May 7, 2002 RESOURCE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Ed Byrne, MHA for Kilbride, replaces Ray

Hunter, MHA for Windsor-Springdale.

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

CHAIR(Walsh): Order, please!

First I would like to say good morning, and welcome. Mary is on her way down.

So just to get the minutes out of the way, we can probably do that.

Before introducing the members of the committee, first we will deal with the

minutes from our last meeting. The committee met at approximately 9:00 a.m.

Present at the committee were the Chair, as well as the Vice-Chair and the other

committee members, with Eddie Joyce replacing Mary Hodder for part of the

meeting. Guests at the committee that morning was Roger Fitzgerald, who is the

critic for that particular committee.

Appearing before the department at that time was the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, with the minister and her officials. On a motion of Mr.

Sweeney, seconded by Mr. Taylor, the minutes of the May 1 meeting were adopted

as circulated.

The Committee reviewed and approved, without amendment, the estimates and

expenditures of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. On a motion,

the committee adjourned at 11:50 a.m. until Monday, May 6, at 5:30 p.m. Any

errors or remissions? Could I have a motion to adopt the minutes?

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Before beginning this morning's procedures the Chair has had a

request from the Vice- Chair, under

Section 69(1), with respect to the calling

of witnesses before our committee. Before opening the floor for discussion, as

Chair I would just like to cover a couple of aspects of that particular request.

Before I go any further, Ed, you are here this morning replacing - that is Ed

Byrne - Ray Hunter and Fabian is here as -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay, I did not know if it had been in a critic's role, but as

observer. Welcome Fabian Manning as well.

I want to deal with this quickly and welcome all of our members. We will do

our identifications in a moment.

We had a request from the Vice-Chair to call a number of witnesses before the

Estimates Committee in order to, as per the request, obtain information that may

have an impact with respect to the estimates of the department. The Chair has

done some research and there is no precedent since the Estimates Committees were

established in the early 1980s, possibly 1979, where any outside organization,

agency or corporation has ever been called before an Estimates Committee with

the intent of that group having some influence or bearing on how a department

would, one: have expended its numbers, or two: how it intended to use the monies

allocated by this hon. House to that committee or to that department during a

given fiscal year.

I have done some research with respect to some of the other jurisdictions.

Although, historically, individuals are called before Standing Committees in

other jurisdictions, including our own, indeed when a bill is being dealt with

and that particular bill is, as we have seen even recently - for want of another

word - moved across the Province in terms of a road show, where individuals

would have the right to come forward and make presentations in a publicly

announced and organized fashion. I see no precedent for it.

Beyond that, I would draw hon. members attention to Standing Orders 71-77,

which deal specifically with Estimates Procedure; laying out the number of hours

that a committee would sit, the number of days; dealing with the procedure of

the committee in terms of the minimum numbers of individuals and the maximum

numbers of individuals. I draw hon. members attention to

Section 73.(6). To

quote, for the record, it says, "A committee may not question public

servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses."

Although, under Standing Orders for Standing Committees, the right to have such

a request as exists under 69.(1) is there, and then for the committee to deal

with it in their own right and decide accordingly.

Standing Orders 71-77, in particular 73.(6), and I will repeat again, "A

committee may not question public servants except through the Minister..."

I think we all have accepted that procedure. The minister will defer a question

to any of the officials that the minister so desires. But, notwithstanding that

particular part, the "and may not call witnesses" binds the Chair into

a situation where I would have to bring into question whether or not the request

itself is in order. For other Standing Committees it might well be, but under

our own Standing Orders, approved May 18, 1951 - but the amendments up to and

including December 14, 1999 - would prohibit the Chair from, I believe,

entertaining the request.

Having said that, I will open up the request for discussion. The Chair feels

that its hands are even further bound by the fact, "may not call

witnesses."

Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that is an opinion I personally do not share, based

upon experience, practice and tradition, not only in this Assembly but across

the country, and in Parliament as well.

The

section under 69.(1) is very clear. There are four Standing Committees in

this House. One of them is the Public Accounts Standing Committee, which calls

witnesses all the time. Under the definition of Standing Committee - a Standing

Committee of the House, in your reference saying that there is, I guess, an

implication that the witnesses would have no relevance to the estimates

procedure of the House.

I just want to refer you to 805 of Marleau which is Procedures and

Practices in the House of Commons which is one of the governing documents in

terms of how we and every other Assembly in the country governs themselves.

"Standing Committees are permanent committees established by Standing

Order." - which this one is. "They are mandated by the House to

oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of

federal policy...". So we are not confined, as an Estimates Committee,

strictly to the Budget but anything that this Committee or members thereof see

that is relevant to provincial policy and how it impacts upon the people of the

Province, and also how it impacts upon the Estimates that are before us.

Section 69.(1) is very clear. It says, "No witness shall be summoned to

attend before any committee of the House, unless a certificate shall first have

been filed with the Chairperson of such committee..." - that was done in

this case - "...by some Member thereof..." - and that was done by our

Vice-Chair - "...stating that the evidence to be obtained from such witness

is, in the opinion of such Member, material and important."

To suggest, for a moment, that just because there is no precedent, then we

are not going to do anything, or we will just leave it as it is, is really not

dealing with the issue, Mr. Chair. The issue before the Committee is in

accordance with the established practices and procedures of this House of

Assembly, of every other Legislative Assembly in the country and, in particular,

of the House of Commons.

I want to refer members, if I might for a moment, to Standing Order 1, called

General Rule. It says, "Application of Standing Orders & cases not

provided for." I want to suggest to you, clearly, according to the rules of

this House, that this is in order. This motion is in accordance with the

definition of what a Standing Committee is; that it is not out of order

whatsoever. That any member of any Standing Committee of this House has the

absolute right and privilege, as being an elected member, to do exactly what our

Vice-Chair has done. That is not questionable or something that can be

questioned, it is a right and privilege of what it means to be an elected member

in this Assembly; and any other Assembly, I might add.

Standing Order 1 says, and I will read it for the record, "

(1) The

proceedings in the House of Assembly and in all committees of the House shall be

conducted in accordance with the following Standing Orders...".

"

(2) In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders or by

sessional or other orders of the House, the Speaker shall be guided by the

following in the order in which they are stated: (

a) the usages, customs and

precedents of this House; (

b) the Standing Orders and sessional orders and forms

and usages, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and those

of any province or territory in Canada."

I do not want to bore the Chair or members of the committee, or certainly the

public servants from the Department of Mines and Energy, but this is in no way

an exceptional request. It is in no way an extraordinary request. Standing

Committees in this House, particularly the Public Accounts Committee, summons

witnesses all the time. It is part and parcel of what it means and the

definition of what a Standing Committee is. My view is that this is completely

in order. I am not convinced, based upon our Standing Orders, that the member

himself, who has written the question and who issued the certificate on the call

for witnesses - we have an absolute right, as members, to have this issue dealt

with by this committee.

In

summary, that summarizes my understanding based upon my research and based

upon the practices, traditions and customs of this Assembly, of the House of

Commons of Canada and of other legislatures in the country, that this is not

extraordinary. This is a regular occurrence for any committee, of any House, at

any time, once the Standing Order is invoked. Mr. Taylor, the Vice-Chair, has

invoked his right and privilege in asking for witnesses to come before this

committee. I guess it is up to the committee now, or the Chair, to make a

ruling; and any ruling that the Chair makes is appealable to the Speaker of the

House, and ultimately the House of Assembly I suppose. That is our take on it.

We believe firmly and strongly that we have exercised our right here. What is

the big deal? - is the question that must be asked of every member on this

committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

The Chair certainly does not question a member's right to put forward a

request, but if I might -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) out of order. It is not out of order and in

saying it is out of order, I mean any member's privileges could have been - if

you rule that way, in my view, it could be superceded by the Chair on a matter

of an opinion.

CHAIR: That was Mr. Byrne rebutting the rebuttal before it was finished.

Under Standing Order 1.(1), as quoted by Mr. Byrne, says, "The

proceedings in the House of Assembly and in all committees of the House shall be

conducted in accordance with the following Standing Orders...".

Number (2) says, "In all cases not provided for in these Standing

Orders...". The request is within our Standing Orders. The request that was

made falls squarely within our Standing Orders. It comes in Standing Orders 63

and 64. However, in the same Standing Orders that give the right for the request

there happens to be another

section of Standing Orders that are administered and

recognized in this House. They are Standing Orders 65 through 70, which he has

the right to request. Under Standing Orders of this House, 71 through 77, which

cover the Estimates Procedure, it says very clearly that this committee may not

call witnesses. Now, that is as clear and as plain to me as the right under

Standing Committees other than Estimates to issue such a request, but the same

Standing Orders that give the right to make a request have a provision to cover

the request with respect to Estimates Committees. That says: May not call

witnesses. The Chair, believing that I am dealing with the Standing Orders -

MR. E. BYRNE: May I ask the Chair a question?

CHAIR: When I finish, the Chair is certainly open, open to debate as long

as we wish to.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough.

CHAIR: I have a Standing Order under the Standing Committees of the House

of Assembly that says a request is in order. I have Standing Order 1(2) that

says, "In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders...",

what should be done. Then the Chair has a Standing Order that says Estimate

Committees may not call witnesses.

Mr. Byrne is correct when he says that it will come down to a vote. I am just

trying to deal with the procedure before the question is put. The Chair welcomes

the question and is willing to receive the question at any time. I just wanted

to try to deal with it within our own Standing Orders. Mr. Byrne is very

correct, as well, that be it the Chair, the Chair of Committees, the Deputy

Speaker or the Speaker, any ruling has the right to be challenged on the floor

of this House of Assembly. That is also within the same Standing Orders that say

Estimate Committees may not call witnesses.

MR. E. BYRNE: May I?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: A couple of points. First of all, Standing Order 69(1)

supersedes Standing Order 73(6). You, as a parliamentarian, Mr. Chairperson,

certainly as the minister across from you is a parliamentarian, dealing with

legislation in this House from time to time or in every sitting, understand the

difference - I would hope that you understand the difference - in the words

"may" and "shall". "A committee may not question public

servants ..., and may not call witnesses", is certainly open to the

discretion of the committee. The Standing Orders are clear.

