Social Services Committee — Department of Education were distributed, so the first item of business would be to entertain a motion to pass those minutes. MR. COLLINS: So moved. — 5 July 2007

2007-07-05

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 7, 2007 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Percy Barrett, MHA for

Bellevue, replaces Oliver Langdon, MHA for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Mr. Ridgley): Order, please!

Good morning, everybody.

The minutes of our Estimates on the Department of Education were distributed,

so the first item of business would be to entertain a motion to pass those

minutes.

MR. COLLINS: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Collins.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: We will proceed, then, with the Estimates on Municipal Affairs. We

are on page 239.

Again, for the benefit of the people downstairs, if we could just go through

the introductions of who is here, starting with Mr. Ball.

MR. BALL: Dwight Ball, MHA for Humber Valley.

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

MR. BARRETT: Percy Barrett, MHA for Bellevue.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, MHA for Port au Port.

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

CHAIR: Minister?

MR. BYRNE: Jack Byrne, Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. ROSE: Baxter Rose, Deputy Minister, Municipal Affairs.

MR. DUGGAN: Bill Duggan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal Affairs.

MR. ANTLE: Gerry Antle, Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal Affairs.

MR. CROCKER: Gerry Crocker, Director of Financial and General Operations,

Municipal Affairs.

MS HAYDEN: Veronica Hayden, Executive Assistant to the Minister.

MS MacLEAN: Heather MacLean, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: The Clerk has the note from Friday in terms of Mr. Barrett

replacing Mr. Langdon - that was passed in on Friday; I know that, I saw it - as

critic. The papers were filled out on Friday and passed in, just for the sake of

clarification. If you do not have it, it was passed in.

I would ask the Clerk to call item number 1.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

We will turn things over to the minister, then, for initial comments. Again,

the same rules, with fifteen minutes for the minister should he want it. Then

the first to reply would be fifteen and we will do tens after that.

Minister.

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Estimates

Committee. I am pleased to be here. There are just a few notes I am going to

read and then we will get into the Estimates if you want.

I am pleased to be here this morning to present the Estimates for the

Department of Municipal Affairs, and look forward to answering any questions

which you may have. You just introduced the people from my department, so there

is no need to go through that again.

Let me begin by stating that the Department of Municipal Affairs continues to

support our Province's municipalities through: substantial financial support;

infrastructure development; legislative tools for municipalities; training for

elected and appointed officials to ensure greater professionalism at a local

government level; partnering with stakeholders such as Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Municipalities, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal

Administrators, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire

Fighters, and the Combined Councils of Labrador.

I would like to make reference to a few areas which may come up for

discussion this morning. Capital Works Commitments: Through cost-shared

initiatives with our federal and municipal partners, the Province will invest

$105.8 million in capital works commitments in 2007-2008 to support

municipalities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial contribution

is $50.4 million.

Twenty-two point two million of the provincial funding will be invested in

2007-2008 in our Municipal Capital Works Program to help municipalities develop

priority infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer, and municipal buildings.

Historically, the majority of municipal capital works funding has been directed

toward water and sewer infrastructure. In light of increasing demands, we have

broadened investments in municipal infrastructure to address investment deficits

in the areas of recreation, buildings and fire equipment.

In 2007-2008 we are moving to a system where we will pay down capital costs

of construction rather than finance the long-term debt. This, when combined with

earlier approvals of capital works, means accelerated expenditures in our

capital budget.

We continue to leverage federal funding for municipal infrastructure under

the $21 million Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund - $9 million is provincial -

and $6 million under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund II - $2 million is

provincial.

In 2006-2007, MRIF and CSIF, the programs just mentioned, did not generate

the anticipated cash flows so you may have noticed lower than anticipated

spending last year although we were on target with our commitments.

In 2006-2007 expenditures related to projects approved under the gas tax

program decreased due to lower than anticipated applications from cities and

municipalities for approved projects under the agreement. We anticipate an

increase in 2007-2008 to reflect normal program funding and carryover for

projects completed in 2006-2007.

Community Enhancement Program: In recent years, Municipal Affairs has been

tasked with administering a number of employment support programs. In 2006-2007,

$9.4 million was spent in support of Community Enhancement Programs, which

reflects added pressure to provide sufficient funding and programs for fish

plant workers to qualify for Employment Insurance.

Budget 2007-2008 provides $4 million to the Community Enhancement Program.

There is an additional $500,000 identified as carryover from 2006-2007. So, the

reality is, we have four point five this year and half a million is carryover.

New Fire and Emergency Services Agency: We are making a $1.2 million

investment to establish a new Fire and Emergency Services Agency, mandated to

develop and maintain an emergency management system to prepare for, respond to

and recover from, major emergencies and disasters that may occur in the

Province. That new agency will be made up from the Emergency Measures

Organization, the Fire Commissioner's Office, and some new staffing.

In 2006-2007 the revised budget increase reflects the costs associated with

the floods in Stephenville, the Northeast Coast and Burin. We also anticipate

carryover costs for the Stephenville and Northeast Coast disasters in 2007-2008.

Now, if you have any questions in response....

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I meant to mention, of course, it is the same, and I am sure most people are

familiar, if you are prepared to answer a question - other than the minister,

who will probably be back and forth - just mention your name, again, for the

benefit of the people downstairs.

First up would be Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I will just go through some of the highlights line by line and

leave some of the probing questions to the other ladies and gentlemen who are

here.

Subhead 1.2.02., under Executive Support -

MR. BYRNE: When you are doing it, can you give us the page first so we

can -

MR. BUTLER: I am sorry, page 239.

MR. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: Under Executive Support, subhead 1.2.01., at the bottom there

where it says Total Executive Support, I noticed under Salaries. I think. there

is an increase of $138,500, approximately. I was just wondering what that

increase would be. Could you just elaborate on that?

MR. BYRNE: I am not quite sure - are you are talking about from $537,000

up to $653,000? Is that what you are referring to?

MR. BUTLER: That is the one, Sir, yes.

MR. BYRNE: Okay.

Over the past year or so we have had not a decrease, I suppose, but we never

had a full complement of staff with respect to assistant deputy ministers and

directors. Finally, we are getting there now. Mr. Antle was just hired recently,

just announced. We have other people within the department, some changes, so

that would address that issue.

MR. BUTLER: So, it is additional staff?

MR. BYRNE: It is not additional staff; it is just being staffed up, that

we did not have in the first place.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. BYRNE: We had the new deputy minister appointed for Fire and

Emergency Services, which would be included there. Mr. Antle was just appointed

as assistant deputy minister. We had positions like that. That is what that is

about.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 2.1.01., page 241, under Support to Municipalities, probably it is

the same response there, Sir, but there is an increase in Salaries there, up by

approximately $100,000.

MR. BYRNE: Yes, that is the exact same thing. It refers to the new

director's position plus the negotiated increases with respect to the 3 per

cent for the civil service; I would think that is in there.

MR. BUTLER: The other one I have is on page 242, subhead 2.2.02., Urban

and Rural Planning. Under the Salaries there, I know in that particular case it

is not a lot but it is a reduction of $59,700. I wonder if that is a position

that is eliminated or -

MR. BYRNE: That is a director who retired and it was combined with

another position, so in actual reality the staffing would be less - the dollar

value - correct?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Page 243, subhead 2.3.01.

MR. BYRNE: Subhead 2.3.01., yes.

MR. BUTLER: Engineering Services, increase in Salaries there by over

$429,800 over what it was last year. I am asking those and they are probably all

the same answers, or basically.

MR. BYRNE: Yes, but that position there, if you look at it, we had

budgeted $1.397 million and we only had spend $1.06 million and now we are back

up to $1.498 million. Again, it refers to the delay in hiring approved plan

positions in the MMSB, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board for the Waste

Management Strategy. That is where that would come from.

MR. BUTLER: Page 244, subhead 3.1.01., Municipal Debt Servicing.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering if you could elaborate. I think it is

down by $4.9 million.

MR. BYRNE: Grants and Subsidies? Is that the one you are talking about?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, that is correct.

MR. BYRNE: What is happening here is that government, instead of

financing, we are paying down the debt on a cash basis type of thing. The

finance people can speak more to it than I can, but it has to do with paying

down the capital works debt over the years that has been built up, and each year

we are getting it down less and less - that is what is going on there - so we do

not have to make the same payments.

Baxter, I do not know if you want to address that a bit more.

MR. ROSE: In the past, municipal infrastructure was financed through the

Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation and it was amortized over a period

of fifteen years. A few years ago, the Province decided to not finance through

NMFC any further but instead to put the money in the budget on an annual basis

to pay off current years capital works. The monies at NMFC were frozen as of a

few years ago and the debt is being paid down, so all of those mortgages are

being paid down. Each year the interest that we pay on the debt is reducing, so

you will continue to see this number drop over the next, probably ten to twelve

years until it goes to zero.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

Page 245, under subhead 3.1.04., Community Enhancement, I know, Minister, you

elaborated on that a little while ago. In 2006-2007, I am just wondering if you

could go through that again where it was budgeted $4 million and it went to $9.4

million.

