As far as I know, it was the same when you were the government.

When I was here previously there was a time, I understand, when the constituency

assistant vote was actually in the House of Assembly, but my understanding is

that some years ago, under your Administration, those votes were taken from the

House of Assembly for the minister's constituency assistant and put in the

department where the minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was, so that they

do not actually show up in the House of Assembly vote anymore.

I have a constituency assistant and I have an executive assistant, which you

people have the same thing. Those votes now show up in our departments. That is

my understanding of the way it is portioned out. Am I on the right line, Sean?

MR. DUTTON: Well, when the Parliamentary Secretary positions were

created, their assistants were, in the last fiscal year, charged to the House of

Assembly, and for this fiscal year all of the Parliamentary Secretaries'

assistants are charged to their departments.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is consistent with the explanation that I just gave.

The same thing happened to ministers some years back. When I was an Opposition

Member for Lewisporte, my constituency assistance was paid by the House of

Assembly. The day I became Minister of Transportation and Works, the salary of

that person had to come out of the Department of Transportation and Works. That

is an administrative thing that happened some years ago.

MR. SWEENEY: Your executive assistant and your constituency assistant?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, both.

MR. SWEENEY: Both assistants.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. In fact, I remember making the argument, Mr. Sweeney,

that I thought it was quite unfair, in a way, in terms of the departmental

salary estimates. I thought that the constituency assistants, all of them,

should be funded through the House of Assembly, because they were the assistant

to you as an MHA for some district or other.

The executive assistant, I can see, quite fine. That is political help for

the minister, and you have that in your right as a minister, but the other

position, I think, was more district oriented and I thought it was unfair that

it became a charge of the department; but I was advised, when I made some

inquiries to people we all know, like Bill Murray and so on, that this was done

some years ago.

MR. SWEENEY: Transportation and Communications, under the Minister's

Office, there is a fair decrease in the expenditure there, actually, by $47,500.

Can you give me some breakdown on this?

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year it was budgeted at $90,000, revised at $70,000,

and this year we are budgeting $22,500.

When I travel on Aboriginal Affairs business, I have my expenses billed to

the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I am assuming - but I cannot

speak for him - that Minister Taylor does the same.

The bulk of my travel, obviously, is Transportation and Works, so the larger

travel vote would appear in that department. This is based on our experience

from November, I guess, until the end of March, that this would be adequate to

cover that side of our travel requirements.

Am I missing anything, Sean?

MR. DUTTON: No, I guess you are combining those amounts. The vote was

there for 2003-2004 on the assumption of a full-time minister dedicated to that

department, and it has been reduced because of having two ministers who already

have a full travel vote in their other departments.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the explanation, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to skip back to Salaries again, you mentioned some

part-time positions. What would that be in the Minister's Office?

MR. RIDEOUT: Part-time (inaudible) temporary and other employees?

MR. SWEENEY: Temporary.

MR. RIDEOUT: That, we indicated, was the Parliamentary Secretary and his

assistant.

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I have been advised by Mr. Dutton that temporary assistants

could include perhaps a summer student. I believe there was a summer student in

the department last year doing work on Aboriginal Affairs matters, with

research. Whether that person or somebody similar will be here this year or not,

I don't know.

MR. SWEENEY: Moving on to Executive Support, 1.2.01.

MR. RIDEOUT: 1.2.01, Executive Support.

MR. SWEENEY: Salaries are down there by $77,200. What would that mean?

What jobs would be lost there or what services have we lost? Certainly, jobs it

is, salaries.

MR. RIDEOUT: I understand there is an ADM position vacant in Labrador,

and there was a vacant secretary position in Labrador as well. So, that accounts

for the lower - in fact, it was down from budget to revised, as you can see, and

down again to estimates for this year.

Sean, do you want to add to that, to make sure that we have all the

information?

MR. DUTTON: Yes. The ADM position was eliminated in February as part of

the reorganization of government at that time, and there was a vacant secretary

position that was funded but never filled. It was attached to that position and

that was eliminated at the same time.

MR. SWEENEY: So, those positions are gone for the duration of this

government, anyway, are they? They are not anticipated to be filled?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not at the present time anyway, unless there is a

requirement that can be demonstrated.

MR. SWEENEY: Employee Benefits, this is an interesting one here. I

thought it kind of striking that Employee Benefits would be $500 when we have

Salaries of $342,000. Why is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, membership and conference registration fees is

normally what is paid out of this. It was $4,000. It was budgeted at $500 last

year and went to $4,000. The revised was higher than budget because of increased

attendance at conferences and seminars, is the note I am given. Do you want to

add -

MR. DUTTON: Voisey's Bay and Beyond Conference.

MR. RIDEOUT: Voisey's Bay and Beyond Conference and things of that

nature, but the budget last year, Mr. Sweeney, as you can see, was $500. It is a

minimal budget that you have there as a line item that you could, if you need it

- as was done last year - obviously, transfer funds from some other line to that

line if you had the funds available for transfer.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney, I have to interrupt for a moment. Your eleven minutes

are up now.

I will go to Mr. Ridgley.

MR. RIDGLEY: Just back, minister, on that. I agree with you, it makes

more sense to take the constituency salary from the House of Assembly. So, would

there be thought of going back to that system or not?

MR. RIDEOUT: I really do not know, Mr. Ridgley. I think it is six of one

and half a dozen of the other in one respect. The House vote for salaries would

obviously be higher if thirteen ministers had thirteen - and the Leader of the

Opposition too, I guess - had thirteen constituency assistants - that would be

fourteen constituency assistants appear in the salary vote of the House. Whether

they appear in the department that the minister is responsible for and the

salary vote of that department is higher, I am not sure that it makes much

difference. It is an administrative item that was changed some years ago. My

view of it was that we had distinct responsibilities as MHAs and as ministers.

Our parliamentary privileges, and office space and office support and so on, was

the responsibility of the House. I felt, as one member, that that should stay

with the House, with Bill Murray and his staff.

MR. RIDGLEY: I agree with that, putting it with the House indicates what

work is being done and what the responsibility -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, but that is not the way it is now. Whether or not we,

as a government, and Treasury Board and as a Cabinet might revert to that

because that is the way it used to be when I was here last.

MR. RIDGLEY: It makes more sense.

CHAIR: Will that be all, Mr. Ridgley?

MR. RIDGLEY: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Oram?

MR. ORAM: No.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question with regard to the postal rates in Northern Labrador. I

know it is a federal issue, and it is one that I know my colleague, when he was

the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and when he was MHA, made

representation to the federal government on several times. I think they are on

what is called an air-stage rate for postal services. I do not know if your

department has had any correspondence with the federal government on that in the

past few months or if representation is continuing to be made on behalf of the

Inuit people and the Innu people in Northern Labrador.

MR. RIDEOUT: I cannot recall any correspondence, Ms Jones, under my

signature. I do not know, and I cannot speak for Labrador Affairs or Minister

Taylor, but I cannot - to be frank with you, other than having the issue raised

briefly in his introductory remarks when we met last time, I believe it is the

first time the issue has been drawn to my attention.

MS JONES: Just to make another point on that, because the federal

government did a rate review on postal rates back a few years ago -and at that

time myself and my colleague for Torngat Mountains did make representation to

the federal government - as a result of it, I guess, my district did get

converted from an air stage rate to a road stage rate, which saw the rates in

Southern Labrador come down on par with most other people in the Province, but

the North Coast still stayed the same. I guess, since that time, they have not

changed their mind or changed their decision. I guess the Member for Torngat

Mountains will raise it with you again at another time.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is certainly something we will take under

advisement and be prepared to receive representation on, and make representation

on, to the appropriate authorities federally.

MS JONES: Under

section 2.1.03., Grant and Subsidies, $4.7 million, what

is that money used for?

MR. RIDEOUT: Where are we now?

MS JONES: Page 55,

section 2.1.03.10.

MR. RIDEOUT:

Section 2.1.03?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: My pages are not numbered.

Sean, if you happen to have the answer right in front of you, go ahead.

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

Under the Inuit Communities Agreement, we have a federal-provincial

agreement. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provides funding for municipal

projects like water and sewer, housing, the Torngat Recreation Commission, as

well as education funding for the Inuit communities, targeted at Inuit education

programming and supports. Some of that money is voted through Labrador and

Aboriginal Affairs, and there is also some of the money that is administered

through the Department of Education and through Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. I think, for the coming year, we are expecting about $9.4 million in

federal funding and the Province provides about $1.2 million in matching funds

and administrative support, so the grants and subsidies issued there are issued

to the five North Coast communities and to Torngat Housing Authority for use for

those types of projects.

MS JONES: Okay.

Do you guys decide where the money is spent, or do the Inuit decide that?

MR. DUTTON: There is a management committee that is co-chaired by an

official in our department and an official in Indian and Northern Affairs, but

each of the five Inuit communities have a representative on that board and the

communities basically set the priorities for spending within the amounts of

money provided and within the categories for spending that are set out in the

agreement.

MS JONES: Okay.

In the Blue Book, Minister, there were several commitments made with regard

to Aboriginal Affairs, Aboriginal communities, and one was to increase the

participation and success of Aboriginal People in post-secondary education and

training.

I am well aware of programs that currently exist for Aboriginal People in

Labrador, and many people in my district access them on a regular basis. Those

programs are funded by the federal government, and most of the curricula that

are designed are designed using money from those programs, whether it be the LIA

training initiative, which is a Pathways Program, or some other training program

such as the regular HRDC.

Are you guys looking at bringing in another training program in addition to

that, or is there some other kind of support that you are looking to provide to

Aboriginal communities wanting to do post-secondary education and training?

MR. RIDEOUT: We have been attempting to continue on the work with the

Aboriginal groups in curriculum development and training. For example, I think

only last fall we participated in an Aboriginal religious curriculum development

program that saw consultation with the Aboriginal community in developing that

somewhat further. We are involved with the landless band concept with the

Federation of Newfoundland Indians, and those negotiations are still ongoing.