It does not say - and you know this - that a committee shall not call

witnesses. Therefore, under any correct understanding under the rules, this

section means that it is up to the committee. It is not up to the Chair to

decide if a committee wants to call or does not want to call witnesses. It is

very clear when it says, "A committee ...... may not call witnesses."

It is not directive in the sense that it tells you, or any other possible

chairperson of any Standing Committee of this House, that you can interpret that

to say it is out of order, because the request is not out of order. The Standing

Committees in this House have an absolute right, and members of the Standing

Committees of this House have an absolute right, to exercise their option by

filing a certificate with the chairperson of any committee before this House

requesting that witnesses be summoned to give evidence.

Your reference to

section 73(6) is really not appropriate, in my view,

because of the word "may". It is not a directive to the chairperson,

you in your capacity as Chairperson of this Committee or any future chairperson

of any committee in this Legislature.

Secondly, I would like to ask this question: In terms of Standing Order 69(1)

- and before I move on, is your opinion in that respect that, in terms of

Standing Committees under the Estimates procedure, "A committee may not

question public servants except through the Minister ..." which is clear?

The Minister, in his or her discretion, may direct a Deputy Minister, an

Assistant Deputy Minister, a Director of Financial Operations with a department,

or anybody else for that matter: Would you like to answer the question? Because

if it is your opinion, then we need a ruling on this, that, "A committee

may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call

witnesses." Are you telling this Committee, today, that you are

interpreting that

section of the Standing Orders to say that the request by the

Vice-Chair of this Committee is out of order? That is what I want to know. We

are not going to be move beyond that

section until we find out an answer to that

question.

CHAIR: Allow me to answer your question with a question.

Have you accepted, during your time in this Legislature, as I have accepted

with my time in this Legislature, that all questions during, be it Question

Period -

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

CHAIR: I will begin again.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry!

CHAIR: During my particular time in the House of Assembly, and indeed

your particular time in the House of Assembly, having sat in on a number of

these committees over the years, is it not principle and practice that all

questions of a department before any committee are always through the minister,

to the minister, and then on to his officials?

MR. E. BYRNE: There was one Estimate Committee, Mr. Chair, here, when I

was first elected in 1993 - if memory serves me correctly - where the Employers

Council participated, if I am not mistaken, in an Estimate Committee procedure

in 1993.

As Chair, you need to answer this question, for me as a committee member and

for the rest of us. Are you saying that the letter written by Mr. Taylor, as

Vice-Chair of this Committee, under Standing Order 69(1), where he has invoked

his right as a member of this House, and his privilege as a member of this

House, to issue a certificate to the Chairperson of this said Committee to ask

for witnesses to come before this committee to give evidence, which is important

and material to the issues that are before us today, which is completely within

the definition of a Standing Committee, are you saying that it is out of order

based upon your

interpretation of Standing Order 73(6), where a committee may

not call witnesses? Is that what you are telling this committee this morning?

CHAIR: What I am saying to the Committee is that the Standing Orders I am

dealing with, that were first issued in 1951, revised through to and including

1999, are there to govern the procedures of the hon. House.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

CHAIR: And, I am saying that in those said Standing Orders there are

Standing Orders 71 through 77 which govern the Estimates Procedures to the

finest detail.

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I am saying that, as we have for many years accepted the fact that

all questions in these committees go through the minister to the officials,

meaning may not question the public officials directly -

MR. E. BYRNE: Public servants, it says, Mr. Chair, those who are

employees of the government and of the minister.

CHAIR: I prefer to refer to them as officials as opposed to servants of

anybody.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just quoting Standing Orders.

CHAIR: I understand that, but I think of them as officials, not as a

servant to anyone. That went out some time ago.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough

You can split hairs, but you need to deal with the issue now, not the

semantics of words, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The amazing thing about it is that dialogue is best when each is

willing to take the time to listen.

I will reflect also on an earlier statement that I made and that is: I draw

to the attention of this committee Standing Order 73(6). I also said the Chair

would welcome at any time the question with respect to the calling of witnesses,

but I believe, and I want to be clear in all members of the Committee knowing

that I believe, that under the Standing Orders, 71 through 77, which deal with

the Estimates Procedure in particular, it says, "...and may not call

witnesses." I am not going to split hair about what "may" means

and what "shall" means. For me, in parliamentary procedure, you may

not question the officials unless you go through the minister.

MR. E. BYRNE: It means that it is up to this committee, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: But again, we are open to a vote, as soon as the question is

called.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important question that you did not answer for

me. I am asking you again: Are you saying that the request by the Vice-Chair of

this committee, in your opinion as Chairperson, is out of order based upon

Standing Order 73(6), which says again, and I will repeat, "A committee may

not..." - and I emphasize the word may- "...question public servants

except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses."?

Now we understand, as legislators, how important words in legislation and

Standing Orders are because they define our scope of what we can and cannot do.

Just to give you an example of the importance of "may" and

"shall", Mr. Chair: We debated legislation in this House recently in

Committee with respect to the Environmental Protection Act and Water Resources

Act. Let me pose this to you: In that act, it says the minister may have a Waste

Management Plan. Do you think it would be different, or the

interpretation of

that would be different, if it said, the Minister of Environment shall have a

waste management protection plan?

The fact of the matter is, there is a huge difference in the words

"may" and "shall" when it comes to language in legislation

or Standing Orders, and there have been many examples, but I am not going to

bore the Committee with that today. I want an answer to my question, as a

committee member, and I deserve an answer and I have a right to have an answer

to it. I am asking again: Are you saying that the request by the Vice-Chair of

this Committee, Mr. Trevor Taylor, the Member for The Straits & White Bay

North, is out of order based upon what you see as Standing Order 73(6). Yes or

no. That is a yes or no question, Mr. Chair, so you can take five minutes to

answer it.

CHAIR: The amazing thing is that I am dealing with the Standing Orders

that are before us, including your quotation of Standing Order 1, that says that

the Standing Orders of this House are laid out and that in all cases not

provided for. The Chair is saying that, in my opinion the Standing Orders that

cover the Estimates Procedure for me clearly state that this committee may not

call witnesses. That is my

interpretation of the Estimates Procedure.

MR. E. BYRNE: What does that mean? I am trying to get an understanding of

what that means to you, in terms of "may" not call. Does it mean they

may call witnesses, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: In my opinion that means, simply because, as Chair, I have

received a request, I do not, in my opinion, have the right to simply issues

summonses or subpoenas for people to be here. On top of that, I am saying that

the committee may not call witnesses. The Chair is welcome to receive a vote on

the question at any time, but I think it would be wrong for me not to sit here

and also point out sections of our Standing Orders that give guidance to all

members.

MR. E. BYRNE: So, do I ask the question to you again? This is an

important question. It deserves an answer. Are you saying that the request from

the Vice-Chair of this Committee is out of order based upon

section 73(6)? Yes

or no.

CHAIR: At no time have I said it is out of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, you implied it earlier. That is why I am asking the

question.

CHAIR: I am implying that it is out of order with respect to

section

73(6), where your

interpretation of 69(1)-

MR. E. BYRNE: Not mine.

CHAIR: -your

interpretation of 69(1) means that, simply because the

certificate has been issued to the Chair that the Chair would automatically-

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did not say that.

CHAIR: That is what you are saying in terms of what I am hearing.

And that the Chair would automatically begin calling witnesses. I am saying

that under 73.(6), "A committee may not question public servants except

through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." The Chair is not in a

position -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, but would you interpret that as well to say that: A

committee may call witnesses?

CHAIR: What I am saying is that I want the Committee to be aware of what

Standing Order 73.(6) says. That if the Standing Committee is a master of its

own direction and its own destiny, then the Standing Committee will make the

decision. The Chair, simply receiving a request, will not issue subpoenas or

summonses to anyone to (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You are saying though that the Committee may make the

request, may call witnesses. You acknowledge that this Committee has the power

to call and subpoena witnesses.

CHAIR: No, I do not believe it does.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

CHAIR: You asked me what I -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I am asking you. You are the Chairperson -

CHAIR: Yes, and I am telling you that I don't believe it does. I do not

believe that it does and it never has -

MR. E. BYRNE: So, you are saying that the Standing -

CHAIR: - in the history of this Legislature. However, the Chair will

accept the question any time it is put.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important fact because, Mr. Chair, the little

political drama that is playing out here right now, the decisions are already

made.

CHAIR: Well, the drama that is playing out is becoming a drama because

you wish to make it a drama.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, because we exercise our rights. What is going to happen

CHAIR: At no time in the history of this Legislature has anyone ever been

called to a committee.

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe I have the floor, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Well, I guess I am probably following your rules in terms of how

the floor works.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is going to happen here, eventually, according to what

you are telling me, is that there is going to be a vote. There are three members

of the committee on one side of the House and three on the other, which means,

according to the Standing Orders - which you know full well - that you are going

to have to cast the deciding vote. These questions are important to you, as

Chair, because you will have to cast the deciding vote, and that deciding vote

will determine what the action of this committee will be. So when you say, in

your own mind, that you do not believe that this committee has the power to call

witnesses, that is an important insight for committee members.

This is extremely important in my view. It is clear that under our Standing

Orders - there are four Standing Committees in this House. That means they are

appointed and year-round, unless appointments change or an election is called or

whatever the case. Those committees, year-round, investigate matters that are

put to them. We saw legislation recently that did not get through the fall

Legislature that was put to Standing Committees of the House. So, the point is

this, according to our Standing Orders, the four Standing Committees of this

Legislature, which are defined in the Standing Orders - and I will say them for

the record again. The Public Accounts Committee, Government Services Committee,

Social Services Committee, and the Resource Estimates Committee. Those are the

four Standing Committees of this House.