MR. BYRNE: What had happened was, as you know, in that program, we put in

so much money each year - it is $4 million again this year for the Community

Enhancement Program - and over the past couple of years we have spent upwards of

$10 million a year because of the fish plant workers, the programs that we have.

A few years ago we had the Crab Workers Support Program. Last year and the year

before, and this year, we have the Fish Plant Workers Support Program. We spent

an extra $5 million. This year we have budgeted $4.5, so if we get into a

situation whereby we have to go down that road again we usually do it through

either a special warrant or come back to the House to get the extra dollars to

address it. That is why that is there. That is why it looks like a lot less for

this year, but if we need it we will go after it.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, so it is the same thing -

MR. BYRNE: We do not know what is going to happen, the whole issue with

FPI and these things.

MR. BUTLER: So, the possibility is there, the same - God forbid, we hope

it will not happen but it is possible.

MR. BYRNE: Right. Exactly.

The same thing happened with the floods and the disasters with Stephenville,

and what is going on up in Daniel's Harbour. We cannot predict it, but when it

happens we will address it.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

Under the Estimates for 2007-2008, I notice $4.5 million and you mentioned

the $500,000 overrun. Could you just explain that to me?

MR. BYRNE: Yes, what happened there was, we had $4 million and we spent

$3.5 million, basically, and $500,000 will be carried back into this year. That

is for cost that we have not even paid out yet. Do you understand what I am

saying?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. BYRNE: It is $4 million, we spent $3.5 million, and there is another

$500,000 carried over this year, so it is $4.5 million.

MR. BUTLER: Was that only found out after the reporting came? What I am

trying to find out, was that $500,000 there when other funding could have been

released to help with some projects, or it was found out after the reporting

came back in from the projects?

MR. DUGGAN: The situation here is that when sponsors for projects

complete their final report and send it in, we have a review and audit process

that we go through before we pay out the final balance, the grant. A number of

the projects this year were winding down in March. We just did not think we had

sufficient time to get the reports in from the sponsors, do a proper review of

them, and then issue payments before the accounts were closed for last year, so

we requested permission to carry over $500,000, simply to enable us to pay out

the balance of those grants in the current fiscal year without impacting the

current fiscal year's program. It is a cash flow issue, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Still on page 245, under 3.2.01, Municipal Infrastructure. I

know, minister, you touched on that too, or I am sure that is the one you were

referencing. I was wondering if you could elaborate on where or what projects,

with regards to the wonderful increase, the $33.5 million? Is there any list of

what that would be for or where, or anything like that at this point in time?

MR. BYRNE: That reflects the early approvals for Capital Works for the

year. I think it was $30-odd million this year. It also reflects, as Baxter

mentioned earlier, the pay down. What we are doing, as we mentioned, we will be,

and have been - instead of financing through the Municipal Financing

Corporation, we pay it off as we go, type of thing. We pay the projects down.

That really is the advanced approval of a Municipal Capital Works Program. We

had it approved last fall, $33 million.

MR. BUTLER: Page 249, 4.1.04, the Joint Emergency Preparedness Project.

Under 2006-2007, revenue from the feds was budgeted at $282,000, but only

received $170,000. I am just wondering -

MR. BYRNE: That is simply - again, under the JEPP program, the fire

departments, through the municipalities, will apply for a federal program for

funding for different equipment. There was a lower number of towns and fire

departments applied for under that program last year, it is as simple as that.

If they apply for it, it goes through the Fire Commissioners Office. He will

either approve it or reject it, and there were less applications. Simple.

MR. BUTLER: So it was just a lack of applications?

MR. BYRNE: That is right.

MR. BUTLER: Basically, we lost out - not we, but someone lost out on

funding they could have received for something.

MR. BYRNE: Yes, and all the fire departments and all the towns were well

aware of this program and are notified of it; of the requirements and

restrictions or what they can or cannot apply for under that program.

MR. BUTLER: No doubt about it, it is a good program. I saw some of the

equipment that was purchased out in our area this year through the program. I

will tell them this year to apply for lots more, there could be (inaudible).

My last question, Mr. Chair, at this time - in case I am getting close to my

cut off. I only have one more at this point in time, is on page 250, 4.1.05. For

instance, under .01, where it says Revenue-Federal. I know it was budgeted $8

million and Revised, there is nil. Then the estimate this year is for $21

million. I was wondering why there is nothing there? We were budgeted $8 million

and I guess I can say we did not receive it or whatever. Maybe that is not the

right terminology for it, but -

MR. BYRNE: What is going on here - again, we are hoping to get this

addressed with the new staffing with the Fire and Emergency Service. We had

people employed there, but the reason there is no money received there - under

the previous disasters, for example, which was Stephenville, Badger and Gabriel,

the federal government still owes us money on those programs under the Disaster

Financial Assistance Arrangement program. It is just that their auditing system

is so complicated and it takes so much time to get the money in from them that

there was no money received this year. Basically, what they owe is $21 million.

I will give you some numbers here. Gabriel, they still owe us $1.9 million;

Badger, $3.6 million; West Coast flood, $2.3 million; Stephenville, $9.6

million; Northeast Coast, $2.9 million. It just takes time to get the money. We

end up paying for it, but because of their auditing system, it takes time to get

the money out of them.

MR. BUTLER: In that same section, minister, Grants and Subsidies is

$11.26 million. The breakdowns there, what was Revised, there are no figures

there under the Budget.

MR. BYRNE: I am not following you. The amount to be voted you mean?

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

MR. BYRNE: Exactly where are you now? Grants and Subsidies, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, on page 250. For each of the headings, like Salaries,

Transportation and Communications, Supplies, under the Revised the figures are

there but there are no figures under what was budgeted. I guess they are the

same, are they? How come there are no figures there for the (inaudible)?

MR. BYRNE: These are costs that are related to the administrative costs

of operating the - putting in the claims - our government's responsibilities

with respect to the cost of administering those programs. Again, when it

happens, it happens.

I do not know if someone wants to speak to it. We address it and then we try

to get our money back afterwards. That is what is going on there. There was no

money budgeted in 2006-2007 and we had to spend that kind of money to administer

the programs.

Do you follow me?

MR. BUTLER: My last supplementary - I said it was the last question. I

will call it a supplementary now to get away with this. I guess it is a general

question, minister.

You explained it very well about the $8 million and how the feds have not

come across with their portion. With the relationship we have with the federal

government now, do you think we are going to come up with the $21 million that

is budgeted for this year?

MR. BYRNE: Yes, that is not a problem. This is more of an administrative

thing within the different government departments. We will get that money, but

it just takes time to get it. This was all ongoing long before this situation

arose. You always get peaks and valleys. It will happen. We will get our money.

MR. BUTLER: That is it for me, Mr. Chair, at this time.

CHAIR: Thanks very much, Mr. Butler.

Who wants to go next? Anybody?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: I would just like to pursue the last point first a little bit

more so I am clear. I beg your indulgence where it is my first time doing a

budget in Estimates. I may have questions that may appear simple, but I need to

get things straight for myself.

Minister, on page 250 then, the same point that my colleague was looking at.

I just would like some clarification as to why there was a budgeted line item

for 4.1.05 but no details were budgeted. I am just curious as to where the

budgeted line item came from?

MR. BYRNE: Are you talking about -

MS MICHAEL: Under 2006-2007 there was a budgeted line item for all of

those expenditures. On page 250.

MR. BYRNE: The $11.26 million. I see what you mean, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. There was a budgeted line item of $11,260,000, then it

got revised, but I am curious as to why - the question that my colleague asked

was why you did not have an itemization under the budget. I am asking a further

question, how did you come up with the line item of $11,260,000 without doing

the itemized budget, because the revision has everything itemized? I just want

further clarification.

MR. BYRNE: Okay. I would assume that was a carry over from previous

budgets, but Baxter might want to speak to this.

MR. ROSE: In the 2006-2007 budgeting process - you may recall, the

Stephenville disaster happened in the fall of September 2005. By the time the

Province fully assessed the impact of the damages in Stephenville and came to a

decision it was very late in the budget process, so we did not have time to do a

full breakout. We were not even, in fact, sure of the number of claims that

would have to be settled or the amount of those claims, so there was one line

item put in, $11,260,000.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much. That makes it clear. I appreciate

that.

MR. BYRNE: That is what I said, it is a carry over from the previous.

MS MICHAEL: Right, yes, but the detail of what the carry over was I think

is helpful.

MR. BYRNE: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: I would like to come back then - a lot of my line item

questions have been asked but I have some others. Once again, some of this is

helping me get information for the future.