The former federal minister, Marc Lalonde is involved in those, as the member

may know, and with the LMN, in access to programs and services.

It is an ongoing affair, where we participate with the Aboriginal communities

and the Aboriginal groups in helping them access further funding for

post-secondary and training and also in curriculum development in a couple of

the areas that I have mentioned. That will be ongoing and will continue.

MS JONES: You said you are working with the LMN to access programs and

services.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: I took from your earlier comments that you also support a land

claim for the LMN.

MR. RIDEOUT: Support a land claim?

MS JONES: Support a land claim.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, what we support at the present time is encouraging the

federal government to make the first determination: Is there a basis for the

claim? If the federal government says, yes, there is, well then you go to the

next step, which involves beginning the negotiating process, but it is the

basis for the claim. That is not the role of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MS JONES: Also, in your Blue Book you talked about establishing a plan

that would include public sector internships to insure that Aboriginal people

would acquire the knowledge and skills required for effective government of

their own communities. Is that a specific program that you are launching through

Aboriginal Affairs or through the public service, or is it just part of the land

claim negotiation?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, in terms of the LIA, if the agreement is ratified

tonight and then a final ratification takes place -

MS JONES: It is in the land claim.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

- some months down the road, it is going to come to the front burner sooner

rather than later because, as you know, there is a self-government regime part

of that settlement and I am sure there will have to be training as part of that.

So, we would see it evolving that way for sure, as far as the LIA is concerned,

and as and when we move further into settlements with the Innu or the LMN or the

FNI, there could be requirements, depending on what each individual agreement

contains of course. I mean, the FNI, you might not envision - I do not what

would be envisioned. It probably would not be a self-government component

because they are living in many communities throughout the Province. But the

Innu would, very likely, have had a similar component as the LIA. So, that would

be the kind of approach to it and we would build on what is there already as

necessary.

MS JONES: So, it would not be a separate program? It would be what is

negotiated as part of their land claim?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the way we would envision it for now, yes.

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

CHAIR: Instead of going back and forth, if you want to continue on with

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs questions, because (inaudible) any questions

from the back. So just -

MR. RIDEOUT: I think she has indicated she is finished.

MS JONES: I am finished my questions with regard to the Aboriginal

Affairs.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Sweeney, do you have any on Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, I do.

CHAIR: Okay, go ahead.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, education - as Minister Responsible for Aboriginal

Affairs - do you have any input into the education system, say for instance, in

Natuashish?

MR. RIDEOUT: We have some input. I mean, we have funded programming that

assist in the development of Aboriginal educational curriculum, for example, in

Conne River and in Labrador. But, I think there is an agreement - isn't there,

Sean, and you can fill in the details here - where the Labrador School Board is

still involved, and whether or not the Sheshatshiu or the Innu are actually

delivering their own, primarily or not, you can speak to.

MR. DUTTON: In terms of education on reserve is a federal responsibility,

and because a reserve has been created at Natuashish the federal government

agreed to pay for the cost of education in that community. There is neither

reserve yet in Natuashish, so they are not paying for education there, but in

both cases the Labrador School Board is providing the service and it is under an

agreement with the federal government. So the school board is basically a

contractor for Indian Affairs to provide education services to provincial

standards in Natuashish.

The interims of the education system; we have also been working through a

main table on registration and reserve creation which involves the federal

government, the Province and the Innu on ways to try to improve the education

system for the Innu. One of the things we have been doing at that table is with

the federal funding. They have contracted Memorial University to do an

assessment of all the Innu students in both communities, both attending school

in those communities and attending other schools in the area, and also students

who are not attending school. The intention is to do a full assessment so that

they can determine what the needs are and how they could tailor a new program

for the Innu children that would be more effective.

Over the last year or so we have also been negotiating with the feds and the

Innu to, hopefully, arrange for the Innu to take over the administration of

schools in their communities. Those negotiations are not yet complete and it

does not appear likely that will happen this September, but the dialogue is

still ongoing. I believe that the Innu are seeking some additional federal

funding assistance to try to complete the preparations to be able to take over

those schools in an effective way.

MR. SWEENEY: The point I was trying to get to - I understand that part of

it. There has been some difficulty in Natuashish over the past winter months

regarding housing, teachers being hired and sent up there and housing not ready,

and then the teachers themselves having to pay rent or whatever you want to call

it, a living allowance to the - is a band council the proper term there in

Natuashish? That sort of thing has been causing some problems there, and I guess

in some ways some pressure is being applied to teachers to sign leases to go

into another year. I am just wondering what role, if any, your department plays

in conciliating some of the problems and difficulties that may arise between the

Band Council and the school board, because ultimately the school board very

likely gets a cheque from the federal government and that is the end of it. As

long as there are teachers in there and programs administered, that would

constitute their part of the deal; but the other part of the deal is: What

happens when we have teachers in there who run into difficulties, and is the

department tuned into those difficulties?

I know the week before last there were some other difficulties up there. From

what I understand, there was a blockade or a protest around the teachers'

accommodations and so on, so I am just wondering what involvement you have there

in that.

MR. RIDEOUT: First of all, let me say this: This is the first year in a

long time that there has been a full complement of teachers in Natuashish, and

up until a few weeks ago it looked relatively certain that the vast majority of

them were going to be returning.

Now, the hon. member did make some reference to some internal difficulties

that transpired with an individual teacher and an individual student, I guess,

that led to some activity within the community in terms of closing the school

and so on, but that was handled by the Labrador School Board, as I understand

it, without any involvement from our departments.

In terms of housing matters that surface in those communities - particularly

Natuashish, as you are referring to now - I am not aware that we would have any

involvement in those. Again, if it is relative to teachers it would be handled

by the school board; if it is relative to the RCMP, it would be handled by their

personnel.

There were housing pressures in Natuashish anyway, because there weren't

enough houses for the number of people who were moving from Davis Inlet, as the

hon. member knows, but these are not day-to-day matters that we are involved

with on a day-to-day basis.

Sean, do you want to add to that?

MR. DUTTON: Just to say that we have certainly been monitoring the

situation there over the last few weeks and there have been a number of reports,

as the member indicated. Our intention is to meet with the Department of

Education over the next couple of days to do a full assessment of the situation

and determine if there are things that the Province can do to try to help assist

the situation.

Certainly, the school board has been trying to deal with it themselves, but

they have become somewhat frustrated with the difficulties they have encountered

in the last few weeks. I guess, as the minister mentioned, it has been a

relatively recent development and we are hoping to try to get that sorted out

before too long so that they can proceed with filling the positions for teachers

for the next school year.

MR. SWEENEY: You hit the nail right on the head. The point I was getting

to is that there was, this year, for the first time in a number of years, a full

complement of teachers there. Unfortunately, I think what is after happening in

the past little while - the reports I am getting, anyway - is that next year the

staffing levels may be jeopardized because of the instances that happened this

year, and only in the past month or so.

MR. RIDEOUT: I can confirm, Mr. Chairman, that is a concern - a concern

for us and a concern for the Department of Education - and it is that concern

that we will be attempting to collectively address fairly shortly; but up until

very recently it looked as if we were going to have a very small turnover, which

was great news, but now, as a result of what has transpired, it may well be that

the turnover will be significantly greater.

MR. SWEENEY: Just a few more questions here.

The gas situation on the -

MR. RIDEOUT: Rigolet?

MR. SWEENEY: In Rigolet, and Postville, I think, is it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Just Rigolet, I think.

MR. SWEENEY: Just Rigolet? Okay. Is there any resolve to that in the near

future?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not at the moment, as far as I know. Again, that is a matter

that is being handed by Minister Taylor, as a Labrador Affairs matter more so

than an Aboriginal matter that I have been handling on a day-to-day basis. Was

it raised in Committee the last time you did Labrador Affairs?

MR. DUTTON: I think, in that session, Minister Taylor and Mr. Andersen

alluded to some discussions they were having outside of the communal

proceedings.

MR. RIDEOUT: I know there have been discussions back and forth between

the community and the department - the Labrador Affairs side of the department -

in terms of trying to reach some long-term solution to the gas. The problem is,

the community doesn't want to do it any more, and an independent supplier

doesn't want to come back in, I guess. That is about it, in a nutshell, and

they were looking for some financial assistance, the last thing I recall, in

terms of relocation of the outlet, and that is where it stands at the moment.

Have I left out anything?

MR. DUTTON: Just that our staff in Happy Valley-Goose Bay have been

attempting to talk to some other potential suppliers, commercial operators who

might be prepared to come in. I think the key, as you mentioned, is whether the

existing tanks could be relocated to a more appropriate location. They have had

some difficulties with fuel spills and so on at that particular site and they

need to physically move the tanks to another part of the community.

We have asked the community for a cost estimate on what that might require,

to do that, and that has just recently been received so that is under review at

this time.

MR. SWEENEY: Is your department involved in any activities regarding

negotiations with the native groups regarding, say, for instance, the Lower

Churchill, logging rights, or -

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, yes, we have been party to the negotiations between

the Labrador Metis Nation and the Department of Natural Resources in terms of a

forestry agreement, or the renewal up there, because there was an agreement that

- what, ran out the last of March? - or had been extended. I think ran out and

was then extended to the last of March.

Mr. Sweeney, our department would be consulted in those types of

negotiations. I was not here when the benefits agreements were negotiated

between the, say, the LIA and the Innu in terms of Voisey's Bay, but I would

assume that the department facilitated those negotiations and helped them out,

moved them along and gave advice and so on. So, we are involved in a daily way

on those kinds of negotiations.

Health, education matters; the view of our department is sought to try to get

some consistency across the whole spectrum of government as it relates to

Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. SWEENEY: So, there is no activity anymore with the Lower Churchill in

your department? That is pretty well -

MR. RIDEOUT: Not at the moment, is there?

DUTTON: No, we have basically - discussions with the Innu Nation were put

on hold in the fall of 2002, at the same time as the project discussions were

put on hold, and until such time as they are to be revisited, then that will be

the point at which we will have to revisit discussions with the Innu Nation

again.