According to the powers defined for Standing Committees, this Committee has

the power and the absolute right and privilege, if it decides, to call

witnesses. If you are saying, as Chair, you do not believe that, then we need to

understand why you do not believe that. Is there something in the Standing

Orders of the House that the Chair fails to recognize in terms of our power to

call those witnesses as a Standing Committee? I would like to know what the

Chair bases his opinion on, either Standing Orders or through some parliamentary

practice or procedure that I have not yet found, based upon my - I will say

extensive, because I have put the time into it to make it extensive - research

across the country on what the power of Standing Committees are. If the Chair

says he is not of the opinion that committees can call witnesses, I would like

to know why he has that opinion. Based upon what, does he stand on that opinion?

CHAIR: The Chair will recognize, Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, I will be the first to admit that I probably have

not read and do not know all the rules and regulations when it comes to the

Standing Committees, but I want to say, Mr. Chair, that this committee has met

with the department for over three hours. The committee members of the day, at

that time - I think there was five or six questions that were asked pertaining

to the Estimates. All the rest were general questions. I think they probably

went as far as to say: Who are the employees going to be if a project should

ever go ahead?

My question is, through the Chair, to the Vice-Chair - who has put this

question to you, sir, to the Vice-Chair. Apparently a request has come into to

you asking the question that is being referenced now about people appearing

before the Estimates Committee. My question is: Which heading in the Estimates

will be affected or do they have concerns about calling witnesses in pertaining

to which heading in the Estimates? Because I think all of the questions were

asked prior to us adjourning before. I know they said they had another few

questions to ask. That is the question, sir. I do not know if it is proper

putting it through you or directly to Mr. Taylor, but if witnesses are

permitted, what effect and which heading will this play out on? Which heading do

they want witnesses called in reference of? Is it to do with the headings at all

or is it just general questions?

CHAIR: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: I will make two points in response to that question. First of

all, the Standing Committee on Resource, I would imagine, can ask any questions

related to the department that it is responsible for reviewing. That is one

point. When it comes to the government's general policy in that department,

government's policy in general or a specific project. Secondly, when it comes

to the Budget Estimates there is one major piece of the Department of Mines and

Energy that is specifically responsible for negotiations with Inco and Voisey's

Bay Nickel, and that is the Major Projects Benefits Office.

Under subhead 1.2.02. I would imagine there are plenty of questions that

could be asked of Inco, Voisey's Bay Nickel, or anybody involved with Mines

and Energy on a major projects basis; whether that be ALCOA in Churchill Falls,

if we so desired to go there, or the offshore, if we so desired to go there. I

see where we spend roughly $1.5 million in the Major Projects Benefits Office. I

think there are probably a number of questions that we could ask, and witnesses

could be of use to this committee just under that subhead alone, I think, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. SWEENEY: Could you read the request certificate? Do you have it

there?

CHAIR: The entire certificate really comes down to 69.(1) of the request.

Under 69.(1) it says, "No witness shall be summoned to attend before any

committee of the House, unless a certificate shall first have been filed with

the Chairperson of such committee, by some Member thereof, stating that the

evidence to be obtained from such witness is, in the opinion of such Member,

material and important."

The other paragraph simply lays out the member's right to call, under

section 69.(1) - notify the Chair of his interest in having witnesses called

before a committee.

MR. SWEENEY: If I understand this correctly, the witnesses we are calling

are regarding a Voisey's Bay deal?

CHAIR: Yes, the three individuals - I am not going to enter their names

for the record - are all Voisey's Bay (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: It is my understanding that there is no Voisey's Bay deal

in place. So, why are we calling witnesses to discuss something that is purely

hypothetical at this point?

MR. E. BYRNE: Good point (inaudible) real point, I say to the Member for

Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Byrne, I consider it to be a very valid point, because I

have sat in this House and I have repeatedly heard day after day that there is

no deal in place right now. So, I consider it to be a very valid point.

CHAIR: Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: Nowhere in the certificate that has been issued do we refer

to a Voisey's Bay deal, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. It

would be a valid point if it was based upon fact, but it is not based upon fact.

We have issued - and I can read it for you if you wish. It was done in

accordance and in consultation with the Clerk of the House of Assembly; giving

the Clerk and the Speaker's Office the courtesy of what we are about to do. It

says - and let me read it for the record so you are clear, and before you make

the points on whether there is a deal or no deal, that is irrelevant, but it is

relevant to our discussions here this morning. The point that is relevant here

this morning: Do we have the right to call witnesses? This committee, in our

view, does have the right to call witnesses. We have requested, according to

Standing Orders, in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, which are

the rules that govern our conduct as individual members and as members

collectively.

It says: Dear Mr. Walsh, as a member of the Resource Standing Committee of

the House of Assembly and in accordance with subclause 69.(1) of the Standing

Orders of the House of Assembly which states - the Chair has already stated

that, I will not do it again - I hereby certify. You do not want members named,

Mr. Chair? If you do not want to, that's fine. I will not do it.

CHAIR: I saw no reason to enter their names. If you wish, you may, but I

saw no need.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, fair enough.

We have called three individuals from Inco and from the Voisey's Bay Nickel

Company, based upon - we believe they have information of evidence which is

material and important to the work of the Resource Standing Committee of the

House of Assembly in considering the 2002-03 Estimates of the Department of

Mines and Energy. Nowhere does the certificate say, insinuate, or initiate

anything about a Voisey's Bay deal. What is at stake here, what is at issue,

and the point of the discussion is our right, as individual members and members

of a committee, to issue a certificate to the Chair and to call witnesses.

I would like to ask the Chair the question again because this is important.

It is going to come down to a vote and potentially, could be a tied vote on

which you will have to cast the deciding vote. You have indicated publicly here

that you believe this committee, in your opinion, does not have the power to

call witnesses. I want to know, as Chairperson, on what basis you have formed

that opinion? Because if that is the case and it comes to a tie vote then - if

that is your opinion - we will not be calling witnesses, obviously. I want to

know on what parliamentary tradition, procedure, or standing order, or fact that

you have based that opinion?

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I asked a question to Mr. Taylor, he gave the response and I did not get the

opportunity to ask another question. This would go to Mr. Taylor, again. In his

response, when I asked him: Why would we want witnesses to come in, on what

particular heading? He said 1.2.02.

My next question is - for the life of me I cannot understand, I know

questions were asked on that heading to the minister and to the officials -

because I am going to have to cast a vote too, shortly: What is wrong with the

responses that they received with regard to this particular heading, that is not

clear, that is not understandable, that now we are going to have to call in

officials from an outside source to deal with estimates on a budget that was put

forward by the Department of Mines and Energy?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a point. I think right now we are trying to decide, or

we are trying to get an answer, and the Member for Kilbride, certainly as a

member of our committee here today, is trying to get an answer and a ruling on

whether we are in order or out of order. I think we should certainly get that -

MR. BUTLER: That is not the question.

MR. TAYLOR: I agree it is not the question that you asked, but it is the

question that we have not had an answer to yet. I guess that probably sums up,

in part, why we want to call witnesses before this committee, because many of

the questions that we have asked, not unlike the one that has been asked here

this morning on whether we are in order or out of order, have not been answered

yet. Once that one is answered, maybe we can move on.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I would like to attempt to answer Mr. Butler's

question if I could.

CHAIR: Okay, then we will go back to Mr. Butler.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Butler certainly can answer for himself. The definition

of a Standing Committee is clear. We are not defined to the departmental heads

of any estimate, I say to all members. I can read what the definition is again.

"Standing committees are permanent committees established by Standing

Order. They are mandated by the House to oversee a government department or

departments, to review particular areas of federal policy...".

I will say it again: Standing committees mandated are to look at, "to

oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of

federal policy or to exercise procedural and administrative responsibilities

related to Parliament." - or to, in this case, the House of Assembly.

Whether the answers provided by the minister's officials are satisfactory

is not the issue. The issue is, from our point of view, is that we have

exercised - you can make whatever you want to make out of it, but we have

exercised our right to call witnesses who have evidence, in our view. You may

disagree that the witnesses we have called or want to call do not have evidence

that is important to the work of this committee or to the work of the government

or to the work of Mines and Energy. That may be your opinion, but it does not

take away from our right, as members, to ask and request for those witnesses to

come here. If you want to say, as a member, that you disagree the witnesses that

we have called from the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, or that we are asking to

be called from the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company and officials from Inco and you

want to say they do not have any information that is relevant to the Department

of Mines and Energy, well then you can go ahead and say that. But, our view and

our point is simply this: That we have every right, and we have exercised that

right. We have invoked that right under Standing Order 69.(1), and that is what

we have to deal with. I hope I have answered your question.

The second question, and I will ask it again. Mr. Chairman, you have said

that in your opinion Standing Committees of this House do not have the right to

call witnesses. If this comes down to a tie vote, you are going to have to cast

the deciding vote. I want to know: What do you base that opinion upon, that this

Committee does not have the right to call witnesses? As committee members, we

deserve an answer to that.

CHAIR: As Chair, once again, I will answer my own statement as opposed to

the one that you are referring to that I made. I think Hansard will show that I

have said: I believe that members should also be governed by 73.(6). That simply

because a certificate has been issued to the Chair, the committee may not call

witnesses if they so desire. I want members to understand that simply because

69.(1) is there in terms of committee procedure, that under the Estimates

Standing Orders 71-77, it also states that, "the committee... may not call

witnesses." Now, if the Chair is wrong in informing all members of any

other portion of a Standing Order, then I guess the Chair is out of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, I appreciate that.

CHAIR: But the Chair believes that it is my - not right - duty to -

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

CHAIR: - inform members of the decision that they have the right to make.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Although there may very well be the right to ask the question

under 69.(1), there may very well be the right to deal with it under 73.(6).

That is simply what the Chair is saying. The Chair is saying that because in

terms of being out of order, out of order only if we were to assume that is the

only Standing Order governing this situation. The Chair is pointing out that

under the Estimates Procedure there is also a Standing Order that says,

"may not call witnesses."