On page 246,

section 3.2.03, Grants and Subsidies. I would just like some

explanation of under this program what the Grants and Subsidies cover?

MR. BYRNE: Yes, I see it. The Gas Tax Program, that is a federal program

that deals with the municipalities. Money just flows through this department. It

is $82 million over four years. Again, the federal government has a lot of

restrictions on that program but the towns would apply to the provincial

government, Municipal Affairs, for the funding. There is an agreement they have

to sign. There is X amount of dollars for each municipality. There is a list.

They all know how much money they are going to get. It could be in the $5,000,

$10,000, hundreds of thousands. The City of St. John's probably gets upwards

of $3 million. It is going to be done over four years. Now, I am not sure if you

are asking that question. That program would be for the municipalities to do

green projects, such as water, sewer, roads are included. The money itself has

to be utilized.

The money they receive under the Gas Tax Program cannot be their portion of,

say, a project under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. If we had a

project of $1 million and the municipality was going to get $200,000, they could

not take that $200,000 and put it as their portion. The project would then

become a $1.2 million project, if they decided to spend it on that project.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. That is helpful and, again, information for me.

Is the greening of waste management included under this area?

MR. BYRNE: Pardon?

MS MICHAEL: The greening of waste management, carrying on waste

management in a more environmentally friendly way?

MR. BYRNE: Oh, the gas tax?

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Is that included under the Gas Tax Program?

MR. BYRNE: Yes. When we were negotiating this with the federal

government, I remember meeting with the deputy minister and told him that we

were going to try and work an agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Municipalities to take a certain portion of the gas tax money to

go towards the implementation of the provincial-wide Waste Management Strategy.

They did not think we would have a prayer, but we did, and we worked 25 per

cent.

The reason we did that was because the gas tax money has to go to all people

within the Province, even the unincorporated communities and local service

districts. There was no way that the unincorporated communities could avail of

this money so we had to come up with a way that they would get a portion, even

though they probably would not even realize they were getting a portion, and 25

per cent of the gas tax money is going towards the provincial-wide Waste

Management Strategy. The Province has put in $5 million this year. With the

money that is coming from them, I think it is going to be $22 million. We have

already started implementing the strategy on a project-by-project basis in

different areas of the Province, but with this now people will really see this

starting to move off pretty quickly now.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So this is where it is located. Thank you, that is

helpful.

Page 247,

section 3.2.05. This is a new agreement, I understand, isn't it?

The Municipal Transit Infrastructure, affecting Corner Brook and St. John's?

MR. BYRNE: Yes, this is a - Corner Brook and St. John's. The cities

involved have to supply transit cities $20.6 million, I think it was. This was

done over two years. The way we negotiated it for the City of Corner Brook, we

ended up with getting a base amount first; I think of $1.5 million for each

city. Then after that it was on a usage basis. So, the City of Corner Brook

ended up probably getting $1.5 million that they would not have gotten.

Sometimes we try to negotiate that.

I remember when the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities

were trying to negotiate the gas tax, they were hoping that everybody would get

a base amount and then after that they would get it on a per capita basis. So we

kind of took the same approach, and we were successful. It was only last week,

recently, we signed off on that. It has gone off to the feds now. They signed

off, so this is a done deal now.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. With this federal funding, is it only where cities are

involved or can small towns or even regions of municipalities be included in

this?

MR. BYRNE: No, it is for the cities. They had to have a public transit

system. Some people were of the impression that we could use it as a Province

for the ferry system, but it was not the case.

Now if, say, the City of Corner Brook or the City of St. John's had a ferry

going back and forth like they do in Halifax, they could possibly utilize it for

that purpose. But, no, it is just for the cities with public transit systems.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, and the system has to be in place. So a small town

could not get this money in order to start one?

MR. BYRNE: Not that I am aware of, no.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

On page 249, I think I know the answer to this one but I will ask it. I think

this is the same answer as page 250. Page 249,

section 4.1.03., the salaries

under that section, I guess that was affected by what happened in Stephenville,

was it? Is that the same? Because the salaries are up a fair bit there.

MR. BYRNE: Well, sort of. That led to it, but, as I mentioned earlier, we

have a new agency now - and the deputy minister, Mike Samson, is not here this

morning - the Fire and Emergency Services - Newfoundland and Labrador, which

will be combining the Fire Commissioner's Office and the Emergency Measures

Organization, with some new staffing, with fire protection officers, and we are

hiring somebody to actually address the situation with the auditing of the

federal program to try and speed that up, to put more emphasis on that. It is

just strictly to do with the increased staffing for that Fire and Emergency

Services. That is why that money is increased.

It is something that the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Municipalities and the Fire Chiefs and Firefighters Association have been after

for some time. It is only recently that we got a couple of positions, one or two

positions, advertised. Although we did have them approved, it took awhile

because they have been overworked down there for some time, understaffed, so we

are getting there.

MS MICHAEL: I guess more of a policy question, then, or policy related:

Are you having a sense, then - from what you have said, I think you probably do

- that we are moving towards being able to deal more efficiency and effectively

in the time of emergencies with the EMS?

MR. BYRNE: That is the whole intent. Mike Samson, the deputy minister,

has been tasked with this, to put an emergency preparedness plan in place which

will be all encompassing, from hospitals, government departments, volunteer fire

departments, the Red Cross, municipalities, and it is quite the task.

The thing is, in the past we have had some good people in that area, in EMO,

with the fire commissioner and others - and I can name names. Take, for example,

the Stephenville flood. When things happen it seems to come together, and it is

probably because we put people on the spot pretty quickly and they know what

needs to get done.

What we are trying to do is put an overall plan in place if, God forbid, you

have a disaster like a plane crash. People need to know their responsibilities,

who reports to whom, and all these types of things, what needs to get done all

over the Province. That is what that is all about.

MS MICHAEL: When that plan is put in place, will there be an evaluation

of places? I can think of regions - I will not bother to mention them - where,

in the case of an emergency, you do not have immediate services sometimes where

industry is located. Will there be an evaluation of what needs to be on the

ground as an infrastructure?

MR. BYRNE: It will be all encompassing. Like I said, when you sit back

and think about the logistics, what would have to be put in place, the plan

itself, the staffing, who is responsible for whom, all these types of things,

even to gear up and get to a site, all of that will be looked at. We have money

in the budget now for Labrador, to put a plan in place for Labrador, which would

be a part of this also.

To me it is, again, all encompassing. It is going to take time to put this in

place itself. In the interim, we have been pretty fortunate to have the people

there who could do a yeoman's task, really, in the past.

MS MICHAEL: If I may ask one more specific question with relation to it.

MR. BYRNE: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: I am looking at something like, for example, the hospital in

Labrador West, and the fact that a new hospital is being looked at, et cetera.

Would there be discussions back and forth between health and the emergency

services with regard to - for example, the new plan might have expectations of

what is needed in the hospital in Lab West because of the industry that

surrounds Lab West. There are some things, yes, you could wait to get somebody

over to Happy Valley, but there are some things that are essential that you

would have in a hospital really close by. Would that kind of discussion go on as

you are putting the plan in place?

MR. BYRNE: Well, again, when people are designing the hospitals, I would

think that a lot of these things would be considered in the design and putting

the building in place. We are still pretty early on, in putting this in place.

In the past, we were always in probably more of a reactive mould when it came to

a disaster, rather than proactive, so where we are trying to go is to be more

proactive, and it is going to take time.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Okay, we are going to pass the questioning on.

Mr. Barrett or Mr. Ball?

MR. BALL: I have just a few questions, actually.

Number one is on page 248, under 4.1.02., the positions for the Fire

Commissioner's Office. I am just wondering where these positions will be

located.

MR. BYRNE: A good question.

With respect to the new Fire and Emergency Services, we were hiring, as far

as I understand, some new fire protection officers. There is one scheduled for,

I think, Clarenville. We have people in Deer Lake now, and we have other people

in Grand Falls. It will depend on what type of positions will be hired and where

they would go, but we are looking at spreading them around the Province.

MR. BALL: On page 249, under 4.1.04. again - this seems to be a popular

area today - is this for fire only, when you look at the assistance for

emergency response equipment?

MR. BYRNE: Normally, we flow it through the Fire Commissioner's Office

and EMO. In the past it has been mostly firefighting equipment and

communications, like communications towers. It could have been suits - what do

you call it? - the bunker suits, these types of equipment. I am not sure if you

have a specific something in mind that it could be utilized for.

MR. BALL: In my mind, I was just thinking about some of our search and

rescue groups around.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

We have funded some of those search and rescues through the department. If

they apply for assistance we have done that, not necessarily through this

program but through others.

MR. BALL: There is one other question, I guess, and I do not know where

it would fit in here. That would be, I guess, in early February or late January

some time there was, obviously, on the Northeast Coast again, a storm that did

some considerable damage in the boardwalk in Trout River, that area. I am just

wondering if that would be included in these Estimates anywhere.