MR. SWEENEY: Aboriginal Affairs, that is 2.1.01. Let's go back to some

salary details now until I get another thought on something else here.

In 2.1.01, Salaries are down by $31,400. What is the breakdown on that? What

happened?

MR. RIDEOUT: Revised are lower than the budget due to employee turnover,

so my note tells me. Do you want some detail on that?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes. What vacancy would that, or vacancies would that -

MR. RIDEOUT: And the estimates are lower than budget, the overall general

government restraint - that was the policy analyst position that Mr. Dutton

referred to earlier, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: The Transportation and Communications budget is up by

$50,000 from last years. What would cause that increase, considering that in the

Minister's Office it was down on the other end of it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year the budget figure was actually $330,000 and

$200,000 got spend, and this year the estimate is $250,000. So, the amount

budgeted this year is a bit lower. It is related to travel related expenses and

telecommunications costs. The revised are lower because travel related expenses

respecting land claim negotiations were lower than originally anticipated, as

the majority of the meetings were held in St. John's. That will hopefully keep

our spending in check again this year. We will try our best, but if it goes

beyond that I guess it goes beyond that, but there should be less requirement

for, certainly from the LIA perspective, perhaps on land claim expenses this

year than past.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. That extra $50,000, where did that come from? Did that

come from - is that new money or was it taken from other areas in the

department?

MR. RIDEOUT: You mean the $250,000?

MR. SWEENEY: Well, the extra $50,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, it was $330,000 last year. So there was a savings of

$130,000 from your budgeted to your revised.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: This year we are budgeting $250,000. I mean, that is

$250,000 approved by Treasury Board during the budgetary process for that line.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. When I look at budgets I always look at what was spent

the year before.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is the revised.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, but regardless of what it was, that is what was spent.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, but you budgeted $330,000. So you actually had a saving

of $130,000 that you could either not spend or transfer and spend somewhere

else, I guess. I don't know what you did with it.

MR. SWEENEY: It is a good argument, yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Sometimes it gets transferred into other heads altogether,

as you require it.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay, yes.

Professional Services, I guess probably you are going to tell me the same

thing on that one, but last year $85,000 was spent and this year it is $150,000

spent. There is an extra $65,000 there.

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year you actually budgeted to spend $193,000, but you

did not require it. We spent $85,000, between you and us, and this year we are

budgeting $150,000. That is consultation and specialized research on native

issues, including land claims, library and archival research, translation

services, academic research and

interpretation, is generally the things that are

paid for out of that.

The Revised is lower than the Budget. In other words, you budgeted $193,000

but spent $85,000. That happened because expenses related to land claim

negotiations, such as translation contracts, started later than originally

anticipated.

MR. SWEENEY: I hope you are going to show all these figures to the

Premier, so that he won't be getting on with how we drove her right to the

wall last year, you know; we actually saved money.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, there are lots of other areas where you didn't.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, I am sure, and I guess next year we will talk about some

of those too.

MR. RIDEOUT: Next year we will have a full twelve months to answer for.

This year we don't.

MR. SWEENEY: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: No, we haven't found any here yet, where we drove her.

Purchased Services, again we will go through the same rationale, I am sure,

from what was budgeted and what was spent, and where we have gone this year. I

always felt that what we spend one year is a good benchmark for what we spend

the next year.

MR. RIDEOUT: I think, generally speaking, that is correct.

MR. SWEENEY: We are up $123,000, so where would....?

MR. RIDEOUT: You budgeted to spend $213,000 -

MR. SWEENEY: But we never.

MR. RIDEOUT: - and you actually spent $50,000 and now we are budgeting

$173,000 this year. Purchased Services are meeting room rentals and all related

expenses associated with land claim negotiations, photocopier charges, printing

costs, repairs and maintenance of office furniture and equipment, professional

training, ergonomic assessments, shredding services, office facilities and

renovations. Again, the lower amount spent than actually budgeted was because

there was less than originally anticipated, again because most of the land claim

negotiations were held in St. John's and we had government buildings here, and

government offices here, and you didn't have to.... Lots of times, when those

meetings are held in Halifax, or in Amherst, Nova Scotia, or in Montreal -

sometimes, I know, the Inuit meetings are - or in Ottawa, you have to lease

meeting space and the backup office requirements that are necessary. As we said,

most of them were held here last year so we didn't have to do that.

MR. SWEENEY: One final question on Aboriginal Affairs, seeing my

colleague from Torngat is not here yet. He is on a flight, I think, somewhere

between Goose Bay and St. John's.

MR. RIDEOUT: Is he actually coming back tonight? I thought he was staying

for the vote.

MR. SWEENEY: He called this afternoon and said he was hoping to get back

tonight.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.

MR. SWEENEY: Then again, maybe at the last minute he may have changed his

mind. That was the last communication I had.

Grants and Subsidies, there is none budgeted, there was $250,000 spent, and

there was none budgeted this year. Who is going to suffer on that one? If there

was a need last year to spend $250,000....

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised reflects a grant that was made to the Labrador

Inuit Association as the Province's contribution to its 50 per cent share of

the cost of the ratification of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims and the

Self-Government Agreement. The funding was redirected from other areas in the

Aboriginal Affairs Department.

Sean, do you want to add anything further to the briefing note?

MR. DUTTON: Just that, in the final agreement with the Inuit, it was

agreed that the federal and provincial governments would cost share the

ratification process, and that required the appointment of a committee with

appointees from the Province, the federal government, and the LIA, an impartial

Chair. They are basically the Chief Electoral Officer for this vote. They have

compiled the voting list and they are overseeing the running of the voting

process itself, and it was agreed that we would cost share that.

Since we didn't initial the agreement until August, we didn't know for

certain when that might occur, how we would administer the money, and a decision

was made at that point in time to transfer the funds to LIA for the purpose of

administering the grant to the committee, so those funds did come from the

savings in Professional and Purchased Services that you see there, to cover that

cost. It is a one-time cost.

MR. SWEENEY: A one-time deal.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay, that is it for me, on Aboriginal Affairs.

MS JONES: Just one thing, if I could.

CHAIR: Go ahead.

MS JONES: This more for Sean than for the minister, I guess, because it

is a Labrador Affairs piece. The Voisey's Bay monitor that was announced last

week, it said that the duties would be taken on by someone in the department.

Have the duties been assigned to someone in your department now?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MS JONES: If so, is it in Goose Bay or St. John's?

MR. DUTTON: Goose Bay.

MS JONES: What is the title of the position that was used to assume those

responsibilities?

MR. DUTTON: The individual is a senior analyst in our Happy Valley-Goose

Bay office.

MS JONES: Okay.

What about in Labrador City, Labrador West?

MR. DUTTON: It is an employee of the Department of Natural Resources. I

believe it is a Mineral Analyst.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is a Natural Resources employee, I know that.

MS JONES: Okay.

The only one I know, I think, is on maternity leave, aren't they? I am not

sure.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am sorry?

MS JONES: I am thinking that position was filled by someone who is on

maternity leave.

MR. RIDEOUT: In Labrador West, or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

MS JONES: Labrador West.

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't know.

MS JONES: Okay.

That is it for me.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Jones.

The Estimates of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs were carried by another

Committee. The Resource Committee carried them, so I don't need anything. We

can go right into Transportation and Works.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, before you do, if we are finished with

Aboriginal Affairs and there is no anticipation that we will be coming back to

it, I wouldn't mind allowing Mr. Dutton to move on, if that is acceptable to

the Committee.

CHAIR: That is fine.

MS JONES: Sure.

MR. RIDEOUT: I need him to do some checking for me on the vote, and a few

other things.

CHAIR: Yes.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Dutton.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you.

MR. DUTTON: Thank you.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Sean.

CHAIR: We will continue into Transportation and Works, if Mr. Mercer

would like to move up front.

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

CHAIR: I am going to ask Mr. Mercer to move up front.

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, I would not propose to make any statement other than

the statement that we made last time, and I guess the Committee can pick up

there wherever they want, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Just to remind people (inaudible) who are new to the seats, if you have to

answer a question, please identify yourself for the people recording.

With that, I open the floor for questions, Ms Jones.

MS JONES: I am going to start my estimates on page 89, Marine Operations,

section 4.2.01.

MR. RIDEOUT: Page 89. Okay, I have the page.

CHAIR: Go ahead, Ms Jones. (Inaudible) starting again.

MS JONES: All right. Page 89, the Marine Operations,

section 4.2.01.

Under

section .01, Salaries have increased by $167,900 over last year's

budgeted amounts. Can you tell me what the increase is for?

MR. RIDEOUT: The estimates are up due to salary reallocation from other

activities in the Marine administration division, and the revised is up due to

the cost of temporary employees, specifically technical marine engineering and

project management staff. That is .01, right?

MS JONES: Yes. The salary reallocation, where would that have come from?

MR. RIDEOUT: Salary reallocation - go ahead, Don.

CHAIR: Is your light on, Mr. Osmond?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it is not.

CHAIR: Could I have Mr. Osmond's light turned on, please?

MR. OSMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The additional monies actually came from within the department. There was at

least one position within that branch which had been previously - underfunded

would be the way to put it, I guess, and we have been trying over the last

couple of years to keep things even keel there in that area. So, this estimate

in 2004-05 finally recognizes that and assigns the money in that branch.

MS JONES: What position was unfunded, that you would have made an

increase to? What is the title?

MR. OSMOND: I am sorry, I could not give you the title but it is as the

minister had related, in terms of technical and project management staff.

MS JONES: The rest of the $167,000 is temporary employees, I understand?

MR. RIDEOUT: There were additional costs for temporary employees,

specifically the technical marine engineering and project management staff.

MS JONES: Would they be people working on the boats, ferries, or in the

department?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, they would be people working on the boats. Yes, I am

advised that is the case, Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Under that same heading, .05 Professional Services, you

budgeted $8,000 the same as was budgeted last year, although there was only

$2,000 spent. Can you tell me what you would use that for, what special services

you would be requiring?

MS HANRAHAN: That would be for technical surveys. Those types of outside

services we would get from a professional engineering firm, something like that.