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for the record, I am glad that you acknowledge that

the committee has the power then, I suppose, in your view, to either may call

witnesses or may not call witnesses.

CHAIR: Has the right.

MR. E. BYRNE: Has the right. What you said earlier, in terms that you do

not believe this committee has the power or the right to do it, well that is

clarified from my point of view. You have acknowledged then that this committee

has the right to either call or not call witnesses.

CHAIR: The committee has the right to deal with the Standing Orders as

they exist, including Standing1 that says, there are precedents and procedures

where there is not a Standing Order to cover. So, the Standing Orders are there

to be dealt with, the Standing Order which the request was made under is a

Standing Order of this House of Assembly. Standing Order 73(6) is also a

Standing Order of this House of Assembly.

MR. E. BYRNE: Based upon that, then, we have invoked our right, an

individual member has invoked his right to summon witnesses and has issued the

certificate in accordance with Standing Orders. Your reading of it then, if you

refer to 73(6), "A committee may not question public servants except

through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." So, what you are telling

us then is, it is up to the Committee to say yes or no to the Member for Torngat

Mountains and the Vice-Chair of this Committee for his request.

CHAIR: I think Hansard will also show, Mr. Byrne, that in my opening

statement I said that any time the Chair would like to call the question, the

Chair is ready for the question. That was in my opening

preamble as well.

MR. ANDERSEN: If I understand the -

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Torngat Mountain is not a member of this

committee.

CHAIR: May I deal with- unless you wish to be elected as Chair, I have

the right, I think, sitting here.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. Sorry, Sir!

CHAIR: In this particular discussion, any member is welcome to attend a

committee meeting, in my opinion of interpreting the rules, and participate in

the procedures with respect to the department. In this particular case, I

believe Mr. Andersen - and again not to slight any member, any of our guests

here today. The matter at hand is a matter, I believe, for the Committee. It

could have easily been held in a private session with Committee Members,

although I will not say that your opinion may not be valid. I am not sure at

this time.

MR. ANDERSEN: The point of order I wanted to raise is that Mr. Byrne said

the request was put in by the Vice Chair and the Member for Torngat Mountains. I

had no part of this.

CHAIR: He corrected that immediately. The Chair understood that comment

to be nothing more -

MR. ANDERSEN: I am a little confused, so I just wanted -

CHAIR: No, that is fine.

It was just the selection of the name of a district. It was made by the

Vice-Chair of this Committee. I get confused with the names and probably should

not be referring to hon. members by their name, but I do not remember all of the

districts either.

Are we then suggesting that we are ready for the question?

Mr. Butler, I am sorry.

MR. BUTLER: We are going to be asked the question, if we are in favour of

witnesses appearing before the committee. I have yet to have my question

answered, Mr. Chair. Maybe you can answer it for me. Before I vote on anything

one way or the other, I would like to know why. Is it we are saying, or the

members of the committee are saying, that the questions they ask the minister

and his officials, whether it be pertaining to the Estimates or general

questions, the responses are not adequate for whatever reason, and now they are

saying they need to call other witnesses to verify what was said or try to get

additional information? I want to know what the request is for. I know what it

is about, but I would like to know exactly why we are voting yes or no, will we

call witnesses.

CHAIR: The Chair cannot answer the question for the individual who made

the request, so I will defer the question.

Trevor Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I attempted to answer that question before, and

I will give a little more detail, I suppose. First of all, Standing Committees,

"They are mandated by the House to oversee a government department or

departments, to review particular areas of federal policy or to exercise

procedural administrative responsibilities", with a department. That says

what we can do and cannot do or says what we can do, I guess. I think I covered

it all there, did I?

Secondly: Just as an example, Mr. Chairman, I will go outside of this House

to the House of Commons in Ottawa. The House of Commons - and the Member for

Port de Grave would be familiar with the House of Commons Standing Committee on

Fisheries and Oceans, not unlike ourselves, a resource committee, however

specifically mandated to review a specific department - the House of Commons

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans from time to time, quite frequently,

calls witnesses. It does not just rely on the good opinions of the department,

the minister, or the officials. It, from time to time, goes outside of

government altogether to seek their views and opinions on specific initiatives,

policies or whatever in the particular industries related to the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans.

Our request, in the certificate that I issued to the Chair on Thursday past,

is not unlike initiatives undertaken by the House of Commons Standing Committee

on Fisheries and Oceans. All we are asking for is the right to question a group

of people who are involved, who could have information related to the Department

of Mines and Energy for this Province; and that is it. It is not that we do not

believe or have any problem with the answers that were given to us by the

minister or any of his officials in previous meetings, just that there is

another source of information out there that may have information pertinent to

the Department of Mines and Energy for this Province and we would like to be

able to question them.

CHAIR: Just for clarification, in terms of the context of the answer that

you have given, Mr. Taylor, in terms of the Fisheries Resource Committee, I

think that we have to realize that there are two branches of the Resource

Committee of this Legislature. There is the legislative branch and there is the

estimates branch, and the Fishery Resource Committee, that has traveled the

country, has usually been dealing with the legislative side. I do not know of

any federal department that has traveled the country in dealing with the

estimates side.

We are not here today dealing with a bill, as we did with the FPI act when a

Select Committee of the House was appointed and went on a tour and so on. The

Fisheries Committee that has often visited Newfoundland has been from the, I

expect, the legislative branch and not the estimates branch. We are here dealing

with the departmental estimates, the day-to-day operation of a department, how

the funds were spent in the last twelve months, and defending those numbers,

good or bad defense but that is what comes forward, how the legislature will

allocate to a given department it's monies to operate over the next fiscal

year and how they would justify expenditures that they will make and then come

back twelve months from now and do the same thing and justify how those numbers

were spent. This as an Estimates Committee dealing with the numbers and the

day-to-day operation of the department and not a legislative branch, as I

believe you pointed out.

Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is only partially true, Mr. Chair. The Estimate

Committee debates are not just about items in the Budget. You know that, every

member knows that. I have been in the Legislature, elected nine years. Estimate

Committee meetings are about - and according to their definition, not your

definition, not my definition, not anyone's definition, but a parliamentary

definition - that which you have just described, looking at the last year's

budget, what was budgeted, what was estimated and where it was spent. It is

also, in the definition of an Estimate Committee meeting, their absolute right

and privilege to discuss general policy areas of the government, where it is

going, where administratively this department is going, what is the policy of

the department vis--vis, in this instance it could be Lower Churchill, could

be mining leases, could be Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, it could deal with the

Hope Brook gold mine, it could deal with anything. That is the scope and power

of the Estimates Committee procedure and process that is defined for us. We do

not define that. That has been defined for us. Secondly, Estimates as well: In

terms of definition we could get into the priorities for the department for next

year, what their future priorities are, what are the future directions the

department is going into.

Thirdly, some members have said that has been done. In your opinion it has

been done. According to Standing Order 69 (1), a member of this committee has

exercised his opinion that there are other witnesses out there who would have

information that is material and important to the discussions of this Estimates

Committee. Now, you may disagree with that and I may disagree with you on that,

but I will defend your right to disagree; I will defend that. But at the same

time, you must defend a member's right here in invoking a Standing Order, that

it is his right and privilege to summon witnesses. You can say yes or no to it.

MR. BUTLER: Why didn't it come up before he finished his questions last

week?

MR. E. BYRNE: All I can say to the Member for Port de Grave is that,

according to the Standing Orders, the Member for The Straits & White Bay

North did exactly what he was supposed to do, that he issued a certificate to

the Chairperson according to the Standing Orders. That is the issue, that the

Estimates Committee's work is not confined to the twelve or thirteen pages of

any department where the Estimates are. That is an important part of it and an

integral part of it, but the Estimates Committee work is beyond that as well.

That is defined for us. That is not an opinion of mine, that is defined for us

in every parliamentary tradition right across the country, that the Estimates

Committees look at the Estimates, they may question and have the right to

question general policy areas of the government, they have the right to question

administrative areas of the government, and they have the right to question

future directions and future priorities of the government. That is the

definition of Estimates Committee meetings.

CHAIR: The Chair has heard discussion from all members and, indeed,

participated in the discussion myself.

Are we ready for the question?

WITNESS: Sure.

CHAIR: All those in favour, aye'.

WITNESSES: Aye'.

CHAIR: Duly recorded.

MR. E. BYRNE: We want it noted.

CHAIR: That is what I am saying: Taylor; Byrne; Osborne.

Contra minded?

WITNESSES: Nay

CHAIR: Hodder; Sweeney; Butler.

The Chair is left in the position to cast the deciding vote and the Chair

votes nay.

Duly recorded, the motion is lost by a vote of four to three.

With that in mind, are we now ready to move on to the Mines and Energy

Executive and Support Services, bearing in mind that 1.1.01 has already been

moved. and we will now revert to the questioning with respect to the Estimates?

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will move on to page 143, I guess, on the Budget Estimates. I will start on

2.1.01, the Geological Survey. It says, "Appropriations provide for a

geological mapping and surveying program which provides geological maps,

reports, mineral analysis, and other information on all areas of the Province

and promotion of the Province's mineral potential to the mining and investment

community." Under 01, Salaries, just about $2.5 million, $2.429 million, is

identified there for Estimates.

Could the minister give us an idea of how - I mean, I can tell from the text

how, in general, it is spent, but probably a little more detail on how that

money is spent, the numbers of people who are involved in that section, you

know, provide us with a little more detail than is there right now.

CHAIR: May I interject, just before beginning, to remind individuals who

are attending with the minister to please identify yourself for Hansard. I

neglected to mention that earlier. I think with the Members of the House of

Assembly, Hansard tends to recognize our voices having heard them on a regular

basis. It will not take long for them to pick up on other members, but if those

attending-

WITNESS: I notice the minister has a change in -

CHAIR: I was going to note that - thank you! - that you have additional

officials today. If you wish to introduce them before answering the question, by

all means do so. I remind those individuals, should you be called upon by the

minister to answer a question, watch for the red light in front of you and in

doing so begin by using your name first.