MR. BYRNE: What happens with respect to the disasters, under the Disaster

Financial Assistance Arrangements Program, when there is a disaster - and they

are the ones who define what a disaster is, by the way - it is the first

$500,000; it has to be at least $500,000 worth of damage. Once that happens,

when we reach that, then we try and see if the feds would come on side. We make

application and have some discussions with them, and then it is on a pro-rated

basis. The bigger the disaster, or the more cost involved, the more the feds

would put in, but I don't think that qualified, did it? It did not qualify

under that program.

MR. BALL: It didn't reach the $500,000 threshold.

MR. BYRNE: No, but I know that I have been talking to, I think it was

Trout River, one of them, and they had some trouble with their boardwalk or

something.

MR. BALL: That is the one I am talking about.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

Again, we have different programs in place, like the Community Enhancement

Program and these types of things, that I have been trying to promote to the

municipalities and different organizations to get projects that are more long

term and viable. If you deal with it in phases, even, from one year, two years,

three years type of thing, we would be looking at that.

What they should be doing, too, and I cannot specifically speak of the

boardwalk, where it was located or whatever the case may be, but maybe if they

wanted to apply under a program that way but look at something that probably

would not get destroyed if they did have another heavy wind and rain storm,

flood and whatever.

MR. BALL: Subhead 3.1.04.

MR. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. BALL: Subhead 3.1.04.

MR. BYRNE: What page is that?

MR. BALL: I will see myself, now. Page 245, item 9, Allowances and

Assistance. There was $1.5 million last year and nothing this year.

MR. BYRNE: That had to do with, if you remember, was it Harbour Breton?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. BYRNE: FPI agreed to put $1.5 million into that program, a one-shot

deal. That is what that was. That is where it came from.

MR. BALL: I think that is about it for me, for now.

CHAIR: Okay.

Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: I have a few questions here under subhead 4.1.01., the new

Fire and Emergency Services Agency.

MR. BYRNE: Which one, 4.1.01?

MR. BARRETT: On page 248.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: You have $365,000 there for salaries but there is only one

position. The $128,506, I guess that is for the deputy minister, the ADM, or

whatever that position, or the director, and the other $145,000 says it is for

temporary and other employees. Is there no staff going with this, or is it just

a call-in basis?

MR. BYRNE: I do not know if I got the first part of your question. That

is the Executive Support, 4.1.01?

MR. BARRETT: The salaries is $365,000, right?

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: But in the details on page 175 for the Executive Support,

Fire and Emergency Services Agency, it lists the permanent employees as $128,506

and then it says $145,000 for temporary employees.

MR. BYRNE: That again would be part and parcel of the overall financing

of the new positions coming into that department.

MR. BARRETT: So, they are going to be temporary employees are they?

MR. BYRNE: There will be some temporary but there are permanent employees

coming in there too. There are two, I think, two or three, fire protection

officers that are being hired. There is a person being hired with respect to the

auditing, as I mentioned before, to address that. I think there is something

like seven or eight new employees coming in. That is my understanding.

MR. ROSE: There are some additional one-time costs associated with the

set-up of the agency in developing the initial plan and whatnot. The Fire and

Emergency Services will be a permanent agency, but in the first year there will

be some temporary positions associated with that to get it up and running and to

develop the provincial emergency preparedness plan.

MR. BARRETT: Under heading 03. of 4.1.01., Executive Support for the Fire

and Emergency Services Agency, Transportation and Communications is $170,000 for

one person.

MR. BYRNE: No, that $170,000, I would think that would be for, again,

getting geared up, getting the operation in place, the travel involved with

that. As I mentioned earlier, this is going to be a pretty heavy, complicated,

logistical (inaudible) to put all of this in place all around this Province and

Labrador. So that $170,000, I would assume, is not for one individual. It would

be for a number of individuals, that Transportation and Communications.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but the only person in place right now - I guess you

have a person appointed as the head of this agency, but there is nobody hired

yet.

MR. BYRNE: Well, there are people there now. We have people in Deer Lake,

people in Grand Falls, people in St. John's. We have the fire commissioner -

WITNESS: Marilyn McCormack. (correct)

MR. BYRNE: Marilyn McCormack is a new individual who has been just

appointed the other day to assist at putting this in place. She is there for an

appointment for a year, I think. So, it is not for one individual, it is for a

number of individuals.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. These positions before, where were they? This is a new

agency. You just told me -

MR. BYRNE: No, no -

MR. BARRETT: - that you have a whole slew of people on staff already. So

did they come from the Fire Commissioner's Office or where?

MR. BYRNE: What is happening here under the new Fire and Emergency

Services will be combined, the Fire Commissioner's Office and Emergency

Measures Organization, combining them, which are on staff, a number of those

individuals, plus another seven or eight people, plus people who are on a

temporary basis to get this up and running in the first place and then the final

plan will be put in place. It is going to take, as I said, some time, effort and

money to put this together. It is a pretty comprehensive plan that is going to

be done.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but what I am looking at here, for example, there is an

increase in salaries in the Fire Commissioner's Office.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: And there is also an increase in salaries in the Emergency

Measures Organization.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The salary in that organization has gone up from $283,000 to

$402,000, and you also have the salaries in this one here of $145,000. You just

indicated that these positions were transferred from the Fire Commissioner's

Office and/or the Emergency Measures Organization to the new Fire and Emergency

Services Agency.

MR. BYRNE: That is not what I said. What I said was that the Fire

Commissioner's Office and the Emergency Measures Organization are going to be

combined. We will be hiring people in the short term to help get this up and

running, such as Ms McCormack. We will be hiring a permanent staff. I think we

budgeted $1.5 million, was it? It was $500,000 for one-time costs and then

something like $750,000 a year for operational, once it is up and running, for

salaries and whatever the case may be.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: One point two million, okay.

WITNESS: One point two million, with $500,000 one-time costs.

MR. BYRNE: Yes, that is right. So it is $700,000. Out of the $1.2

million, $500,000 is for one-time costs and then $700,000 to operate the new

Fire Emergency Services. I am not sure if I am getting that clear to you or not.

MR. ROSE: In the initial set up of the Fire and Emergency Services Agency

there are a number of positions that are being seconded from other places within

government, not from the Fire Commissioner's Office or Emergency Measures.

Marilyn McCormack, there was an announcement made on that last week. Pam

Rogers is an executive support. As well, there is some secretarial support that

is being provided to that agency. Part of the one-time effort is to get the

planning put in place and thereafter this Budget of $1.2 million, as the

minister indicated, there is $500,000 of one-time costs in that. So you will see

that drop next year.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. I guess that explains, to some extent, what is going

on here because there is such an increase in salaries. You must me transferring

somewhere else because we are already one month gone out of the fiscal year and

by the time you advertise for those positions you are up to September before

they are filled, or October.

I guess, to note, these three divisions here, the transportation and travel

costs for this agency is almost $500,000, $425,000.

MR. BYRNE: It is a combination of staffing for a one-shot deal. Within

that $500,000 there would be temporary people employed upwards to a year. Now,

when you are talking about travelling for the Fire Commissioner's Office and

the Emergency Measures Organization, I mean the costs involved with that. Daniel's

Harbour is a prime example. We have had staff up there like you would not

believe, and there will be more staff up there to do the job.

Again, there are people travelling with respect to the Stephenville and the

Northeast Coast flood. The list goes on and on.

Under the Fire Commissioner's Office we had a budget of $96,000 for

Transportation and Communications under 4.1.02.03. We budgeted $96,000, spent

$94,000, and we have $96,000 budgeted again this year for Transportation and

Communications. Again, that is an estimate. It could go higher, it could go

lower, it depends on what happens within the Province, which we have no control

over.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

Grants and Subsidies on page 246. You indicated that you were going to spend

$36,240,000 but you only spent $23,740,000. We hear announcements about all of

these projects and all the money in the municipal infrastructure program when

obviously - it was indicated you were going to spend $36 million but you only

spent $23 million.

MR. BYRNE: Yes. The reason for that is simply put - again, the Municipal

Rural Infrastructure Fund and the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund, it is

federal government programs. We put money into it. They put in 33 per cent of

any project. Once applications are made you have to go through their process. It

is the uptake from the municipalities. There are a number of factors involved

here. It is getting approval through the system, once we have an application in

through the federal program. It also has to do with the number of municipalities

that would apply under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund.

Under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund; again, what we have done over

the past number of years, we have about fourteen municipalities that take

advantage of the multi-year program where there are fifty-cent dollars, 50-50.

The Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund is usually geared to the smaller

municipalities whereby they get a 30 per cent off the top reduction and then

there is 66 per cent left. Sometimes we, as a province, will finance that 66 per

cent from anywhere from 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, depending on the financial

situation of the municipalities and other factors.