MS JONES: Technical surveys?

MS HANRAHAN: Related to marine specs, design, things for Transport

Canada, and I would assume this year we did probably more in-house or did not

require as much out of house.

MS JONES:

Section 4.2.02. The budget has decreased for Salaries, .01, by

$1.150 million, somewhere around that ballpark. Can you tell me what the decline

is? What positions have been vacated or terminated?

MR. RIDEOUT: There are no positions vacated or terminated, but the

estimates are down due to expenditure reduction initiatives. Like, for example,

a half million dollar savings in overtime costs. Then, of course, less the

annualization of prior year salary increases. The revised is up due to increased

salary costs related to the marine collective agreement, ferry workers and

captains.

Denise, do you need to add anything else to that?

MS HANRAHAN: The revised figure versus the estimate, I think that is the

million or so you were speaking of. The true change is probably the half million

dollar reduction in overtime, less some annualization, which works out to be

about $350,000 to $375,000 for year-over-year change in budget.

MS JONES: Okay. So you are saying that last year it rose to $10 million

because of marine contracts with workers but this year it declined because you

are taking out three hundred and something thousand in overtime -

MR. RIDEOUT: Five hundred in overtime.

MS JONES: Five hundred in overtime, so what about those contracts? They

don't have to be honoured this year? There is no payout on them this year,

or...?

MS HANRAHAN: Some of the salary increases are directly related to the

operating time of the vessels, so any changes in the scheduling for vessels - if

it is a reduced number of hours or if it is more accurately into the

collectively agreement - would, in fact, be a salary saving.

The marine collective agreements for captains and for workers states that

once they get outside, for example, their twelve-hour schedule, they earn

overtime and other benefits, and that drives the cost substantially. When a

schedule is extended beyond an employee's twelve-hour shift, you will see the

cost go up. So part of the expenditure reduction in the reduction of overtime,

obviously, is looking at schedules as well.

MS JONES: Have you changed schedules on many of your routes this year,

your ferry routes?

MR. RIDEOUT: I understand that the answer is none, to this point in time.

MS JONES: So you haven't changed any schedules on any of your ferry

routes yet this year?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, that is what I am advised.

MS JONES: But you are expecting to make savings of several hundred

thousand dollars simply by changing your schedules. I don't understand.

MS HANRAHAN: (Inaudible). There is fueling, there are fire drills, things

like that, so if those were scheduled differently, obviously there would be

savings from employees. The schedules don't necessarily involve the public. It

is your own operational schedules of when you do stuff with what boats.

MS JONES: So, you intend to make the savings in overtime and so on by

adjusting your operational schedules?

MS HANRAHAN: To be more efficient.

MS JONES: Okay.

Also under that section, Purchased Services are reduced from last year. Can

you tell me what kinds of services that would be?

MR. RIDEOUT: Are you looking at 06. Purchased Services?

MS JONES: Yes, I am.

MR. RIDEOUT: Seven point two was budgeted and something over seven was

spent, and this year it is estimated at six point eight?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is down due to reduced outside repairs and

refits, but as to exactly what it was spent on, is it all repair and outfitting?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is, all repair and outfitting of our fleet, I say to the

hon. member, Mr. Chair.

MS JONES: I am sorry, I didn't get what you said.

MR. RIDEOUT: Repair and refitting of the fleet.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what those amounts are spent on.

MS JONES: So, I guess you are not anticipating to have to do as much

refit this year; is that why the number is down?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is down due to reduced outside repairs and

refits. We had substantial repairs last year on what, the Bond and the Ranger ?

OFFICIAL: Yes, and we had some mid-life refits.

MR. RIDEOUT: And we had some mid-life refits that won't be necessary

again for some period of time. They will be necessary again at some point, but,

you are right, the overall budget should be significantly less than what it was

last year for that particular line.

MS JONES: Debt Expenses, I cannot recall right now what that line is. Do

you want to tell me what that is?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, the estimates are down to reflect the reduced interest

cost on the purchase of the Gallipoli and the Beaumont Hamel .

These vessels were lease-purchased over x number of years and, I guess, with

falling interest rates and so on like that, there was some reduction in the

amount of interest paid.

Those vessels, I think, are getting fairly close to being paid off now, aren't

they? That is what that line is, Mr. Chairman.

MS JONES: Okay.

Section 4.2.03. Coastal Labrador Ferry Operations.

MR. RIDEOUT: Right.

MS JONES: Transportation and Communications is up to $3.227 million. Last

year there was $945,000 budgeted and it was revised at $2.6 million and a bit.

Can you explain to me why the increase this year?

MR. RIDEOUT: I will explain two things. First of all, the Revised was up

from last year from the Budget to the actual spending of $2.6 million due to

unforseen costs related to freight handling, which became the responsibility of

the Province with the new contracts, so I am advised, and the estimates are up

this year to reflect the anticipated cost of the 2004-2005 season.

MS JONES: When you say the cost of freight handling, what are you

referring to? Do you want to explain that to me?

MR. RIDEOUT: All of the freight handling service that was provided last

year -

MS JONES: Dockside service?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. I am not talking about trucking costs.

MS JONES: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am talking about marine costs.

MS JONES: Yes, loading and offloading the boats, and maintaining the port

and all that stuff.

MR. RIDEOUT: Exactly, yes.

MS JONES: So that was removed from the new contract and that expense was

then taken on by the department is what you are telling me?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is correct.

CHAIR: Ms Jones, you have gone past your time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

CHAIR: Do you want to continue?

MS JONES: If it is okay with the Committee, I would like to finish

4.2.03. and then I will pass it along to my colleague.

CHAIR: To finish that section? Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Can I just have one more word before you move on?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Previous to last year, I guess you would know this, the

revenue was collected by the contractor.

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: And that changed in the new contract. So, while there is an

increase in our cost here, somewhere along the line you will also see a revenue

source that has some offsetting effect on that because we obviously get the

revenue now. That is down in Revenue-Provincial, where you will see the

difference between what was budgeted last year, $18 million, and what was

actually revised to be $20 million, and it is around $20 million again this

year. So, there is some offsetting effect here when you look at two different

columns.

MS JONES: The supply cost here, is that where your fuel cost is incurred?

MR. RIDEOUT: Supplies?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I am advised that is a fact.

MS JONES: I notice that your fuel cost is down this year to what you

budgeted it last year, up a little bit to what you have revised, but you are

running the Sir Robert Bond this year into Lewisporte. Where would the

extra fuel costs be budgeted for that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Where would it be budgeted? I don't understand. Could I

just have a second?

I am advised, I say to the Committee, Mr. Chair, that you are running the

vessels the same number of days and the same distances, approximately. So your

fuel costs are not going to be - so my officials tell me - marginally different

from what they would have been last year. Now, that is not to say there will not

be any, but it should not be much different. For example, there was some talk of

- not talk. There was a significant amount of pressure, for example, to run the Trans

Gulf on a fourteen day turnaround out of Lewisporte as it was last year,

rather than a seven day turnaround out of Cartwright. In investigating that

possibility, I am told by my officials that there would be no appreciable cost

in the cost of fuel on either one of those options because the distance

travelled is approximately the same when you add it together. That is the advice

I have been tendered.

MS JONES: I would tend to agree, with the exception of the fact that the

announcement that you made said we would not see a decline in service on the Sir

Robert Bond by moving the boat to Lewisporte. So, if there is no decline in

service, it means the boat is going to have to run more hours to accommodate the

new schedule.

My question is going to be: How much fuel does the Sir Robert Bond

burn in an hour? I can do my own calculations based on that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I cannot provide you that but the officials can have -

a thousand litres an hour, is what I am told.

MS JONES: So, that is 24,000 litres of fuel each way between Cartwright

and Goose Bay. That is 50,000 litres of fuel that will be made each trip that

was not consumed last year, but there is no money in the budget for the fuel

cost.

MR. RIDEOUT: There is money in the budget for the operations.

MS JONES: Well, there is no extra money budgeted to cover the extra

50,000 litres of fuel that will be consumed on each of those crossings.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, go ahead, Don.

MR. OSMOND: Hopefully, this might add a little bit of clarity to it.

Included in that line item of Supplies, it is not only fuel but also some of the

expenses we incur to maintain and refit the vessels. Certainly, in preparing for

last year there were some significant costs to refit the Bond and the Ranger

that we do not anticipate incurring again this year. So, there is a sort of

leveling out here.

MS JONES: That came out of your Supplies and not out of your Purchased

Services?

MR. OSMOND: The parts would be coming out of Supplies.

MS JONES: Can you give me a breakdown of that, please?

MR. OSMOND: Not right now, but I could try to undertake to get it.

MS JONES: Can you provide it to me?

MR. OSMOND: Indeed.

MS JONES: I am aware that last year there was some damage to the Northern

Ranger . I thought that was covered under the insurance policy, and not by

the department.

MR. OSMOND: I would have to check that for you.

MS JONES: Can you tell me, then, what the refit damages would have been

to the Northern Ranger last year?

MR. RIDEOUT: We should have those, as I have seen them. I know they were

up significantly on both vessels last year.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The total refit figure?

MS HANRAHAN: For the Bond it was $1.95 million, and the Ranger

was $960,000.

MS JONES: Where would that $1.95 million and the $960,000 have been

budgeted for?

MS HANRAHAN: Purchased Services (inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay, that is the point I was trying to make.

MS HANRAHAN: If the parts were bought by the department, which we do

sometimes in an effort to reduce costs, we may get a better price than, for

example, the contractor would. They would come in under Supplies. If they were

parts that were bought as part of the refit work, the total bill is treated as

Purchased Services.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) trying to explain, I guess, there is some

expense charged in both heads.

MS JONES: Yes, and I would like to have a breakdown, please, of the

supplies: what would have been parts and what would have been fuel last year,

and what is being budgeted for this year. I would also like to have a breakdown

of the Purchased Services.