Mr. Minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Chair.

I do have some additional and different officials with me today, so in order

to facilitate identification I would ask all of my officials to identify

themselves and their area of work in the department for the record, starting

with Charlie.

MR. LESTER: Charlie Lester, Director of Policy and Strategic Planning.

MR. BAZELEY: David Bazeley, Director of Electricity Industry Development.

MR. YOUNG: Geoff Young, Legal Counsel, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. CROCKER: Ralph Crocker, Executive Assistant to the Minister.

MR. RYDER: Wayne Ryder, Director of Project Management, Mines Branch.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is it, but be assured that the cast of officials I

have are more than able to support the line of questioning that you will put to

me this morning.

Page 143 of the Estimates, Mr. Chair, I believe is where the Deputy Chair of

the Committee is focusing. I am not sure what information you would like to

have, other than to know what this Geological Survey Division of the Mines

Branch of the department actually does. The main function is really involved

with the geo-science database that provides information technology support to

the geological survey and facilitates, amongst other things, of course, the

storage of the geological database that we not only collect on an ongoing basis

but that we maintain from whenever we started the collection information, and

improving upon and building upon the bank of information that we have. It is

really a support branch to the survey program that collects information,

analyzes information, stores information and makes information that we have

available to the industry, to the general public but, I guess, more specifically

to the industry, for purposes of them moving forward with their prospecting

business, with their ongoing activities with respect to trying to identify and

develop new perspective mining opportunities in the Province. If you want to

know exactly how many people are working in that division, I can get you that

number. As a matter of fact, Wayne, you may be able to help me with that

because, quite frankly, I do not have a number for each individual facet of my

department in terms of the numbers there. But if it is helpful, Wayne, can you

indicate in a range, maybe?

MR. RYDER: There are forty-three staff members in geological surveying in

total.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is in terms of numbers of staff involved in that

geological survey area, within a range, between forty and forty-three or

forty-five people.

You will notice that we were down a couple of people last year. Therefore the

Estimates, as revised for the year, were somewhat less in terms of expenditure

than what was originally budgeted. We were expected last year, by virtue of

government direction and policy, to try and achieve some savings in the area of

salary allocations and service provision.

MR. TAYLOR: I will just move to 02, Employee Benefits. Why would the

Budget of $7,700 have jumped to a Revised of $19,600 last year?

MR. MATTHEWS: That particular vote covers registration costs associated

with attending the geo-scientific conferences and seminars relating, of course,

to the promotion of the mineral potential in the Province. In that context,

while the figure of $7,700 was budgeted, the actual costs that we incurred with

respect to the activity of conferencing and seminaring and promoting the mineral

potential for the Province actually came in at $19,600. So, there was a revision

upwards. We have still only budgeted $7,000 in that area this year, but the

amount of money that you can spend in an area like that can significantly move

with the decision to attend, say, one conference that was different than the

previous year's conference, and the registration fees associated with it might

be significantly different. One conference may replace the other, or there may

be a change in registration costs. So it is really that type of a variable in

terms of that expenditure.

MR. TAYLOR: I will go down through this one now, because there are a

number of differences in last year's Budget and this year's Estimates. Under

03, there is $41,200 less for Transportation and Communications this year. Have

your officials, I guess, decided on how you identified, I suppose, that cost

saving and how do you feel it will affect the department's ability to carry on

with its work in this area?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, essentially, we lay out preliminary plans for

activities that involve all of the activities in that branch for the year. Based

on that plan, we calculate, in an estimated fashion, how much money would be

needed to travel and to, you know, be associated with aircraft support, flight

travel costs, field travel costs, freight charges, communications and all these

sorts of activities. Once we conclude what we think our costs will be for the

year, based on the program we have laid out, then we come up with our estimate

of costs under this subheading, 2.1.01.03. This year we are estimating $328,800

as what our costs will be. Last year we had budgeted $370,800, but we actually

only spent $364,400. It is an effort to, as best we can, estimate what the costs

will be for all these travel and service provision activities. We determine the

figure based on those estimates - I was going to say Mr. Chair - Mr. Vice-Chair.

MR. TAYLOR: I do not see where transportation or communications costs

have dropped much, or are expected to drop much, from the price of gas when I

drove home last week. I know that is probably only a small part of it, but it

has not improved. I guess it is safe to assume that, with a 12 per cent

reduction in that section, you would be doing less transporting and

communicating.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, yes. Vice-Chair, as I was saying, these are only

preliminary costs based on preliminary plans. The actual survey program is

highly dependent, of course, on considerations which develop as the year

progresses. It does not mean that we will be doing less work under the program,

it simply means that we expect to incur less costs. Probably it is an

indication, Vice-Chair, of the level of additional efficiencies which my

officials believe they have identified or can identify throughout the year in

terms of cost expenditures; not to say that we have not spent wisely or

prudently in the past. It is an indication that we expect and we hope to get as

much work done this year because, obviously, our staff allocation is the same as

last year. We expect to get as much work done, but probably a little less

expenditure on the support side of it which is the travel, the whole range of

costs that are associated with going out and doing geological surveys. As you

can appreciate, going into the field to do geological survey type work, data

collection, all these sorts of activities, is outdoor work that requires my

staff to work outside of the glorious confines of the Natural Resources Building

on Elizabeth Avenue.

MR. TAYLOR: Under 06, Purchased Services, there is a $30,200 reduction

there. I guess, two questions: One, how do you expect to achieve that and, more

importantly, what type of services are purchased under that subhead, Mr.

Minister?

MR. MATTHEWS: They are costs associated again with program delivery, such

as vehicle and equipment rental, maintenance, sample analysis, (inaudible)

preparation, micro-probe services, as well as costs directly associated with the

publication of maps and reports that emanate from the field program, and, of

course, the storage space rented for the geological survey. Again, these are

Purchased Services to support the geological survey program, not much different

than any type of standard costs associated with field programs in any department

of government. For our purposes, this is the Mines Branch and the geological

survey is a big part of what we do down there, what we do on an ongoing basis,

as government, in support of the industry, and to sustain our own knowledge

base, quite frankly, of what the opportunities are for mineral finds and mining

development in the Province.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a general question, I suppose, sort of a local interest,

constituency or district interest question. Given that we are on the geological

survey

section here now, I suppose it is an opportune time to bring it up. The

Northern Peninsula: Do we have anything down there besides rocks? This might be

a stupid question now, but for a fellow who has spent all of his life out in a

boat, it is not as stupid as it might seem.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, probably it is time for him to

come ashore and see what we have on land.

MR. TAYLOR: That is better than saying, it is better for me to go back

out.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no. It is time for you to come ashore, brother.

Yes, there is lots on the Northern Peninsula other than rocks.

MR. TAYLOR: But not trees.

MR. MATTHEWS: Surprisingly, you do have trees down there. Canada Bay

Lumber - and this is out of my department, but there has been a fair bit of

logging activity over the years in the Roddickton-Englee area. So, you do have a

lot of good forest stands down there. Also, in the Conche area, there is good

potential for -

MR. TAYLOR: Marble. Is that what you were trying to say?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I was going to say slate rock and marble and those

types of things. There are some finds down there that have being identified. It

is a question, I guess, of the proponents coming to a conclusion that there is a

business case to be made to move forward with development of these things. That

is not unlike many areas of the Province where there are significant and

important finds of various types of minerals, but the challenge in the mining

industry, as I understand it and I am not an expert in this area , but it seems

to me the challenge, in moving from exploration and significant discovery to

completing bankable feasibility studies about the prospect development and then

moving on to raise capital as an industry to get into the development, is there

is a lot of work that has to be done. I forget what the figure is. Probably,

Wayne, you could help me or somebody else. I think it is, for every significant

find that is identified in the mining sector, I think for every fifty finds or

something like that, there is only one development that eventually occurs. So

the challenge of finding enough of whatever it is you are looking for and

bringing that to development is a long lead time in terms of process and a big

challenge in terms of the economics.

That is why, I guess, when mines do start, while there is an assumption that

when mines start up they must be terribly, terribly lucrative and be able to pay

all kinds of benefits to the economy, that is not always the case. Some of them

are very marginal. Some of the operations, as an example, on the Baie Verte

Peninsula, while they operate, they operate on a limited resource basis. They

are marginal operations and there are only certain parameters in which they can

operate and go forward or they will not operate at all. A gold mines may not

always be a gold mine, it may be just a marginal development when it is all said

and done.

MR. TAYLOR: Bordering on a fool's gold mine.

MR. MATTHEWS: Bordering on?

MR. TAYLOR: I said bordering on a fool's gold mine, in some cases.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

To the hon. Vice- Chair I say, there is much more than rocks on the Northern

Peninsula. There are minerals up there. Daniel's Harbour is an example of

where there were significant minerals found a number of years ago. There was a

mine operating there for a long time. It is now shut down because it is no

longer viable. The logging operations, that I referred to in the Roddickton

area, have been historically a pretty significant level of economic activity on

the Northern Peninsula, and there are other finds, as I say, of slate and marble

and that sort of thing in the Conche area.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Minister.

I will move into number 12, Information Technology. There is a sort of an up

and down move there, $154,800 budgeted last year and $210,700 spent. This year

the estimate is just- I do not know if I should say just - $92,000. Why such a

wide variance over the course of a year, a year-and-a-half?

MR. MATTHEWS: Last year the revised upward figures had to do with costs

for the site licensing of the GIS package, the ARC info package that was

purchased. Also, the department purchased disc tape storage for our UNIX box,

the u-n-i-x box. I am not sure what box that is or what it means. All I can tell

you is that it is Information Technology procurement purchases that we had

throughout the year. The GIS package, the ARC info package, that they purchased

was what drove the Estimates up from $154,800 as budgeted to an expenditure of

$210,000.