So, in reality, it is based on the uptake from the municipalities and the

approval system with the federal government. We budgeted $36 million and only

$23 million was taken, but that $36 million will be spent possibly in the next

year; not that we lose it, or the towns lose it. Just because it is not spent

this year does not mean that next year that $12 million of $14 million will be

on top of what we would normally budget anyway. So, it will get spent and the

municipalities will have the advantage of it.

MR. BARRETT: Actually, when you analyze this here right now, in this

fiscal year, when you look at the fact that $13 million of it that is carried

over were project that were announced - you announced $36 million, but you only

spent $23 million.

MR. BYRNE: No, what we announced was that we would budget $36 million.

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. BYRNE: Then it is up to the municipalities to apply for it and get

approvals. If they applied for $23 million and it got done and spent, good. It

would have been better if they had, within that year, spent the $36 million, but

that $13 million that was not spent will get spent in the following year. It is

the approval system which is the problem - that slows it down - and, again, the

municipalities applying for it.

MR. BARRETT: So that $13 million is included in the $27 million this

year?

MR. BYRNE: No. The $36 million to $23 million would be on top of. If we

have budgeted $27 million this year, next year it could quite possibly be $40

million. Correct?

MR. BARRETT: So, technically, right now the $13 million that was not

spent in the year 2007 is not included in these figures here at all now?

MR. BYRNE: It will be on top of. That money is allocated as we speak. We

cannot put it there now on top of this because it has already been allocated

within the previous Budget, but as the system flows and applications are made

and approvals given, this $13 million that you are talking about will be on top

of the $27 million. Is that not correct?

MR. ROSE: The numbers you see in front of you are the cash flows. The

minister's commitments are made. It depends on the timing of the project, the

development of a project and when the cash actually gets flowed. When the

project is completed then the cash flows. This is not commitments. This is cash

that you are going to see flowing on projects that were probably committed two

or three years ago and are well underway, under construction.

MR. BARRETT: Therefore, it could be possible this year, if everything

goes ahead, that that revised figure, instead of $27 million it could be $40

million next year?

MR. ROSE: If everything moves ahead according to plan, yes, that number

could go up.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

CHAIR: Okay. Mr. Barrett, have you finished that point? I wanted you to

have time to finish up that point but if you are going to go on to a new point,

you are actually gone beyond the time.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. I just started.

CHAIR: You started at 9:42.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Come back to me.

CHAIR: We will come back to you. Are you finished that point, though?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I guess I am. I am just as clear as I was when I

started.

CHAIR: I am not sure where we are moving.

Ms Michael, did you have further questions?

MS MICHAEL: No, I am all right for the moment, Mr. Chairperson.

CHAIR: Any other members in the back? Mr. Collins?

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the JEP program again.

Minister, can you just give a quick

summary of what that program offers? Any

fire department, you said, is available to that program for ordering any kind of

emergency equipment, bunker suits, this sort of stuff. Is that on a cost-shared

basis? I do not understand your last point there: Expenditures are fully

recoverable from the federal government. Is that the municipal - this department's

share if fully recoverable? Can you set that out for me?

MR. BYRNE: The fire departments, through the municipalities, can apply

for that JEP program. They can apply for bunker suits, they can apply for

communications, towers, radios, whatever. There is equipment there - we call it

the heat sensitive detectors, these types of things, that can be financed

through that program. The applications have to go through the Fire Commissioner's

Office. The Fire Commissioner will then recommend aye or nay, depending on if

there is certain equipment in certain areas. Now, if you have a town with a

certain piece of equipment and another fire hall within sight distance, is it

necessary to have, you know - so he looks at all these figures and he makes a

recommendation that it be approved or not approved.

MR. COLLINS: When it is paid for - my question is: What is recoverable

from the federal government? Is it the amount that the Department of Municipal

Affairs pays out?

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: I am coming back to the local involvement again here.

MR. BYRNE: They make application. It is usually 100 per cent, isn't it?

WITNESS: The municipalities pay a share.

MR. COLLINS: I did not get that comment.

MR. BYRNE: The municipalities pay a share. I mean, I do not have that

right here.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. The local group pays a share?

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. That is not recoverable from the federal government?

MR. BYRNE: No.

MR. COLLINS: Okay.

The other quick question I had for you, back on page 244, Municipal Debt

Servicing.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: The amounts put in the Estimates for this year, $23,854,000.

That is just an amount paid to interest, is it, on the total?

MR. BYRNE: Where are we now?

MR. COLLINS: Page 244, 3.1.01.

MR. BYRNE: What is your question?

MR. COLLINS: Municipal Debt Servicing, $23 million to almost $24 million,

that is the amount paid to interest on the overall Municipal Debt Servicing this

year. Any idea what the total debt would be of municipal services at the time?

MR. BYRNE: The overall amount is probably up around $400 million,

approximately. That is just a portion to the municipal financing corporation,

which we are trying to get away from.

MR. COLLINS: That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Are you finished, Mr. Collins? Okay.

Any other members?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: That you, Mr. Chairperson.

Back to page 246. I do have a further question of clarification with regard

section 10; number 10 under 3.2.02. I am still not clear on the answers,

minister, that you are giving to my colleague. Maybe if I ask it in a different

way we might get it cleared up.

If $36,240,000 was budgeted in 2006-2007, and if the difference of $13

million has already been applied for and granted, as you have said, it is just

that money has not been allotted yet. I guess my first question would be: Well,

then, if we know that $36,240,000, in actual fact, was applied for and meeting

needs out there, why is there such a drop in 2007?

MR. BYRNE: No, no, just to correct you, the $36,240,000 was what we

budgeted to be spent.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. BYRNE: Not necessarily that it was applied for, but that is what

could have been spent.

MS MICHAEL: Well, the impression I had was that the $13 million has been

applied for.

MR. BYRNE: No, no.

MS MICHAEL: In that case, then, I will further my question: If you

budgeted -

MR. BYRNE: Just let me straighten that up first, okay, if I can? If I can't,

I will get someone else to.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, because it is not clear to me.

MR. BYRNE: The $36,240,000 is what was budgeted, okay?

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. BYRNE: The $23,740,000 is the amount of money that we actually had

applications on and approved out of that $36,240,000. That is the cash flow. Is

that correct?

MR. ROSE: The $23,740,000 is the actual cash that flowed on previous

years' commitments that were made. We had anticipated that municipalities

would have taken up, consumed, the projects more quickly, that the projects

would have gotten underway, they would have been completed and the cash would

have been paid out as $36 million.

The municipalities, for whatever reason, be it environmental assessments, be

it delays in the calling of tenders or delayed starts to the construction

season, whatever the case may be, as a result of all of those factors the

projects were not undertaken or the cash did not flow as quickly as we had

projected. So, the money is not gone. The commitments are there. The commitments

were made, but the cash flow simply did not take place as quickly as we had

anticipated.

MS MICHAEL: So it was budgeted and the money is still there?

MR. ROSE: The money is still there. The projects -

MS MICHAEL: I am still confused, then, because I do not understand why

that money is not put into the Estimates for 2007-2008.

MR. ROSE: We now have more experience with dealing with the federal

government on these federal cost-shared programs, because that is what this is;

all of this is federal cost-shared programs.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. ROSE: We made commitments last year, for example, under the Municipal

Rural Infrastructure Program. We made our commitments in April and May and we

are still waiting on federal environmental clearance on a number of those

projects today, so the federal system is slowing down the actual start of

construction. The commitment is made, the commitment is in place, the

municipalities will get their project, but the federal process for giving their

clearance has slowed us down, so it is taking longer to get the dollars out the

door while the commitments are being made expeditiously.

MS MICHAEL: I guess I am getting it, but usually in a budget you never

see money sort of lost. Do you know what I mean?

MR. ROSE: These monies are not lost.

MS MICHAEL: But they are not showing up, so that is what I am confused

about.

Let me put it a bit more clearly, then, how it is working in my mind.

Usually, when you budget a certain amount and then there is a revision, if it is

a revision up it means that there was more money and it was spent. If it is a

revision down it means that is it, that is all the money now for that year, and

the $13 million goes back into a pot somewhere. That is usually how it works in

the budget, right? That is why I am talking about the $13 million lost. There is

nothing here that gives me an assurance, or gives the municipalities an

assurance, that the $13 million is still going to be spent, because that is

usually not how it works.

MR. ROSE: The municipalities are operating on the basis of getting a

commitment to do a project. Once they have their commitment, they are assured

they have the money.

In these federal-provincial programs they do tend to be confusing, because as

you see the amount of cash flow go down you will see a corresponding drop in the

revenue that comes in. These are the monies that we are paying out, as a

Province, for the federal share that we then bill the federal government for and

they pay us as a revenue.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that really helps. That really helps because I can see,

then, what you are getting at, because you had $18,700,000 budgeted and you have

in $10,700,000.

MR. ROSE: Right.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. That answers the question, actually.