It is my understanding that, other than the work done on the Ranger

and the Bond last year, there were other one-time costs incurred by the

department. I am looking at the fact that the work on the Bond last year

was a one-time cost, the $1.95 million. Isn't that accurate?

MS HANRAHAN: There are annual refits, but probably not to the same extent

in (inaudible).

MS JONES: Well, last year, wasn't the hull redone on the Bond ,

extensive work done on the Bond last year and the year before that would,

in my mind, not have to be re done this year? I wouldn't think so. Anybody at

all.

MR. OSMOND: You are correct, in that there was a certain amount of work

that was deferred over several years in anticipation of retiring the Bond ,

and when the decision was made not to retire it, but to continue it in service,

there was a significant amount of deferred work that had to be done in order to

carry on into the future with it. So there is a blip, if you will, last year or

during last winter, an area of last year, to account for that increased refit

cost.

MS JONES: Okay.

Do you have any estimation on what the refit was this year? Because the refit

would have been done now, I guess, in anticipation of the boat getting ready to

sail.

MS HANRAHAN: The estimate I have - I don't know, Cluney, if you would

know the actual figure. I doubt - the bill may not even be in yet. The Bond

refit was estimated at $1.35 million, and the Ranger refit was estimated

at $675,000.

MR. MERCER: My understanding is that the refit on the Bond this

year will come in a little over a million dollars.

MS JONES: That is what she just said.

MR. MERCER: Yes.

MS JONES: Other one-time costs last year, there was a lease of the Astron

to run freight into Northern Labrador. Where would that have been in the

Estimates here, under the Coastal Ferry Operations? Under Purchased Services?

Can you tell me how much that was?

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't remember it off the top of my head, but I do

remember seeing the figure.

MS HANRAHAN: The total cost for the Astron , including the fuel,

supplies, and the additional days of the contract, were just shy of $300,000.

MS JONES: That would all be under Purchased Services?

MS HANRAHAN: Yes, because it would have been a bill from the contractor.

Fuel may have come in under Supplies.

MS JONES: How many days did you say it was?

MS HANRAHAN: I am not positive on the number of days.

MR. OSMOND: I thought it was fourteen, but don't hold us to that, okay?

MS JONES: I am not sure either; that is why I am asking.

I also know there was a one-time cost last year of lease for one of Berkshire's

boats to take containers out of Makkovik plant, I think, and maybe Black Tickle

plant.

MR. OSMOND: While Denise may have some figures, that is true. At the

beginning of the year, I forget the name of the vessel - it was a fairly small

vessel - was chartered for a very short period of time, a number of days, maybe

a week. I don't recall it having been chartered again during the year, though;

I think it was just at the beginning of the year.

MS JONES: How much was that?

MS HANRAHAN: I don't have it.

MR. OSMOND: I am sorry, we don't have that figure here.

MR. RIDEOUT: We will have to undertake to get it for you.

MS JONES: Don, can you get that number for me?

MR. OSMOND: I will, yes.

MS JONES: Can you tell me what other one-time cost was incurred last year

that would have come out of Purchased Services or Supplies?

MR. RIDEOUT: The additional operating, that is for the Appollo .

That would have been in one of those. Was there anywhere else?

MS JONES: That would have been around $300,000, $350,000?

MR. RIDEOUT: I will have to depend on the officials for that.

It was only extended for - what was it extended for? Three or four days, four

or five days?

MR. OSMOND: That is about $18,000 a day.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is about $18,000 a day, yes.

MS JONES: Yes, the ice was in last year. She did not get on early, maybe

about six or seven days.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is kind of about $18,000 a day - $17,000 and a bit, I

think.

MS JONES: Okay. Was there any other one-time cost?

MR. RIDEOUT: I cannot recall any other one-time costs on vessels, the Astron ,

the Appollo .

MS JONES: Okay, getting back to Supplies again. I guess I am going to

have to ask for a full breakdown of the fuel cost under Supplies because I do

not see where you have budgeted any fuel costs for the Sir Robert Bond to

go to Lewisporte. I know there are going to be a number of trips lost out of

Goose Bay, but those trips are only twelve hours. They are much shorter. The

Lewisporte one is twenty-four hours. So you would still be looking at consuming

an additional $24,000 litres of fuel each way. I would like to get a breakdown

of that, and because the figure is down, I am assuming that you would have

obviously budgeted for increased fuel costs this year. I mean, the fuel is going

up and I don't see how that was budgeted for either. So, my guess is, the

Supplies number is low in comparison to the configuration that you have

outlined.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I don't think there is any doubt about that, that

there will be some additional fuel costs, no question. I think though, what is

fair to say is there will very likely be some changes to those revised, as there

were changes to many of the revised last year, and I guess for other years as

well.

Fuel costs are going up. The configuration I don't think had been - I don't

even know if the configuration had been announced when the Budget documents were

put together, to be honest with you. The revised next year will probably need

some adjustment, but we certainly will provide a breakdown of what we anticipate

the cost to be.

MS JONES: The money that was used last year to do the renovations in

Cartwright, was that under Purchased Services under Coastal Labrador Ferry

Operations?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is under Ferry Terminals, 4.2.04.

MS JONES: Okay, well I will leave it until I get there. I am just making

sure I have covered all the stuff that is under the Purchased Services as

one-time costs.

MR. RIDEOUT: So, you don't want us to answer that. You are going to go

with that a little later, are you?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, okay.

MS JONES: Transportation and Communications, under that same head, .03.

What is that money for?

MS HANRAHAN: (Inaudible) shore based facilities, including some freight

handling.

MS JONES: Oh, yes, that is the one you already told me.

MS HANRAHAN: Right.

MS JONES: Sorry about that. I get that confused.

The contract for the ferry service into Williams Harbour and Norman Bay. How

much is that contract, and where is that paid out to?

MR. OSMOND: The value of that contract is approximately $300,000 per

annum. It is $271,000, to be exact.

OFFICIAL: That is last year's (inaudible).

MR. OSMOND: Which subhead does it come out of?

OFFICIAL: That would be Purchased Services (inaudible) supplies.

MR. OSMOND: The bulk of that would come out of Purchased Services,

4.2.03.06.

MS JONES: Are the rates going to be adjusted on that service this year?

MR. OSMOND: There is a 10 per cent increase on ferry rates across the

board throughout the Province.

MS JONES: The problem last year - and it probably should have gotten

fixed last year; however, it didn't because it was late in the season when it

came to my attention - when the boat was put in service, the rates were not

adjusted for the area. The rates were still based on the old coastal boat rates,

when the freight boats used to come out of Lewisporte, and they weren't

necessarily adjusted to a ferry rate.

It was raised in the department probably in September of last year and it was

at the end of the season and nothing got done with it, so I didn't know if the

adjustments were going to be made for this year or not.

MR. OSMOND: I am sorry, I don't have recall of that. The best I can do

is offer to check that for you.

MS JONES: If you could have a look at it, I would appreciate it because I

think the rates were relatively very high, especially for individual passengers

just walking on the boat, because it doesn't carry vehicles anyway.

All the cost of operating the Lewisporte terminal and all of that will come

out of

section 4.2.04. also, for the Labrador-based ferry.

MR. RIDEOUT: I think that is correct, yes. That is the note here on that.

MS JONES: Was there any extra money budgeted this year for the Apollo ,

to extend the service at all beyond January 3, or for earlier start-up dates?

MR. RIDEOUT: There is normally no money budgeted for that anyway, in any

year, as far as I understand, in past practices. You do it on an ad hoc basis

and if you know well in advance that it looks like it is going to be possible

because of conditions, then you will seek Treasury Board approval to do it and

hopefully you will have countervailing savings somewhere else to offset the

additional cost of it, but it my understanding that is the way it has been

handled in the past.

MS JONES: Okay, I am going to turn it over to my colleague for a minute

and then I will come back to

section 4.2.04.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister,

section 3.2.02., I think, is where I left off the

last day.

MR. RIDEOUT:

Section 3.2.02. Page 86?

MR. SWEENEY: Page 82 in the book here.

MR. RIDEOUT: Page 82,

section 3.2.02., yes.

MR. SWEENEY: I notice that Transportation and Communications in

Pre-Engineering, there was $12,000 spent last year and it is up to $75,000 this

year. That is basically a perceived increase, anyway, of $63,000, while there is

no staff in that division. How would that come about?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY:

Section 3.2.02.03.

MR. RIDEOUT: It was the same budget as last year. There was $75,000

budgeted and $12,000 spent, and we are budgeting the same amount this year. My

understanding is that these have been historic amounts and we budget them pretty

well the same year over year. If more is required, it gets spent; if it is not

required, then that funding will be used for some other purpose or it goes back

into savings or whatever, but we do budget approximately the same historic

amount year over year.

MR. SWEENEY: With no staff? Forgive my ignorance, because this is the

first time I have done the Transportation and Works part of this.

MR. RIDEOUT: What do you mean, no staff?

MR. SWEENEY: Well, there are no salaries for staff there. I am just

wondering how Transportation and Communications could be used without staff

members.

MR. MERCER: Actually, the salaries are a part of - I think I explained

the last time - a pool of salaries that is recharged to projects, even

pre-engineering projects which would be future projects that we do survey work,

pre-engineering work, on; those salaries would be charged off against the main

salary pool. That is a part of the program. Actually, you will see that on item

19. Voted in Other Divisions.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

MR. MERCER: That is what that is; it is $450,000 in salaries. That is for

pre-engineering.

MR. SWEENEY: So we charge off the salaries - or recharge is the magic

word here that I am learning - we recharge the salaries off but we would not

recharge the transportation and communications expenses, the other expenses

associated with that?

MR. MERCER: That is correct, and the primary reason for that is, it is an

administrative reason, I guess, that all salaries are in one large pool for all

of the capital work, including pre-engineering, so it is not separated out into

two salary pools.

MS HANRAHAN: (Inaudible) a little bit more. It is easier to allocate the

admin support costs for each of the different opportunities - pre-engineering,

admin support, and the different programs -

whereas the salaries, a particular

engineer could work on four different projects which would be then recoded out

to those four. The transportation and communications costs, those types of

things are easily attributable to an individual activity. That is why you will

find they are coded directly.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

All of the rest of those there, as you say, are traditional numbers used over

the years.