I think what is noteworthy, as well, is that this year the budgeted is down

dramatically because IT programs very dramatically, and purchases in one year,

can make extraordinary costs occur as they did last year which affects,

directly, what we think we will have to spend this year. We have already made a

significant acquisition in last year's budget that substantially takes care of

our IT needs for this year. So, that is the explanation there. It is really

still purchased product that we need to run the department efficiently.

MR. TAYLOR: I notice, throughout the Budget Estimates, there is a

significant amount of money spent by all government departments, obviously, and

for understandable reasons, on Information Technology. How is this procured? Is

it through purchases or through tender or what?

MR. MATTHEWS: The procurement of IT services and technology?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is done in a tendered fashion in accordance with the

Public Tendering Act. Everything, of course, that is purchased throughout

government is subject to the Public Tendering Act, I think, with the exception

of consultants' fees, lawyers and the professional services. Other than that,

everything else is subject to the Act. These purchases certainly would be,

whether they are vehicles or IT information packages or whatever.

MR. TAYLOR: Before I leave this section, I will jump back to that general

question I had on the Northern Peninsula. There was a significant amount of work

done in the Daniel's Harbour-Parsons Pond-Portland Creek area. I suppose it

must be five years ago now since there was any amount of work done there, I

believe, in oil exploration. I guess most of it was seismic survey work, I

believe. Is there any indication that anything more will be done in that area

that you are receiving from either the people who were involved before, the

companies that were involved before, or other interested parties; continued

exploration, anything positive to come out of it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Most of the parcels of land that have been acquired for

exploration purposes over the past number of years would be on-land stuff. The

offshore stuff is controlled by C-NOPB. We can speak to that as well.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: Onshore, it is controlled directly through the department.

Most of the lands, I think, that have been put out for exploration purposes have

had some level of work done on them, including the ones that you have referred

to up there.

I cannot speak specifically to what plans any private company might have with

respect to lands that they are holding this year, because I frankly do not know.

We could make inquires to see what they may be able to offer. What I can tell

you is that this year - as a matter of fact, I announced it in the House about

ten days or two weeks ago - we will, for the first time in a number of years,

hopefully, be going for additional expressions of interest on land sales on land

to see if we can get some more activity, particularly, I would think, on the

West Coast which has a high level of prospectivity for hydro carbons moving

forward.

What we have done, as I announced in the House, is we have asked the industry

to indicate parcels of land that they might be interested in bidding on if we

had a land sale. So we are going through that process now. Part of the reason

why we are doing it, obviously, is because despite the lack of successful

development of the oil industry on the West Coast, even after all of the years

that exploration has been ongoing out there, despite that and despite the fact

that we do not have an industry out there today, as such, on a commercial basis,

we do know that there is a really, really high level of prospectivity in the

West Coast area, generally, on land and to some extent offshore, in the gulf,

that suggests that there is gas and oil out there still to be found. The

industry believes that, we believe that, all the seismic data we have suggests

that, all we know about the geology of the area suggests that, and so we are

continuing to push to try and encourage investment activity on the exploration

side on the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast generally, the Port aux Port

Peninsula and wherever else there is an opportunity that the industry thinks is

worth pursuing.

While no big finds have been brought into production, there is still, as far

as we are concerned and as far as the industry is concerned, a lot of

opportunity potential for exploration and new finds on the West Coast. That

includes, certainly, the Northern Peninsula, but I think the Parsons Pond area

has been historically associated with oil possibilities. As a matter of fact, I

think there has been oil up there found many, many years ago. It is a question

of quantity, proving up reserves, so that people can get on with commercial

production. The West Coast certainly has not reached the level of the offshore

yet, not by a long shot, but we are still plugging ahead. As long as the

industry is prepared to invest money we are prepared to do everything we can

through our various programs and data collection activities to be helpful to

them.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I am going to turn it over to my colleague for a few minutes there now. I

have to step out for a second.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, under Major Projects Benefits Office, the

salaries this year are $454,700. How many employees would be employed in that

particular office?

MR. MATTHEWS: Major Projects Benefits Office - have you moved back to-

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, 1.2.02.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you asking me how many people work in that branch?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not have an exact figure of how many people work in

that branch, but maybe on of my officials has some idea. I have no idea as to

how many people work there. I think we can extrapolate, from the salary details,

that there are probably ten to fifteen people working in that division. I could

get you that figure if you want, how many people work there. Do you want it

specifically, as with respect to areas of activity within that branch, or are

you just talking about the Major Projects Benefits Office?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I was asking particularly about the Major Projects

Benefits Office.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. That area would be in the range of ten to fifteen

people. But 1.2.02, Major Projects Benefits Office: These salaries relate to the

more general administrative side of the department's activity in that area. If

you are asking about who constitutes the major projects, for instance

negotiating teams and that sort of thing, then that would be a question that I

can answer separate from the support side of the department. I do not know if

that is where you are leading with respect to the question. Is that what you are

asking?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes. I guess that was where I was leading.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Major Projects negotiating teams are made up from

officials within my department, but they also include officials from other

departments of government that would be covered under other Estimates that come

before the House. So, it is not possible to extrapolate how many people or who

they are from my budget, singularly, as to who would be on, say, the Voisey's

Bay or the ALCOA negotiating teams, because we involve people from my

department, we have people on the teams from Finance, we have people on the

teams from Intergovernmental Affairs and we have people on the teams from the

Department of Justice; these four departments for sure. Normally we have people

on these two teams from the Department of ITRD, the department of government

that deals with the benefit side of what we do. Negotiating teams are generally

made up of a group of officials across a number of departments for very obvious

reasons, because we need expertise in all of these areas to feed into the

negotiations and the discussions on any given project.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How many people, do you have any idea, within government

are dedicated specifically to the Voisey's Bay file? Any idea?

MR. MATTHEWS: It varies depending on the area of interest that is under

discussion or negotiation. I could have added to that list of departments, the

Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, because, to the extent that we

are involved directly on the lands claims piece with respect to the Voisey's

file, we have people also from Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs involved. The

number of people who would be meeting on any given day would depend upon the

issues that we are negotiating or having discussions with respect to. In total,

there are probably six to ten individuals who I would consider part of the

negotiating team that I lead on behalf of the department, on behalf of

government.

In addition to that, of course, as I have indicated many times in the House,

we engage outside help, outside expertise, to give us the best level of

information and advice and support on these major projects, the best analysis we

can find in terms of, let's say, if it is Voisey's, the nickel industry, the

copper industry, the cobalt industry, that sort of thing, where it is all going,

what it all means, what the real value of it is, what their assessment is of the

positions we take at the negotiating table verus the questions that come forward

from the company in terms of what they want; you know, that sort of thing. So,

there are a lot of people involved in total, but, on any given day, the mix and

the number varies.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under this subclause 03, Transportation and

Communications, there was $65,000 budgeted last year, budgeted again this year,

but there was $151,600 spent. I wonder if you can give some idea as to the

reasons for the increase?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that line item has very, very specifically been

affected over the last year because of the increased amount of travel,

essentially, that has been undertaken with respect to the Voisey's

negotiations. It was pretty difficult last year, in fact, it was impossible last

year when the Budget was brought in for this vote, to know how much we would

need for that activity during the ensuing twelve months, because, as of the time

the Budget came in last year, we had not even decided to go back to formal

negotiations. So, obviously, once we decided to do that, the level of travel by

my officials, that we fund out of our department, bearing in mind there are a

lot of other costs that go into this area from other departments, for my

department, it was significantly affected. We have had a lot of activity in that

regard, as you would appreciate, I am sure.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under the Supplies allocation, there was an increase from

$4,100 to $13,700. That is back to $4,100 again. What would that have been?

MR. MATTHEWS: Essentially, that had to do with the extra requirements,

additional workload, we had with respect to presentations on the major files

that we have under negotiation, and commensurate with the increased activity

associated with negotiations, particularly the Voisey's file. Commensurate

with the increase in that activity were incremental costs, higher costs, in a

bunch of other expense areas and this is one of them.

I think, if you move down to 05, you will see the same type of impact, where

we went from $94,000 to $139,000. That is really an area where we cover off

independent professional advice on technical and strategic issues related to the

project. It is all in that vein of extraordinary activity last year on the

negotiating side.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mostly on the Voisey's Bay file?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is the big one. It also pertains to activity that

we engage ourselves in with respect to the promotion of the Bull Arm site

through the Bull Arm Site Corporation. We have been entertaining some requests

from proponents wishing to have information about, or possible access to, the

Bull Arm site. We are trying to market that site, as difficult as it is to

market as a project by project site. We have to do what we can to try and keep

it before the oil and gas industry, generally, and before other specters as well

because there are other possible applications and usage for that site. We have

had some come forward that we are considering now as you would know.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On the Bull Arm site, there was some news coverage,

probably about a week or a week-and-half ago, regarding I believe it was gas

turbines, a chap from the United States looking at leasing the Bull Arm site.

Can you give us an update on that and whether or not there is strong likelihood

that will proceed?

MR. MATTHEWS: There is a group that has been discussing the possible use

of the Bull Arm site in the context of an idea that they want to pursue to build

combined cycle gas turbine power plants. It is the Helios Group. They have been

meeting with the Bull Arm Site Corporation and with my officials. They have

asked to have discussion with respect to possible accessing that site for some

business opportunities that they are pursuing. We have asked them, of course, as

would be the norm, to provide us with some information that would give us some

indication as to the level of maturity in terms of their business plan on that

account. As I understand it, they are, as we speak, putting together that type

of business plan, information projections, information about their product line

that they want to pursue, whether or not they have customers lined up, whether

or not they have their financing in place, and to what extent. We are trying to

determine, obviously, to what extent there is a real opportunity here for us, as

government, to work with this group. Our position is very clear. We are anxious

to find either one or more proponents that would be able to move into that site

and set up some type of industrial or fabrication business development

opportunities. That is the group that you are referring to.

We expect we will know, Mr. Chair, in the next several weeks, maybe, from

this group as to how far they have moved in terms of developing their business

plan and to what extent we can work with them to make the site available, or

whether or not they still have an interest based on the normal requirements that

we would expect of them to be able to access part or all of that site. It is one

opportunity. It is not new, these people have been around from early to mid last

year, I think. They have been talking to the Bull Arm Site Corporation people.