MR. ROSE: The two go hand in hand. The monies are not lost.

MS MICHAEL: I can see what you are talking about there, but then I am

still wondering why you only budgeted $27,752,000 for this year.

MR. ROSE: There are a couple of things.

One is, the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program has wound down. That

program has been completed. The Municipal Rural Infrastructure Program, which is

the replacement for the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, is a smaller

program and it is taking us longer to get that program ramped up and delivered.

MS MICHAEL: Smaller in terms of the amount of money coming in?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you. That helps.

CHAIR: Are you done, Ms Michael?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I am, thank you.

CHAIR: Any other members with questions?

I will go back to Mr. Ball and then we will go to you, Mr. Barrett.

MR. BALL: Just one quick question, I guess, on that same figure there.

Out of a $212 million budget we were not expecting so many questions on

3.2.02.10. again.

I am just wondering how many projects would have been applied last year, and

what would have been the total dollar figure?

MR. BYRNE: To answer that question, I could get the number for you. I do

not know if I have it here, but it could very well be that the applications that

we have in from the municipalities could certainly be in the hundreds. Each

municipality sometimes has - not each, many municipalities - a five-year plan,

and they have various projects and phases of projects and these types of things.

I could get the number for you, but it certainly would be in the hundreds.

When we are trying to do our budget and we have a list that thick, halved by

seventeen, with all the municipalities, all the projects, and trying to go down

through them, we base it on the engineers' recommendations within the

department, engineers from the municipalities, health, environmental, financial

evaluation of the municipalities, what they can afford, what they cannot afford.

On that, there is going to be something like - we had really budgeted over $105

million, I think, for this year for capital works. So, when you think about it,

$105 million - and we still, with that amount of money, leave a lot of projects

out there that do not get funded each year. I could probably get a number for

you. I would not want to give it to you now, but I know it would be in the

hundreds.

MR. BALL: Given the fact that all projects cannot be approved and are not

approved, how do you put a priority on which ones you do approve?

MR. BYRNE: Again, as I mentioned, once we look at the projects, we look

at what the engineers in our department recommend based on history. Some

projects may have been approved for Phase I, and the continuation of that

project; that is one factor. The engineers from the municipality, when we are

dealing with a municipality, we see what they are recommending. We look at if

there was sewerage running in a ditch versus in a community where it is not;

that is a factor. Environmental reasons, health reasons, there is a combination

of factors that we deal with. We talk to the municipalities to see what they

would prefer. We have the different programs, we have the municipal capital

works, as I said earlier. We have the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, which

is usually slower getting up and running; multi-year, with the cities and the

bigger towns. There are many factors involved. It is not an easy task, let me

tell you.

CHAIR: Okay, Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: I have sort of a general question.

We have $28,172,000 under the Federal-Provincial Infrastructure Program.

MR. BYRNE: Which page are we on?

MR. BARRETT: That is on page 246.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Where is the regular capital works program that is

provincial?

MR. BYRNE: Pardon? Where is what?

MR. BARRETT: Is that the only money we are spending on municipal

infrastructure this year, what is federal-provincial cost-shared?

MR. BYRNE: No, on the page before that, on page 245, is municipal

infrastructure.

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. BYRNE: There is monies there.

MR. BARRETT: Appropriations provided for the payment of provincial

contributions towards principal owing on municipal infrastructure projects

relating to water and sewer projects.

MR. BYRNE: Road construction, pavement projects, recreation facilities

and others.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but reading that it sounds like we are paying for

something that has already been done.

MR. BYRNE: No, not at all.

MR. BARRETT: Actually, the capital works program this year is $79

million?

MR. BYRNE: The overall capital works program this year, when you look at

the different programs, which is the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, CSIF,

Municipal Capital Works Program and the multi-year, it totals $105 million. Out

of that, I think the Province is putting in $50.4 million, the feds put in their

portion out of the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, and then the

municipalities are responsible for the rest. This one here, under 3.2.01.,

Municipal Infrastructure, then you have one on the next page that you have been

discussing here, which is the federal programs, it is a combination.

MR. BARRETT: We are actually spending $79,635,200 on municipal capital

works?

MR. BYRNE: That is what has been budgeted. That is the cash flow. That is

what has been budgeted, yes.

MR. BARRETT: Up from $46 million last year.

MR. BYRNE: Yes. That, again, has to do with, as I mentioned earlier when

someone asked the question -

MR. BARRETT: So, it is actually $33 million more this year than it was

last year?

MR. BYRNE: Yes. The thing on it, it has to do with the early approvals

for capital works, as I mentioned earlier when Mr. Butler was asking about that

- I think you specifically referred to that one - and to pay down the capital

cost of construction. Instead of financing as in the long term we are doing it

in the short term, paying for the projects as we go, we will say.

MR. BARRETT: Most of these would be on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis?

MR. BYRNE: These ones here, municipal infrastructure, not necessarily. It

depends on the municipality. The cost-sharing ratio could be 50-50, 60-40,

70-30. It depends on - again, smaller towns, as we know, cannot afford 50-50.

That is why we have the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund where they get 30

per cent off the top. It depends on the financial situation of the

municipalities. We have a formula within the department that we look at, to look

at the cost-sharing ratio for the municipalities, and we discuss that with them.

MR. BARRETT: I know when we were in government we cost-shared some

projects with municipalities, particularly municipalities that are having

difficulty, and some were 93-7. How many projects did you approve last year in

the 90-10 range, and which communities got the funding?

MR. BYRNE: There were a couple, I think, but not very many, to be honest

with you. What we have done since I have been there - when we first went there,

in many municipalities their debt servicing ratio was like 40 per cent, 45 per

cent, 50 per cent, the high 30's, and we try to keep the towns from going

further in debt. I think there were only a couple that we approved for 90-10

last year. I don't even remember.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: Two?

MR. BARRETT: What two were they?

MR. BYRNE: I can't remember. I know there was one that was down on the

Burin Peninsula - or was that the year before? It was Cottrell's Cove, where

they had the water line -

MR. BARRETT: Cottrell's Cove is not a town council.

MR. BYRNE: It was a local service district. (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Cottrell's Cove is not a town council; it is a local

service district.

MR. BYRNE: That is right.

MR. BARRETT: Normally, you do not provide that type of funding to - that

was after the by-election, was it? Okay, I understand it now.

What was the other one?

MR. BYRNE: What do you mean, you understand it now?

MR. BARRETT: That was promised during the by-election and it was

delivered after the by-election. I understand why it was done now.

MR. BYRNE: I know one thing. What I remember about seeing it was in the

local paper - that is what brought it to my attention - was a bottle of water

and the water was brown.

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. BYRNE: When I saw that, I said we should do this.

MR. BARRETT: There are lots of local service districts out there with

brown water. I have them in North Harbour -

MR. BYRNE: I know that, but in the meantime -

MR. BARRETT: - but you don't provide that same funding.

MR. BYRNE: It may have been, but it was a commitment made and a

commitment kept.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, it was made during the by-election.

What was the other one, another by-election or what?

MR. BYRNE: We will find it out for you. We will get it for you. I don't

know offhand but I can get it for you.

MR. BARRETT: You will get it for me. Okay.

I have some other questions that are not related to the Budget. They are more

of a policy area.

The waste management, St. John's, the Greater Avalon Waste Management at

Robin Hood Bay, I want to ask you a question, Minister. Do you feel comfortable

that St. John's controls 51 per cent of the board of that agency and only has

38 per cent of the population?

MR. BYRNE: A good question - timely. I said this to a number of

municipalities when we are talking about it Province-wide: If a municipality had

a facility like that going in their district, would they not want to have

control? Most of them would say to me, yes; but the question that you asked

specifically, I have had discussions with the City of St. John's and we will

have more discussions with the City of St. John's. Governance is an issue,

there is no doubt about that. I am hoping we will get something that is worked

out to the satisfaction of all the municipalities, that they will agree to. To

be quite honest with you, I am hoping to have that done in the very near future.

Again, the municipalities will certainly have a say; they will have

representation. It is a little bit early for me to make any comment more than

that, but we know governance is a issue, we are dealing with it, and we will

hopefully have it resolved in the not-too-distant future.

MR. BARRETT: From that I understand that you hopefully will negotiate

that St. John's will not have 51 per cent control?

MR. BYRNE: What I am saying is that hopefully we will have something

negotiated that all parties will agree to.

CHAIR: Just before we carry on with general policy questions like that,

are there any other questions on line items? Because it is not particularly the

jurisdiction of this Committee to consider general policy certainly. If the

minister wants to stay and answer those questions then I certainly do not mind

staying, but I would certainly like to make sure we finish line item questions.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, since when was it restricted

in a Committee that you should not -

CHAIR: I am not restricting, Mr. Barrett. I want to make sure that we

finish line items, because that is our mandate to consider Estimates. Then, if

we want to get into stuff like that, I am more than willing to stay here.