MR. RIDEOUT: Historic numbers.

MR. SWEENEY: Historic numbers, yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the code word.

MR. SWEENEY: I am getting some smart - recharge and historic numbers.

MR. RIDEOUT: It's a learning curve for me, too, I will tell you.

MR. SWEENEY: I have never been involved with this department before, so I

am learning quickly, or trying to.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am having the same experience, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: We are doing it together, then.

Under 3.2.03., let's see now. Oh, I finally have one where the Budget

amount, the Revised amount, and this year's Estimates are different.

Transportation and Communications again, 3.2.03., there is an estimate of

$350,000 versus the $100,000 that was budgeted. What accounts for that increase?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is attributable to the larger capital program that we

are planning for this year. We are planning a $30 million capital program this

year, and last year it was $23 million, I guess, somewhere in that neighbourhood

anyway. That is basically what that is attributable to, I understand from my

officials.

MR. SWEENEY: Seeing we are on that, when will that list be released for

the works (inaudible)?

MR. RIDEOUT: The capital?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, for this year.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I am hoping practically any day. I am working on

finalizing it now, and looking for Cabinet approval on it. I think we are in the

same ballpark, generally speaking, that we have been in the past number of

years, if I recall correctly, somewhere around the end of May or the first part

of June, so I am optimistic that it will be released within the next few days.

MR. SWEENEY: Supplies have increased by $25,000. What would constitute

that increase?

MR. RIDEOUT: Supplies, Denise, can you help us out on that? There was

$155,000 budgeted last year, we spent an additional $10,000, and this year we

are budgeting $180,000.

MS HANRAHAN: Once again, it is related to the scope of the program. You

will find all the costs the same way.

MR. RIDEOUT: All the costs have (inaudible) increased accordingly -

MS HANRAHAN: Bumped, yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: - because of the additional money in the capital programs.

MR. SWEENEY: I am trying to ignore the comments coming from my colleagues

here behind me about, there is going to be more money spent in the Tory

districts this year.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, if you look at past years spending, Mr. Sweeney, I

would suggest that would be a penetrating insight into the obvious.

MR. SWEENEY: Well, not always. I can take you through some of the lists

and show you the other side of that.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have the historic list, so we can compare lists any day at

all.

MR. SWEENEY: No, I am quite capable of doing that. That is all right.

Under Purchased Services, there is an increase there of $3,735,000. Is that

more -

MR. RIDEOUT: More tenders, more work, more paving; additional work is

what it reflects.

MR. SWEENEY: Contracting out?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, roadwork is contracted anyway, by and large. We do so

much -

MR. SWEENEY: I heard on Open Line this morning - are the lines being

contracted out, the relining of the pavement on the highways?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, we still have our own paint crews and so on.

MR. SWEENEY: They are doing better, Cluney, than they did last year,

according to a caller on Open Line this morning while I was finding my way into

the office. They said it is a sign already that contracting out is taking place;

the roads are being done faster. Anyway, so much for the gospel of Open Line.

There is one here, Voted in Other Divisions, $2,400,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: This is the recharged stuff, this new language that we have

learned, but I will ask Cluney to give you some detail on it, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. MERCER: This is a recharge again. That is the salaries associated

with administering the contracts for paving projects. That is the salary part.

As you will notice up in the other sections, 03 to10, there is no salary

component there, so that is really the salary component of delivering that

program.

MR. SWEENEY: Cluney, I believe you but there are probably millions out

there who would not. You have me thrown for a loop with this recharge anyway,

because we have gone all through the -

MR. RIDEOUT: I have not seen the Estimates of this department before, and

neither has - well, Mr. Sweeney may have seen them but he did not go through

them in detail as he is tonight. This is historically the way it has been done.

MR. MERCER: Yes, this is historic. I have been with the department for

eighteen years and it has been like it for that long.

MR. RIDEOUT: I didn't want us to get into any magic numbers here.

MR. SWEENEY: To be truthful with you, I wouldn't know the difference

when you start playing the recharge game.

Under 3.2.04., Administrative Support, Salaries are increased there by

$391,800.

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, that reflects the increase in the scope of the

program this year over last year.

MR. SWEENEY: There is our old buddy there - recharged - again.

MR. RIDEOUT: He comes up to bite you.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, every single time.

MR. MERCER: Just for a point of clarification, the $30 million provincial

roads program this year - and I think I mentioned this in our previous meeting

as well - has been broken down this time into: a part of that budget is actually

current account, which goes into rehabilitating and resurfacing roads, and that

was the

section that we just discussed, 3.2.03. The

section we are now looking

at, 3.2.04., is actually the capital part of that $30 million. That is replacing

capital assets or putting new capital infrastructure in place. It is all a part

of the $30 million roads program but it is just broken down into two components,

a current account component and a capital component, both of which have

recharges and salaries, and both of which will have contracts issued to deliver

that program.

MR. SWEENEY: Are the feds putting anything into that $30 million this

year?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, not the $30 million. We have cost-shared programs with

your government. The piece of the Trans-Canada Highway, for example, out around

Goobies is under SHIP, that is 50-50. That would reflect itself in here and

other areas but the $30 million provincial program, Mr. Sweeney, has no federal

input.

MR. SWEENEY: 3.2.05, again with Purchased Services, it is up over a

million-and-a-half dollars.

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, that is more tendered contracts.

MR. SWEENEY: So, all the extra money, this is where it is being reflected

to, either on the current side or the capital side in that $30 million pot?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MR. SWEENEY: The $500,000 Voted in Other Divisions, is that a transfer to

other divisions or -

MR. RIDEOUT: That is those recharged salaries.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Give up. You do not want to know about it. She asked me did

I get a breakdown of (inaudible). Give up, you do not want to know about it.

MR. RIDEOUT: I can give you a breakdown on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

MR. SWEENEY: Just getting recharged, that is all.

The Trans-Labrador Highway. Here we go. Let's get over to something that

maybe Yvonne can get her teeth into. Transportation and Communications decreased

by $615,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: Where are you now, George?

MR. SWEENEY: 3.2.08.03, Trans-Labrador Highway. Page 85 in my book here.

MR. RIDEOUT: Transportation and Communications, is that the one you are

talking about?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, $615,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, I am not where you are. Yes, okay.

MR. SWEENEY: It was $1.615 million spent and now there is only $1 million

budgeted. I was just wondering if that has had any affect on the division?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is up due to increased survey costs. That is why

the Revised was up last year over Budget, and the $1 million this year reflects

what we anticipate it to be.

MR. MERCER: The original Budget last year was based on Phase III of the

Trans-Labrador Highway proceeding. When it did not proceed, the decision of the

department in government at the time was to move forward with some of the survey

work. That is the reason why you have about $1 million increase there in

Transportation and Communications, most of which was associated with helicopter

time in getting crews in to get the line on the ground. You would normally do

that in the context of when you are delivering the contract, when you have a

contractor there, to get a jump, I guess, on the surveying work and

pre-engineering work. That work was done last year in anticipation of Phase III

getting the nod and the go ahead this year.

The $1 million in this year's 2004-2005 Estimate is based on what we

estimate to be the Transportation and Communications costs associated with

completing the little bit of work that is left on Phase II, as well as

administering the new contracts for this fiscal year on Phase III. So, they will

be less. You do not have to endure all that survey helicopter time all over

again. That is already done and spent. That work is already performed.

MR. SWEENEY: Supplies have increased by $52,000. What was that -

MR. RIDEOUT: We actually budgeted, Mr. Sweeney, the same as we did last

year, $250,000, but it was down last -

MR. SWEENEY: Historic numbers.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, there were project delays, as Cluney referred to

earlier. The Revised amount was down slightly from the budgeted. Yes, you are

right, we budgeted about the same amount again for this year.

MR. SWEENEY: Professional Services, .05, that is down from the historic

number there. The Budget for last year was $300,000; it is down to $100,000; the

actual spent last year was $580,000. So, there is a difference of $380,000. What

work was done through these services?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is up due to the costs associated with the EIS

for Phase III. As you know, I guess, the ground has shifted now on the EIS

situation because there has been an agreement that the government has accepted

with all parties on the route, so it is not anticipated that you will have to go

into a full-blown EIS situation this coming year. We budgeted $200,000 for that

purpose and we are anticipating that will be sufficient.

There had to be additional work done on the EIS last year, I believe, which

accounted for some of the additional costs as well. There were some additional

studies that were demanded by certain departments and groups that had to be

carried out. We are not anticipating that to be a problem this year.

MR. SWEENEY: Purchased Services, $21 million, what would that entail this

year?

MR. RIDEOUT: That will be actual contract work, won't it?

OFFICIAL: Correct.

MR. SWEENEY: That will be the actual highway itself?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, roadwork, grading and clearing. Contract payments is

what it will be on the three projects that we are hoping to get tendered

shortly.

MS JONES: I am just going to pick up a couple of things under 3.2.08.

You have there Voted in Other Divisions, $1.5 million. What is that? Where

does that come from, or where does it go?

MR. RIDEOUT: I think we may have answered this when you were absent, but

Cluney can answer it again. It is not a long answer.

MR. MERCER: Ms Jones, that would be the cost of salaries for government

employees to administer the contracts; for instance, survey crews that we would

have on site to do layout for those contracts.

MS JONES: You would just bill it back to another division?

MR. MERCER: It is called Voted in Other Divisions; it is a recharge. The

money exists within the program but it is in a pool of salaries, and as salaries

are incurred against a project it is realigned or - recharged, I guess, is the

accounting name - recharged against that particular program out of a large pot

of salaries. It is a part of the overall program.

For instance, this year we have $24 million in the Trans-Labrador Highway

program; $1.5 million of that is actually salaries used to administer contacts.

MS JONES: All of the expense connected with the Trans-Labrador Highway

comes out of the Trans-Labrador highway fund?

MR. MERCER: That is correct.