They have been talking to the Chambers of Commerce in the Arnold's

Cove-Come-by-Chance-Southern Harbour area and the Clarenville area, that sort of

thing, talking up this concept and possible project. I can only say to them and

all others who come forward, we hope that they all have a successful or good

business plan that would see something happen in Bull Arm.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So there is probably a high likelihood that there is a

very serious interest. Would you consider it a high likelihood that -

MR. MATTHEWS: On a scale of relative possibilities, I would not want to

sort of suggest there is a low, medium or high likelihood of this company

actually coming forward with a successful, good and sound business plan. I don't

know, because the level of information that we have been able to get from them

to this point has not been nearly sufficient for us as a government or the Bull

Arm Site Corporation to determine to what extent there exists a real opportunity

here. It is a concept of building combined cycle gas turbine power plants for

sale worldwide and the identification of the market, the identification of the

financing, and all of these other things, are still very much outstanding in our

discussions with them in terms of them bringing forward the basic information

that we would need to do a proper assessment of their business plan. They

understand that. They are working with us and we are working with them. So let's

hope there is a reality to, not only theirs, but the other inquiries we have had

as well with respect to Bull Arm.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I think the Chairman is going to say suggest (inaudible).

CHAIR: I am going to suggest we take a ten-minute break just to give

everybody a chance to stretch their legs. It has been, I would say, an unusual

morning because the Minister and his officials have waited for almost an

hour-and-some before we started, in terms of dealing with them. Maybe we could

take a ten-minute break and then we could come back, and, hopefully, clue it up

relatively quickly after that.

Recess

CHAIR: Welcome back.

I do believe that Mr. Osborne was asking questions. Shall we go back to you

or Mr. Taylor?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will start again, sure.

I think we left off at 1.2.02. The Minister was giving some explanation as to

the Professional Services in 1.2.02. Being as how there is only, really,

Purchased Services remaining there with any significant expenditures, I will ask

the Minister if he can elaborate on what the expenditures included for last

year. There was $9,000 more in expenditures than what was budgeted.

MR. MATTHEWS: Under Purchased Services, 1.2.02.06, budgeted last year

$15,000, revised to $24,000, is that the figure?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the specific vote, I should say, under which we

have paid for some of the presentations that we received from consultants and

some of the presentations that we have had to make. So, this is the very

specific line that covers the cost of professional presentations that we have

received and/or that we have had to make as a result of the files that we are

dealing with.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. While we are still on that Major Projects Benefits

Office, has Inco obtained the $100 million cheque from the federal government

or, you know, have they obtained a concrete commitment for the development of

the hydromet facility?

MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot, in all honesty, answer that question for two

reasons. Number one, I do not know exactly what level of commitments they have

extracted from Ottawa in any area that they have been seeking support. Number

two, even if I did know, it would not be appropriate for me to answer, on behalf

of Inco, what they may or may not have achieved with respect to funding support

or other types of support from Ottawa. That is singularly their piece of

business, as is the IBA, the Impact Benefits Agreement, that they are

negotiating with the Aboriginal Nations.

These are three areas where, while we have our interest in seeing the things

concluded successfully between them - because without that, of course, there can

be no project move forward even if we have a commercial arrangement concluded

between ourselves and Inco - but while we have an interest in those areas, we

are not at the table discussing the IBA's, nor are we at the table discussing

with the federal government what it is they have concluded and agreed to or not

agreed to with Inco. Now having said that, we do, of course, follow with

interest to the extent that we should be inquiring and we should be in the know

as to what is happening or likely to happen, of course. We talk to Ottawa every

day on a whole bunch of issues. So, we are interested in what is happening but

we do not have the ability to speak for Inco and, hence, I cannot confirm or

deny anything that might be rumored or speculative with respect to how much

funding, from what departments, under what programs, they are seeking support

and/or have obtained any level of confirmation. That is a question that I cannot

answer.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, Minister - while I was making my notes, you

mentioned that there were three areas that you could not get directly involved

in and I made a note of two of those, the negotiations with the Aboriginal

communities and their negotiations with the federal government. I missed the

third one, I am sorry.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the three, there are two Aboriginal, two IBAs, one

with the Innu and one with the Inuit, and the federal piece. These are

substantially Inco's pieces of business that they are working through with

those three groups.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Absolutely! I understand. While you were counting the

Aboriginal as two, I counted them as one. I thought I had missed the third but I

did not.

What will Inco invest in the hydromet process in Argentia with or without the

$100 million from the federal government? What are they anticipating investing

in that facility?

CHAIR: Before the minister answers, the Chair just wants to remind you,

that although we are running with latitude here, we are now addressing a great

distance from the actual Estimates of the department. We are now asking opinions

as to what a third party might do and I am not sure what relevance that would

have on the numbers that we dealing with. I will leave it to the minister and

his officials to deal with it but, like I said, I am not sure where it fits

here. I think it is a great question for question period but-

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I could interject for a second. I think we are still

within the confines of what this committee is mandated to do and I am on

Estimates questions. That is only the second question outside of Estimates that

I have asked.

CHAIR: I understand that, but when we are asking what a third party might

do, I am not sure if the minister can advise us whether he is a position to

answer what a third party may or may not do. I would defer to the minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Chair.

In terms of the level and latitude of questioning, I am like every other

person appearing, or the Committee itself for that matter, I am in the hands of

the Chair and the Committee. I will do my best to answer the questions that are

put providing the questions are permitted under the rules and the latitude that

the Chair permits. I think the Chair is being very accommodating, as I have

watched for the last five-plus hours now in this Committee hearing.

On that question though, we have said publically, Inco has said publically

and we understand, that the R and D program associated with the hydromet

demonstration plant that will be built is approximately a $130 million program.

So the expenditure over the course of development and testing of the hydromet

technology is within that range in terms of cost.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Does that include the $100 million that they are hoping

to get from the federal government?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I would assume. My understanding is that that is the

cost of the program. Now, whether or not they get partial, minimal or

substantial support from Ottawa to go toward that is a question that is still

outstanding. It goes back to your previous question: How much is Ottawa prepared

to give them? I do not know. At this point, I do not know that they know, but

you could ask it of them.

Obviously, at the end of the piece, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion

that even if the company gets maximum support, let's say, under R and D

funding programs, that there would still be a substantial amount of capital that

they would have to invest themselves to get that done. It is not hard to figure

out that if it is a $130 million program, the R and D piece for Argentia and

pieces surrounding Argentia, and they get $50 million, as an example, from

Ottawa, that there is still $80 million that has to be put in by the company. If

they get $100 million, it is $130million. I do not want to get into numbers

because I do not want to speculate. It would be imprudent for me to speculate on

what they might or might not get from Ottawa. We will have to wait and see.

It is one of the pieces, along with the two IBA agreements, that the company,

more or less singularly, are responsible to bring to conclusion so that they

can, I suppose, know whether or not they can move forward to discuss closing on

the items that are outstanding. Until we get back together and conclude one way

or the other on the outstanding items, there cannot be a project. Clearly, I

think, the indication from Inco and ourselves is that we all hope we can get a

project. I think the sense of the people of the Province is that - I am

convinced that the people of the Province are supportive of us getting the

project moving providing we can get it right in terms of the terms and

conditions. That is being rather rhetorical in terms of what I and the Premier

have said many times over the last, particularly two or three months.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Over what period of time is the Research and Development?

How long will that drag out? Do you know?

MR. MATTHEWS: The R and D piece, in terms of time needed to test up the

hydromet technology, is around a couple of years; probably two years they would

need to - and this is not new information. They have gone through this process

in Goro against a completely different type of project in terms of the ore body

there; all laterites. It is the demonstration plant in Goro that we visited

along with a bunch of my officials last year. It is quite interesting to see

what it is that is all about. Once that test plant, that test facility,

concludes its work in terms of the hydromet technology against the sulfide ores

coming out of Voisey's, it will continue to exist for future purposes and for

future Rand D research opportunities, I guess, as it relates to the mining

industry in particular for many years to come.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Moving on to Mineral Lands, subhead 2.1.02. Here,

"Appropriations provide for administration of the mineral land tenure

system, monitoring and regulation of mineral exploration activity, regulation

and management of the exploration and extraction of quarry materials, collection

of diamond drill core and operation of the core storage program, liaising

interdepartmentally on land-use and providing information and professional

support on such matters to government and external clients."

Just a couple of questions there. The collection of diamond drill core: Has

there been any collection of diamond drill core over the last budget year?

MR. MATTHEWS: That I am not sure is information that I can provide to you

directly. I am going to rely on my officials for that. The reality is this: When

prospectors go out and prospect they have certain rights in terms of when they

have to disclose what it is they have found or what it is they have come upon.

They have rights, they have periods of confidentially. So whether or not I can

speak to anything that has happened over the last twelve months in that area is

a question really that I need answered by the officials. In the offshore oil and

gas they have certain periods of time before they have to tell what they have

found and that sort of thing. I am not sure who could help me with that;

probably Wayne.

MR. RYDER: It is an ongoing program. Last summer there was some drill

core collection mostly around Central Newfoundland and it is going to happen

again this year. We have a project planned again this year for drill recovery.

So it is an ongoing thing.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for St. John's South's specific question

was: Do we know if any diamond core drilling had taken place over the last

twelve months? I will have to refer that question again to Wayne, and if we do

not have an exact answer I would happy to try and provide that to you because if

the information is available you can have it, to the extent that we have it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Sure.

MR. RYDER: No, I am not aware of any diamond drilling that has been going

on this last twelve months, but, then again, it is not my specific area. As the

minister said, we could find out for you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. MATTHEWS: The officials have taken a note of that question already

and we will try and provide that answer to you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Are there any prospects for significant diamond finds

within the boundaries of the Province?