MR. BARRETT: The mandate of the Committee is to consider the Estimates -

CHAIR: Exactly.

MR. BARRETT: - and the Estimates which evolves the policy of the

department.

CHAIR: I would like to make sure that we finish the Estimates first,

before we get into general policy.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I am prepared to stop right now and if anybody else

has any line-by-line -

CHAIR: I would like to make sure we finish that first.

MR. BARRETT: - because I do have a whole series of policy questions.

CHAIR: Are there any other line items?

MR. BUTLER: I don't know which line it would be.

CHAIR: Estimates questions, we will say.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, just a general question but I am wondering, with regard

to regional government, is there any funding or any allocations made in the

Budget or on any line item - I do not know where it might be - that would be

related to the possibility of government looking at regional governments, or is

there any request that funding has been put aside, that this would be looked at

on behalf of municipalities?

MR. BYRNE: For regional governments for -

MR. BUTLER: Overall generally.

MR. BYRNE: I see, okay.

Just to let you know, as we speak, I think there is something like

forty-seven municipalities with requests in to do either studies to look at

sharing of services, towns coming together. We put $2 million in the Budget this

year to address that study, as you know - like, say, Trinity Bay North, which

was Port Union, Melrose and Catalina coming together - just to do that. Then, if

the towns decide it makes sense for them to come together as one town or to

share services, fire fighting, waste management, garbage collection or whatever,

then we are going to be looking at that. There is $2 million in the Budget for

that. I am sure the boys will look it up for you now.

The thing is, right now, as I see it, in some areas the people in the towns

are head - some of the elected officials, along those lines, but we do have

requests and there is money there for that. Once the towns decide to come

together, if they do, then we try to look at their debt for them because you

could have municipalities, some with a higher mill rate, others with a lower

mill rate, to try to come up with a plan to bring them together. Some may go up,

some may go down.

Again, I am not sure but that is the question you asked, I think.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

So, there is funding available within the Budget for needs like that.

MR. BYRNE: Oh, yes.

MR. BUTLER: The other one - I will try to tie a bit of financial reasons

to this one as well - I know you mentioned, you said you went as far as you

could with regard to Robin Hood Bay, the City of St. John's and so on.

MR. BYRNE: No, I haven't gone as far as I can. I am working on that.

MR. BUTLER: That is what I am saying, but as far as what you can release

to us.

MR. BYRNE: Oh, yes, I see.

MR. BUTLER: I know there was a lot of funding, I guess, went into looking

at the Dog Hill location and so on.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Are there any assessments or anything being done to further

look at that in conjunction with what you are dealing with the City of St.

Johns?

MR. BYRNE: With respect to the governance issue, aside from that, when we

first came in here the previous Administration had a waste management strategy

in place. As you know, there was no money allocated to the short term or the

long term. It was a good plan overall, and we are following that pretty closely.

There may be some tweaking it, changes, and that type of thing.

One of the first things we did when we formed the government, the Northen

Peninsula regional waste management was the first regional authority appointed

for waste management. The legislation had been on the books and was gone through

the House but it was never signed off on by - what is the right word? - the

Lieutenant Governor. It was never proclaimed. We did that and we put money into

that area.

The issue with respect to Dog Hill, again, the City of St. John's

approached us to look at natural containment. If Robin Hood Bay could be

retrofitted to have natural containment, then would we consider keeping that

there?

We said, well, fine, if you want to do due diligence, do the engineering

work, have the geotechnical people in to prove to us that natural containment

would be the same as lined landfills.

To remediate Robin Hood Bay would cost $30-odd million; to do Dog Hill would

cost $40 million - that was the estimate to construct that - now you are looking

at $70 million whereby Robin Hood Bay could be remediated, or retrofitted, or

whatever word you want to use, for $30-something million. In the overall scheme

of things it was going to save $40 million out of the waste management strategy,

of the $200 million.

As I said, we have money in place now, $22 million, from the gas tax over the

next four years. We have money in the Budget this year from the Province of $5

million to go towards it, and we are hoping to get money out of the MMSB to go

towards it.

The thing is, you have to live in the real world, too, and if we can do the

same thing and have the same situation and meet the same environmental standards

by retrofitting Robin Hood Bay and saving $40 million, why wouldn't you do

that? The big thing is, by doing that you are saving money for the

municipalities and the homeowner on the end with respect to the tippage fees, so

you are keeping the tippage fees down. When the city or municipality dumps at

Robin Hood Bay or any landfill site, there is so much per ton to dump there.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I will just elaborate a little on that. I think

that is the concern that a lot of the municipalities out around have, what they

are paying now by having to travel that distance.

MR. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Maybe it will be only a few short years - and I know

government will save the $40 million, but it is gone back on the people out

there more.

MR. BYRNE: The thing is, though, if you went and did what they are

talking about doing, the tippage fees in the immediate future, when they start,

they would be up higher then they would be if you go with Robin Hood Bay.

The other point is cost neutrality. What we are working on now is, if a

municipality is over 100 kilometres, once you go beyond that it will be

subsidized, so we are trying to keep all the costs as close....

The other point is that there are ways - and I know there is a concern out

there that some of the municipalities have, that the big city might put the

pressure on them and charge them more than they are going to charge their own;

but, anything that we put in place, there will be nobody paying any more for

tippage than someone else, so that is not going to be a factor.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chairman, my last question is - and I know the minister

referenced this in some of the figures that you were responding to my

colleagues. I know you referenced - I will use the first phase and the second

phase of the announcement for the municipality and infrastructure and what have

you. Phase II, when will that be announced? That is not done yet, is it?

MR. BYRNE: I am not following you. Phase II of what?

MR. BUTLER: The announcements that were made this year, capital works and

that.

MR. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. BUTLER: I remember I met with the officials with some of the

municipalities in my area and they said your request is in. Do you know what I

am saying? You are probably not going to be recognizing Phase I, but Phase II

you will be considered for. That is what I am wondering.

MR. BYRNE: Okay.

We are in the process now of approving projects. We have had meetings with

various MHAs, and some have been announced. There are others being announced.

The problem that we have with some of them, to be honest with you, is that under

municipal capital works, if it is approved under that, it is completely

provincial and municipal. We can announce it whenever we want, as soon as we

have the money approved, done. Under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and

CSIF we cannot announce it until the feds decide that they are going to be

involved and they approve it.

For example, in my own district, the Torbay Bypass, under CSIF, we have had

money in that for two years and we are still waiting for the feds to announce it

and we cannot.

MR. BUTLER: That is all I have, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions?

Again, the object of the Chair is not to restrict but the questions should

somehow be related to the expenditures of government or the Estimates and

somehow - Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

A question for the minister.

Avondale, the town council there has been shut down for six weeks and the

clerk has been suspended. What is on the go in Avondale? Are you going to

appoint an administrator or -

MR. BYRNE: Well, with respect to Avondale, there are a couple of towns

now that are having problems that way, and Avondale is one. Six councillors

resigned and we have one councillor left, who is the deputy mayor. We did have a

meeting with him last week, because we wanted everybody to have their say, as we

did in Port au Choix. At the meeting, we stopped the meeting and basically said,

if you want to have legal council it is up to you to have legal council -

because he mentioned it, and we notified him of that officially.

We have a meeting scheduled for next week, next Monday, to have further

discussions with him. Once we hear from the deputy mayor, then the decision will

be made what we should do.

We have a number of options. We can appoint an administrator if we believe

that is required. We can have by-elections. Right now, we are just still at the

hearing process, I suppose; we are gathering information at this point in time.

The town is not being administered now financially, or with respect to the

capital works and these types of things, so it is something that we are on top

of and we need to address as quickly as we possibly can. That is why we spoke to

them last week. We had to give them due course, I suppose, or time to address

the concerns that he might want to address.

That is where we are on Avondale.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

Another issue, the firefighters in Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned

over the lack of adequate life insurance.

MR. BYRNE: So am I.

MR. BARRETT: What?

MR. BYRNE: So am I.

MR. BARRETT: So, are you planning to do anything about it?

MR. BYRNE: I have had a meeting recently; the Fire Chiefs and

Firefighters recently made a presentation to the SPC of government, the Social

Policy Committee, and they had a number of concerns which we have. We work well

with Fire Chiefs and Firefighters. I asked them to give me a list of their

priorities. They had a number of asks. Insurance is well up there, plus there

are some other issues. I am working with them and we will hopefully get it

resolved in the not-too-distant future.

CHAIR: Again, the Chair requests that the questions - I understand these

are all interesting, but -

MR. BYRNE: It is not a problem with me.

CHAIR: If it is not a problem with the minister, just in fairness to the

Committee members and so on, I would request that they be somehow tied to

government expenditures.

MR. BARRETT: They are tied to government. Every question I have asked is

tied to government expenditures.

MR. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, that could be because -

CHAIR: Thank you, okay, as long as we are all happy.