MS JONES: Okay.

So, even if engineers who are salaried with the department work on this file,

their time is billed back to that fund?

MR. MERCER: That is correct. If they work on that particular project,

yes. The same thing as if they were working on a provincial project, out of the

provincial roads program it would get recharged to that particular program; or,

in the case of a federal-provincial cost-shared agreement, like under the

strategic highway program, their salary would get charged to that program if,

indeed, they are working on a project under that program for a period of time.

MR. RIDEOUT: That has historically, again, been the case forever.

MR. MERCER: That has been like that for decades, yes.

MS JONES: Revenue-Federal, what is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the CSIF, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund.

That is $11.4 million.

MS JONES: That is what you are hoping to get, right?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the stuff that is under agreement now, is it?

MR. MERCER: No, that is a part (inaudible) CSIF.

MS JONES: That is part of the $24 million, is it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay, but that is not signed off yet.

MS JONES: Yes, but that is what you are hoping for?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay, and the provincial share is the Trans-Labrador Highway

initiative fund, and if you do not get what you have on the wish list for the

feds, you will take the other $11.4 million out of that highway fund as well,

the Trans-Labrador Highway fund?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the plan, yes.

MS JONES: The $21 million that you are going to spend this year, is the

environmental assessment completed on that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, I think we might have just touched on -

MS JONES: No, I was here but you did not say if it was completed. You

said you had an agreement on the route, but, has it passed the EIS phase?

MR. RIDEOUT: There will not be any major EIS requirements.

MS JONES: You still have to have clearance from environmental -

MR. RIDEOUT: I understand that, but that has not happened yet, right?

OFFICIAL: Correct.

MR. RIDEOUT: We haven't got that clearance yet.

MS JONES: When will that happen?

MR. RIDEOUT: We are expecting it might happen some time within the coming

month or so; mid-June is the time frame I have heard.

MS JONES: Okay, around the middle of June.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the anticipation.

MS JONES: When do you anticipate to call tenders for that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, we will be ready to call tenders as soon as it clears

the EIS process. Our documents and engineering work, and stuff like that, is all

pretty well done.

MS JONES: So, you would not call tenders before the EIS was cleared?

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't think we would be allowed.

MS JONES: Will the tender call be in two separate calls, or just the one?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am anticipating it will be three. There will be a tender

call for seventeen kilometres from Cartwright going towards Goose Bay, a tender

call for seventeen kilometres from Goose Bay going towards Cartwright and the

Churchill River Bridge. They will go around the one time, but they will be three

separate projects in terms of administration.

MS JONES: What is the budget on the Churchill River Bridge? I cannot

remember now.

MR. RIDEOUT: About $15 million for three years.

MS JONES: So that is the bulk of the $21 million?

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, yes. That is the bulk of it, yes. It is about a

three-year project; over two to three years.

MR. SWEENEY: It is cheaper to build a tunnel.

MR. RIDEOUT: You said that, I didn't.

MS JONES: I would not dare say that.

I do not have any more questions on that section. George, do you want me to

go back to Marine now or what?

MR. SWEENEY: I would like to go for a coffee.

MS JONES: I want to go back now to

section 4.2.04.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, can we take just a short break so I can skip out

for a second?

MS JONES: Yes.

CHAIR: Is everybody okay? We will take five to six minutes, that's it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Five minutes is plenty for me.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Recess

CHAIR: Ms Jones, are you next?

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some questions under 4.2.04, Marine Operations.

MR. RIDEOUT: What page is that again now? Page 91, okay. 4.2.04, Ferry

Terminals. Is that where we are?

MS JONES: Professional Services, the $20,000 that you budgeted this year,

what is that for?

MR. RIDEOUT: The $20,000. Can somebody help me here? I do not see a note

on it.

MR. MERCER: That would be a budget that we would pay to consultants to do

work associated with any rehabilitation work we are doing with ferry terminals

in Labrador, or if we have to have, say, the Coast Guard do a water lot survey

for us so that we can get the depths of the water, as I think we are going to be

doing in a couple of locations. That is a budget that would help to pay for

those services, and that is associated with the budget that is there for ferry

terminal repairs in Labrador.

MS JONES: What ferry terminal repair work are you doing in Labrador? I am

assuming this is for the consultant, not for the work, right, what you are

saying here?

MR. MERCER: The $20,000 would be associated with having work done by a

consultant, or in the case of the Coast Guard, getting the water lot survey

done. They typically cost $4,000 or $5,000 apiece. In some areas we may have to

do some dredging. So, we are looking at those things right now.

MR. RIDEOUT: There is $900,000 associated with ferry terminal

improvements in Labrador, right?

MR. MERCER: That is correct.

MS JONES: Where is that budgeted to then?

MR. RIDEOUT: Is it in Purchased Services or is it in Capital? Where is it

budgeted, Denise?

MS HANRAHAN: The actual work is under Capital, 4.2.05. The Current

account stuff is in 4.2.04, and you will see it primarily under Purchased

Services, .06.

MS JONES: Okay. Now that budget is down by $1.3 million this year, right?

MR. RIDEOUT: Which budget is that?

MS JONES: She has gone down to 4.2.05, Ferry Terminals. She just told me

that the money for Labrador is coming out of Purchased Services, under 4.2.05.

MS HANRAHAN: No (inaudible) the $1.1 million.

MS JONES: Okay, it is coming out of 4.2.04. You have me completely

confused.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I tell you, this capital breakdown of Current and

Capital accounts under this business that you guys started off last year in this

accrual accounting got me totally confused, too.

MS JONES: Well, you can blame the Minister of Finance today for that

accrual accounting.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, you fellows started it last year.

MS JONES: Yes, only because we got tired of listening to him ask for it.

MR. RIDEOUT: People who have an accounting background may have more luck

with it, but I find, when I did Estimates before, you had your current account,

your capital account, and you could keep the two separate. Now it is parts of

each charged off in different areas.

Denise, can you take us back through this and point us to the right areas

where the amounts are?

MS JONES: Well, we will start over. The $20,000 under Professional

Services, I was told, was for a consultant to look at some work that was going

to be done in Labrador on docks, and some water lot surveys somewhere. I don't

know where the water lot surveys are.

MR. MERCER: Yes, that is correct. They would be done on wharves in

Labrador. For instance, we are in the process of having a water lot survey done

at Rigolet, to see if there has been any infilling there over a number of years,

just to ensure that we have adequate draft for the boats, the Northern Ranger

and the Trans Gulf when they go into that port. That is what those fees,

in part, would pay for, or if we have to engage a consultant to do some

particular design work that we do not have any in-house expertise for, but it

would be specifically for those ferry terminals in Labrador.

MS JONES: The $1.1 million, what is that for under Purchased Services?

MR. MERCER: The $1.1 million is contract payments, so any contract work

that we do up there would come out of that subhead. For instance, we have a

carryover project. Last year we started a wharf in Postville and it was phased

over two years. We did a part of the wharf last year, and I think we have about

$350,000 or so that we have to spend this year to finish that wharf.

MS JONES: What was the total cost of that wharf?

MR. MERCER: I believe it was a little over $700,000. As well, once we

have the water lot survey done in Rigolet, we will make a determination of

whether we need to do some dredging there for the long term. We are also looking

at some minor repairs on other wharves. I think there is some minor work that

needs to be done with the Cartwright wharf. There is some investigation ongoing

with respect to the water depths at Black Tickle as well. There had been some

dredging done there in the past, but there has not been a water lot survey done

since the dredging was completed so we are going to be looking at that. As well,

there is some work, I think, at Port Hope Simpson, at the wharf there, that

needs to be done - not major work, but $50,000, $60,000, up to $100,000 in each

of these locations - generally, rehabilitation work that is ongoing that you

would do year over year.

MS JONES: So, the $1.1 million would include the dredging work for

Rigolet but you are not sure if you are going to need it yet.

MR. MERCER: If we have to do any, yes.

MS JONES: The Grants and Subsidies are cut out under 4.2.04., but what

would they have been for? There was $150,000 last year under Grants and

Subsidies. What was that for?

MR. RIDEOUT: The grant that you are talking about was the one-time grant

that your government paid to the Town of Lewisporte - actually, to the

Lewisporte Area Chamber of Commerce, I think it got funnelled eventually - to do

work on the terminal and other marine buildings that the department owned in

Lewisporte. That grant was provided last year as a one-time grant to Lewisporte.

MS JONES: That work on the terminals, are those terminals owned by the

town or by the Province?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, by the department.

MS JONES: By the department?

MR. RIDEOUT: The town does not own any of the marine facilities in

Lewisporte; they are owned by the department.

MS JONES: So that $150,000 was all paid out last year.

MR. RIDEOUT: It was all paid out last year but was not spent last year.

My understanding is that $40,000 of it was spent last year and $110,000 of it

remains to be spent.

MS JONES: Do you know what renovations they are doing there with that

money?

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year they did some electrical and waterline work at the

storage facility there, I believe, and they may have done some other things.

This year they are doing some painting and office realignment in the terminal

building itself. Again, that is being carried out, not by the department but by

the Chamber, as far as I know.

MS JONES: The office realignment they are doing, will that be used by the

department?

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of it will. It will all be used by the department in

one sense, I guess. I have my constituency person located in Lewisporte, and it

is the responsibility of the department to provide the office space of some sort

for that person to work out of, and I have not asked the department to find any

space for her; however, there is plenty of space in the terminal building that

is not being utilized, so I see no reason why she could not be assigned some

space in that building.

We are also planning to relocate the marine manager - not relocate. The

marine manager actually lives in Lewisporte but works in Grand Falls and that

has been the case for x number of years now, but we would like to have a place

for him to work out of Lewisporte to make sure that the shipping and the other

activity that is going to take place there this summer runs smoothly with

somebody overseeing what the contractor is doing and so on. That did not happen

last year and there were complaints, I think, when freight got to Labrador that

perhaps had not been packaged properly or re-packaged properly or palletized

properly or whatever.

So, part of what we are going to try to do this year to improve the service

is we are going to have a person in Lewisporte - not a new person, just have a

person who worked with the department in a managers capacity but was stationed

in Grand Falls, stationed in Lewisporte. Plus, Mr. Pardy in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay is going to be moved into Cartwright for the same purposes on a full-time

basis this coming season. So, that is the general thinking in an attempt to

improve the operations.

MS JONES: So he will be in Cartwright full time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, he will; a full time responsibility for managing the

terminal and the port activity.

MS JONES: The marine manager who will be moving to Lewisporte from Grand

Falls, was that always their title, marine manager -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I think was the title, wasn't it?

MS JONES: - or did they hold another title?

MR. RIDEOUT: No.

MR. MERCER: Yes, his title is Manager of Marine Services. He is involved

with the Fogo-Change Islands and the Green Bay service as well, and the marine

division. He will be, on a part-time basis, assisting with our eyes and ears in

Lewisporte to ensure that our contractors that we have engaged are delivering

the service that they were contracted to.

MS JONES: Under the Capital budget, Transportation and Communications has

increased. It is now set at $60,000 this year. Can you tell me what that will

provide for?

MR. MERCER: That is an estimate of the Transportation and Communications

part of a $1 million Capital budget. Capital, again, versus Current account

would be replacing capital assets, capital infrastructure as opposed to repair.

So, this would be a significant undertaking to restore or replace existing

infrastructure. It is an estimate of the Transportation and Communications cost

associated with that million dollar budget item.

MS JONES: The million dollars in 4.2.04? What million dollars?

MR. MERCER: If you look at 4.2.05, the totals of .03, .04, .05, .06 and

the recharge Voted in Other Divisions - which is the salary component - adds up

to $1 million. There is programming for $1 million worth of Capital Ferry

Terminal work.

MS JONES: Okay.

The Supplies under that section, what would that be?

MR. MERCER: Supplies for ferry terminals; that would be anything we have

to do - anything that we purchase ourselves outside of a contract for those

wharves, or supplies that we would purchase for the people, our own staff, who

administer those contracts.

MS JONES: Are you budgeting for anything in particular there?

MR. MERCER: No, that is basically a percentage. Typically, supplies would

cost a percentage of the total program. So, it is an estimate of what our

supplies may cost. They may very well, at the end of the day, be $15,000,

$20,000 or $35,000, depending on what is required under - and which particular

projects we end up actually doing. We have not decided, at this point in time,

exactly where the million dollars will be spent.

MS JONES: Purchased Services is down by $1.3 million this year. Why has

it declined so much?

MR. MERCER: Why has it declined so much?

MS JONES: You budgeted $645,000, which is quite a different figure than

last year.

MR. MERCER: Yes. Last year there were some capital upgrades that were

being done to the Bell Island service that got completed last year.

MR. RIDEOUT: So, they are finished and off the books?

MR. MERCER: Yes. As well, there was some significant work in Labrador

that was considered to be Capital work. That was projects at Black Tickle, the

project I mentioned at Postville, which is not quite finished yet, and some work

at Cartwright. There was about $350,000, I think, spent at Cartwright in

developing the port facility, some minor repairs to the wharf and some rock

filling to create a lay down area for freight containers and that sort of thing.

That is where -

MS JONES: The money that was spent last year in Cartwright, Postville and

Black Tickle, did any of that money come out of the Labrador Transportation

Fund?

MR. MERCER: Yes, it did. If you look at Revenue-Provincial, under 02.,

you would see $1.79 million and that would have come out of the LTIF.

MS JONES: What are you going to purchase with the $645,000 this year?

What work are you doing?

MR. MERCER: We have not made a determination yet. There were several

projects that were put forward last year. They all, of course, total a lot more

money than we have in-budget so we have to make a decision as to which ones will

actually get done this year and we have not done that yet.

MS JONES: Earlier, the minister made a comment about $900,000 worth of

work being done in Labrador this year. Where is that budgeted?

MR. RIDEOUT: Under 4.2.04.; it is a block of funding that we have put

aside to carry out improvements to our facilities in Labrador.

MS JONES: That would have been Postville, Rigolet, Black Tickle, all of

those.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: And the Revenue-Provincial that you are claiming back, the

$750,000, that is coming out of the Labrador Fund. The $645,000 that you have

budgeted this year for ferry terminals, you have not decided where you are going

to spend it yet. Is there any work being done at the ferry terminal in

Lewisporte that is paid for by the Province?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not this year. The work that was done at the terminal last

year was done out of that $150,000 grant that I referred to earlier.

MR. MERCER: Just for clarification, I guess, there was a contract that

was actually let last year to install some ladders on the wharf in Lewisporte. I

think that was awarded in the spring, and, because of some occupational health

and safety issues with the contractor, that work has not yet been completed. We

still have an active contract there and we are pursuing the contractor now to

get on with getting the work done that was actually tendered and awarded, I

believe, around June of last year.

MR. RIDEOUT: That would be a carry-over if, in fact, it is anything.

MR. MERCER: That is a carry-over and it is worth about $40,000, I

believe, and that would come out of provincial funding.

MS JONES: When I looked at the study that was completed by Memorial

University with regard to the Labrador Marine Services, they did a complete

estimation of cost of running the Sir Robert Bond to Lewisporte as

opposed to operating between Cartwright and Goose Bay. They also looked at what

the cost would be to run the North Coast freight boat, the Trans Gulf ,

out of Lewisporte as opposed to out of Cartwright. The figures that they showed

in their report, and the figures that I have studied and certainly been quoting,

show a cost to the government of $1.7 million to run the Sir Robert Bond

out of Lewisporte. Yet, I know you already said that the service may not be

budgeted for in these Estimates because the announcement was made after, and

that is why you could not explain fuel costs and some other costs, but the

number that you did quote when you made the announcement was a number of

$600,000. How does the university come up with $1.7 million and the department

come up with $600,000? That is a huge difference.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, if you followed everything that was written on this, I

think you would find the answer. The consultant, reacting to a story that was

carried in The Telegram about the price of $1.7 million, actually, a day

or two later, corrected that figure; because the $1.7 million, as I understand

it, was based on option two of the consultant's report, which was a four-day

turnaround for the Sir Robert Bond in Lewisporte, running out of

Lewisporte, if you took option two of the consultant's report.

The government decided to adopt a modified version of option two, which saw

the Sir Robert Bond going into Lewisporte once a week on a seven-day

turnaround and then doing the other trips as it did last year. So, if you take

the difference between option two, which the consultant said was $1.7 million,

and take the modified version of option two, we believe that the additional

costs are about $600,000. The consultant, by the way - I forget his name now -

speaking on behalf of the consultant, confirmed that figure to the press when he

was asked to do it, so we feel very confident about that number. We do not

dispute the $1.7 million number if you were to operate the full functional

option two that the consultant talked about, but we are not doing that. We are

operating a modified version of that and that is where we get the difference in

the cost associated with what we are actually doing and what the consultant said

it would cost if we did what the consultant proposed. That is the explanation

there.

MS JONES: I have not received any full explanation on costs from you,

minister, or your department with regard to the Sir Robert Bond going to

Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: You have received it, whether you accept it or not is

another matter. I just gave it to you again.

MS JONES: No, I fail to actually see it, and I have looked at the

Estimates. I just went through the two sections that would pertain to that and I

cannot understand how you are going to run a service when you have not even

budgeted for it, according to these Estimates. So, they are, obviously, going to

have to change. I am looking at a report from the university that three

professors took and studied. They crunched every single number under every

single option and they show, quite clearly, that the cost will be $1.7 million

more.

MR. RIDEOUT: With respect, they did not. They showed, if you accept the

option two, the cost will be $1.7 million more. Government accepted a modified

version of option two which we suggest, and which one of the professors who

spoke for the consultants agreed with, will be approximately $600,000 in the

difference. Now, that is out there in the public domain. I keep forgetting the

gentleman's name.

OFFICIAL: Vardy.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Vardy indicated that yes, if you take the version that

we took, the modified version, then he thinks that number is correct. We think

it is correct, but if you take option two as proposed by the consultant, then we

are not arguing with the consultant's figure for that but we are not doing it.

So, that is the difference in the explanation. Now, whether we are right or

whether we are wrong, I guess only time will tell but that is how we -

MS JONES: Well, the year end will definitely tell.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, exactly. That is right. That is what I am indicating.

MR. SWEENEY: Unless you recharge it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I don't understand that part of it.

MS JONES: To other areas.

The cost of the staff at Lewisporte to maintain the terminal and to maintain

the port operations, what is the full cost of maintaining Lewisporte as a port,

staffing, terminal facilities, all other costs that would be included?

MR. RIDEOUT: I think the cost last year to go back into Lewisporte was

about $750,000, wasn't it?

OFFICIAL: Six-sixty.

MR. RIDEOUT: Six-sixty. A lot of this is associated with the contractor

of course, and his costs and so on. During the winter, other than a bit of heat

and light, there was no cost. There is no staff on there during the winter, that

I am aware of. The costs will be during the operation during the season. I

understand that was six hundred-and-some-odd thousand dollars last year.

MS JONES: Last year there was no passenger service operated there, there

was only freight.

MR. RIDEOUT: The only difference, in terms of the passenger service, will

be twenty-something thousand dollars, I believe, for a clerk or something - isn't

it? - to sell tickets.

MS JONES: Well, last year there was one boat leaving Lewisporte every ten

or fourteen days.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. Well, you will have one boat leaving every seven days

this year carrying freight and passengers. The freight went out of there last

year, so the same number of people who did the freight last year, the

stevedoring effort and so on, will be no different - from anything that I have

seen - from this year to what it was last year. The only additional cost to the

system for the Lewisporte operation - now, I am not suggesting fuel or anything

of that nature, but for the Lewisporte on-land operation, will be the cost of

selling tickets. I believe that is somewhere in the $20,000 range.

MS JONES: The money to operate Lewisporte, does that come out of the

Labrador Fund?

MR. RIDEOUT: The money to operate the Labrador ferry service comes out of

the