MR. BYRNE: Just to clarify -

MR. BARRETT: Unless somebody else is donating it, but every question I am

asking here now is tied to government.

MR. BYRNE: With respect to the cost involved, some of these, the

insurance for the Fire Chiefs and Firefighters, we pay the premium on that.

CHAIR: As long as we are all happy.

MR. BYRNE: They have $100,000 coverage at this point in time, and that

has been in place for a number of years. What $100,000 bought ten or fifteen

years ago does not have the same buying power today.

CHAIR: I understand, Minister.

MR. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, my understanding is that the other Committees can

ask probing questions and there has been no hesitation -

CHAIR: Again, I am just trying to be fair, Mr. Butler, to all members. I

know that there are some who will say to me that has no place in the Estimates

Committee. As long as we are all content to sit here and do it, I do not mind,

but I just want to make sure that all members are acquiescing to what we are

doing.

Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chair, I am just following the rules that traditionally

have been done in this House of Assembly in terms of Committees.

MR. BYRNE: Just to comment on that -

MR. BARRETT: I have been on that side -

MR. BYRNE: Yes, I know.

MR. BARRETT: - answering the questions as a minister, and I have been on

this side asking questions as a government member and an Opposition member, and

I have never heard the likes of being restricted to the kind of questions you

could ask.

MR. BYRNE: I think all the Chair is trying to do is try to address the

line items. I have no problem whatsoever with the questions on policy - not a

problem.

CHAIR: It does not necessarily have to be a line item, but somehow tied

to how government is using its money and what we are doing with our money.

(Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Well, the reason the minister is here - and every question I

asked this morning of this minister concerns expenditures of the Department of

Municipal Affairs. Now, if I was going to ask him what he was going to do with

the Outer Ring Road, I could see you putting me out of order, or the Pitts

Memorial Drive, or the bad state of the highway out there, I could see you

putting me out of order.

CHAIR: Mr. Barrett, how the waste management system will be governed is

not particularly a matter for this Committee to determine.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes. The funding for the waste - where is it coming

from? Municipal Affairs, isn't it?

CHAIR: Valid questions.

MR. BYRNE: Anyway, let's not get caught up in this. If you have a

question, ask away.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

I have a couple of questions about the Daniel's Harbour landslide.

MR. BYRNE: The Daniel's Harbour landslide?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. BARRETT: This problem was identified last year in terms of, there was

a serious problem there. Was there a recommendation that the armour stone be put

at the base of the slide last year, and why didn't the department do it?

MR. BYRNE: With respect to Daniel's Harbour, last October - I am not

sure of the date, mid-October some time - there was a landslide there. Again,

the amount of damage there - when we were looking at this it was under the

Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements - it did not qualify. There was no

property damage under that program. There are certain criteria that have to be

met. There was no actual property damage, according to the feds.

There was work done up there. We spent $137,000 on geotechnical engineers up

there which, at the request of the town, we paid for. They had sensors on site,

drilled a number of holes down 100 feet and there was no activity at that time,

so we were going on the advice of the geotechnical people. There was a home

there. It was still, at that point in time, a fair distance from the bank or the

landslide, so, at the request of the MHA and the mayor, I had scheduled a

meeting to go up there in April, on a Monday. It just so happened that on the

Sunday before I got there they had another landslide. I have a bit of a

background with respect to working with engineers and these types of things, so

I said in the media at that point in time that this is not something that might

happen; it is going to happen.

By the way, I was up there again this past Saturday, had a meeting with the

mayor and council, met with the family involved and told them what we were going

to do. The federal government has yet to come on side. They are saying that this

is not attributed to one major disaster or incident such as a tornado or a flood

or an earthquake, or these type of things, so what we are doing we are doing on

the provincial tab at this point in time. Hopefully, we will convince the feds

to get on side, because it is going to cost millions of dollars to reroute the

road. We have a temporary road in there now.

The homeowners, their homes will be replaced, or an agreement made with them

for replacement value, as we did in Stephenville. I told them the logistical

procedures that we have to go through with respect to appraisers. The appraisers

will be in there this week. They have to do certain work, report back to us, and

we will be dealing with it.

With respect to the question you asked, why there was nothing done last fall,

it is because there was no activity at that point in time other than the initial

one. There were sensors on site, we had done the study and that was it.

MR. BARRETT: Was there a recommendation in an engineer's report that

there would be armour stone put at the base of this?

MR. BYRNE: No, not that I can recall.

One of the questions that I had asked when we met with them, with the town

council there in April, and we had the geotechnical people on site, we had

engineers on site, we had transportation, municipal affairs, the council, I

said: Could we have relocated those homes? Could we have put a crane in there

and lifted those homes off the site?

The answer to me - because that was the thing that was being thrown out

there, I think, that we could do - the advice at that time was, no, we could not

have done it because if we did, in reality, it would cause more pressure there

and we could have caused more landslides and it probably could have done more

damage.

I think at the time we did certainly what was within our requirements to do

or should do at that point in time. Since then, of course, you know what has

happened now and we are taking the necessary steps to address the concerns.

MR. BARRETT: You are saying that if the houses were moved it would

aggravate the landslide?

MR. BYRNE: That is what I was told.

MR. BARRETT: The point is, if it was a landslide and there was nothing

there, it did not really matter, did it?

MR. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. BARRETT: If you move the houses - the concern, I guess, was people in

houses there.

MR. BYRNE: The concern was, what I was told, if they put heavy equipment

in on the site to relocate those houses, the person operating the heavy

equipment could have gone over the bank.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I can see that.

MR. BYRNE: It could cause more problems.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I could see that.

Are you willing to publicly release any reports or engineering studies done

on Daniel's Harbour?

MR. BYRNE: I was never asked. I don't see why there would be any

concern not to.

MR. BARRETT: So you are willing to release the report.

MR. BYRNE: It was more of an engineering, technical thing with respect to

the drill holes, the movements, and all of these types of things, and they are

still trying to figure out what the cause was. I have my own ideas, but I am no

expert in the field.

MR. BARRETT: The engineers must have recommended something to do, right?

MR. BYRNE: They recommended we put in a zone, and that it is. As a matter

of fact, we are still trying to figure out what we should be doing with respect

to the location of the road. Again, could this have been prevented? You would

have to see it. I do not know. It would take some armour stone to do, I would

say.

MR. BARRETT: Armour stone might have been cheaper than replacing the

road, probably, and the houses, right?

MR. BYRNE: It may not have done it. You saw it on television; you had to

be up there and look at it. You had eight or ten feet of clay and rock and these

types of things. Other than that, it was just pure, pretty well, sand. Then you

have the bogland from the mountains out to this site, and all the pressure of

what it happening; the pressure is building up on top of it.

In January and February when they had the machines down in the ground, the

sensors, there was no activity. Then, all of a sudden, boom!

MR. BARRETT: That is it for me, Mr. Chair.

I have a lot more questions but it is my understanding that the House will be

open until July so there will an opportunity to ask more questions.

CHAIR: I look forward to that.

Mr. Ball?

MR. BALL: Just one quick question to clarify something.

A comment was made a few minutes ago under the Waste Management Strategy,

that the transportation costs up to 100 kilometres would be -

MR. BYRNE: No.

MR. BALL: I thought it was 60 kilometres.

MR. BYRNE: No, 60 miles really.

What happens with the plan with respect to cost neutrality is, the

municipality or the regional authority, whoever would be involved, would be

responsible to have the garbage transported 100 kilometres, 60 miles. Once it

goes beyond that, if it is five miles, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty,

whatever, then it would be subsidized.

MR. BALL: I want to clarify that because coming out of the West Coast I

think there is some miscommunication, because I think most communities out there

feel that it is 60 kilometres, not 60 miles.

MR. BYRNE: I don't know where they got that, because when I met with

the Humber Joint Council I told them 100 kilometres, which is 60 miles. That is

where they - a one hour drive, right?.

MR. BALL: Yes.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions?

If not, I will ask the Clerk to call the subheads inclusively.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.1.01 to 4.1.05 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01 to 4.1.05, shall the total carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Municipal

Affairs carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Department of Municipal Affairs, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I thank the Committee for their preparation for this morning's session, and

the minister and his staff for their forthright answers.

Thank you all.

Our next meeting will be Wednesday night at 7:00 o'clock. for the

Department of Health and Community Services.

MR. BYRNE: I would like to thank the Committee for their questions.

Feel free, any time, to pick up the phone. If you have any concerns or

questions concerning the department, give me a call.

Thank you.

MR. FRENCH: Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

That meeting - when did you say? I thought it was Wednesday morning.

CHAIR: No, the one that is changed, HRLE is changed to the morning.

Health and Community Services is still Wednesday night.

On motion, Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2007-07-05
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga45_mpa07-05-07.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2a30fdccd47cf0b513c77ac07d4c78870b7ea858

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).