MR. MATTHEWS: Diamond prospecting is not an area of prospecting where I

am aware, personally, that there are a lot of things happening or likely to

happen. I compare it to the relatively high level of interest that is currently

existing with respect to gold prospects in the Province. There is the Buchans

area where there have been a lot of minerals found that may lead to a

development out in that area. You are dealing with copper and other ores that

are contained in copper finds. In Voisey's Bay it is nickel, cobalt and

copper; that sort of thing. I am not aware of any - except in Labrador, over the

past couple of years, I think there was some work done, some drilling done, some

prospecting done, on possible diamond finds. I have not heard anything, either

publicly or in the department, to suggest there is much happening at the moment

with respect to the work that was done about two or three years ago on possible

diamond finds in an area in Labrador. There is not much to be said other than

what you already know about that. That was some prospecting done, there were

some signs that there were some diamond related possibilities, but nothing that

is off a commercial nature yet.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Minister.

Under 2.1.02.01, Salaries, the amount budgeted this year and last year are

approximately the same. However, there was less spent last year than budgeted.

Was that due to a lay-off? What would be the reason for that?

MR. MATTHEWS: It was due to the delays in filling certain positions that

became vacant. As you know, if you delay filling positions, by virtue of not

being able to find the candidates or by virtue of just delaying on a time basis,

it reduces your budget uptake there. The Budget this year is the same

essentially as last year. We intend to fill the positions that are vacant based

on the need to fill them, and in the context of achievements that we are trying

to make throughout government in terms of the five and eight guidelines that we

have put out for all departments to follow. That is in the area of (inaudible)

expenses and salary savings.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under subclause 03, Transportation and Communications, I

guess my question there is: Could you give a brief explanation as to the

transportation costs there? I mean, it almost sounds self-explanatory, but if

you could me some idea as to where that money was spent for transportation and

what types of transportation were involved in that particular appropriation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The only thing I could add to that is that it was just

normal transportation expenses. It was down a little because, as I mentioned

earlier, we had a little less staff last year in the department due to positions

that were not filled and, as a result of a reduced level of staffing, there

followed a slight decrease in travel activities. The types of travel that we

engage in would be the normal types; air, land and sea.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They all have been within the Province?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I would guess that all of these travel costs would

probably have been within the Province, because, as an example, we manage the

Core Storage Program and we maintain six regional core storage libraries and

they go all the way from St. John's to Pasadena, Buchans, Springdale, Baie

Verte and Goose Bay. We have quarry inspection offices in certain locations,

such as Grand Falls, Windsor, Pasadena, St. John's, Goose Bay and Wabush. Our

activities are very much spread out across the Province, because we operate in a

number of locations. While we are not a big department with a lot of staff or a

lot of money our activities are spread out largely throughout the Province

because, on the mines side of it, that is where most of the activity takes

place, all over the Province and into Labrador. The travel of $74,200 down from

the budgeted $77,900 is just regular, normal, routine travel costs. I cannot add

more to it than that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So there would not be anything there for travel regarding

any of the major projects?

MR. MATTHEWS: No. That does not cover any of the major projects'

development costs or negotiating costs. Absolutely not!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Core Storage Facilities: You say there are three now.

I am not sure that there was a storage facility in Torbay, on the old airport

site. My understanding was there was some mineral storage or core storage down

in that area. I think the building was destroyed or demolished back a number of

years ago, four or five years ago probably. Is my understanding of that correct?

MR. MATTHEWS: Wayne, where is our library core storage in the St. John's

area?

MR. RYDER: It is down at the old airport, across from the airport. I

think you are referring to a building that was destroyed a few years ago. It was

not core, it was rock samples in that building. We still have a core storage

building down on that site. It is down next to the Rec Centre in Torbay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. The rock samples and so on in that building were

destroyed with the building. Is that correct?

MR. RYDER: The samples were not destroyed. We had them stored there. The

building was destroyed. We had to retrieve the samples and recap a lot of them

and we have done that. They are now housed in a different building.

MR. T. OSBORNE: My understanding was, I think, that the building was

destroyed while the rock samples were still in the building.

MR. RYDER: That is correct.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, were all of the rock samples recovered from the

building?

MR. RYDER: No, I would say about 70 per cent to 75 per cent were.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess, while it probably was not within your tenure as

Minister of Mines and Energy, I will ask the question: How could that have

happened or why would a building be destroyed while there were still government

properties such as rock samples, mineral samples, within the building?

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you asking me how the fire started?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, no. I think it was bulldozed, if I am correct.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh! All right. I am not familiar with the destruction of

the building and how it was destroyed. I mean, now you are getting into minutia

that predates me. Wayne, if you can be helpful?

MR. RYDER: Well, I do not think anybody really knows to this day how it

happened or why it happened. It was a pretty old dilapidated building and the

rock samples were just there temporarily. They were in buckets. From the

outside, it was not pretty looking. I think that the people who destroyed it

thought there was nothing in it at the time. It certainly did not look like

there was from the outside.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is kind of a bazaar story, how a building containing

government materials can just be bulldozed. Now, I am not saying that that is

probably not a good idea at times, but-

MR. MATTHEWS: It is curious, the way they operate. I mean, they could

decide to bulldoze this some day and we would be here. So, we would like to have

some notice.

CHAIR: Most people wish we were..

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a couple more questions under Mineral Lands, and

then I will pass this over to my colleague for some further questions.

Under Purchased Services, there was $10,000 less spent last year than was

actually budgeted and that is up almost $8,000 again this year. What would those

Purchased Services have been?

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you on 2.1.02.06?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: That vote is the vote under which we take care of things

such as repairs and maintenance of office equipment, field equipment, including

vehicles and trailers, actually, and the equipment in our core storage

libraries, our vehicle rentals and our accommodations, printing, publishing,

advertising, micrographic filming and photographic services. So, it is really

Purchased Services in support of the Mineral Lands Division that looks after the

land tenure legislation and the administration of the Mineral Act and the Quarry

Materials Act.

We have a fair bit of activity in the department with respect, also -

although it is not thought about a lot - to the management and the governing, in

terms of regulations, of all of the quarries and pits that we have in the

Province; the sand pits, the gravel pits, the quarry pits. All of these have to

be regulated. The regulation of them has to be managed and we have to

continuously be renewing permits for the operation of these quarry pits all over

the Province. So, there are a lot of administrative costs associated with

managing, as I say, the quarry pits in the Province, all the way from sand and

gravel pits right up to mines.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will ask this: What were the total transportation costs

last year associated with the negotiations and the development, I guess, of

Voisey's Bay, the total associated travel for Voisey's Bay?

MR. MATTHEWS: The total costs associated with negotiations and travel

involved in the negotiations of the Voisey's Bay file that were accrued or

incurred in my department was the figure that was under the Major Projects. Back

to subhead 1.2.02: The travel costs there were $151,600, but that does not tell

the whole story, as I pointed out earlier. That, for instance, does not include

travel costs that were incurred by myself as the minister, or my staff traveling

with me, which would have been part of the negotiations. This is part of the

officials' costs. Nor does it include the travel costs that were associated

with some other officials that work out of other departments of government that

support or are a part of our negotiating team. As I mentioned earlier, a good

example would be the Minister of the Department of Justice.

In order to give you a full cost of every cent that was spent in terms of the

negotiations on the Voisey's file, that would have to be a constructed cost

that would have to be prepared across a lot of departmental lines and provided

in a different setting than the Estimates of my department. You can look and see

what I have spent, as a minister, on travel in my department. Part of that would

be as a result of the Voisey's Bay discussions, negotiations and meetings. My

deputy, who also travels, part of his costs would probably be in Senior

Administrative and Executive Support.

If you want an answer to that question you really should put that question in

its proper forum, in a different forum than the Estimates hearings and we would

have to try and come up with it for you. It is not a cost that we do not want to

identify, it is just that it happens across a bunch of departments. It is not

only peculiar to the Voisey's file. If three officials from three different

departments are traveling to Ottawa on one specific issue the costs are

allocated through the departments that the employees travel from. That would be

a given. It is just the way it works.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, the $151,600: Was that entirely on the Voisey's Bay

file?

MR. MATTHEWS: No. I will just double check that, but I believe that was

associated with travel costs that were mainly the Voisey's Bay file, but may

also have included some costs with respect to the Bull Arm Site Corporation

activities, promotion of that particular issue. So for the most

part it is

Voisey's, but there are also some other costs there pertaining to the Site

Corporation's work.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, am I able to ask your department to put together

those numbers or is that better under a FOI request?

MR. MATTHEWS: Off the top of my head, I would suggest you could put the

question to my department, and if we cannot or it should not be our

responsibility to pull that together, then we could reflect that in our

response. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether you should make that a FOI

request across x number of departments or whether you should - I suggest you put

it to my department and let us respond to it because we are the lead department

on the Voisey's file obviously.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One final question, before I refer back to my buddy.

What are the costs to the department - again, I would imagine the answer

would be similar, that it would be across a number of departments. What would

the total costs of the Voisey's Bay file be across all departments? Is that

something you keep a tab on, or is that something that has to be calculated?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not something that we keep a tab on in this

sense; that the services of the Department of Finance, the services of the

Department of Justice and the services from the officials in Aboriginal Affairs,

they provide those services as part of the work they do on behalf of government.

They may be in Justice. As you know, they provide services to every department

of government and the extent to which the Department of Justice would keep an

allocation of costs between Health, Mines and Energy, Finance and Work, Services

and all of that, is a question that you would have to put to them. Frankly, I do

not have the answer to that. I would suggest that they do know, within reason,

what services they render to each department, but the allocation of those costs

is for their information. Again, the provision of that type of information, I

say to the hon. member, would be a question that you would have to put in a

different form and context to get that type of answer. We would have to figure

out how we would pull it together for you or to whom we would direct you for

that type of information.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. I should address those to you and you will put them

to whomever in your department.

MR. MATTHEWS: My simple answer would be yes, because if it is not for us

to have the ability or the responsibility to provide that, then we would

communicate that back to you and you could direct your questions elsewhere. But,

in the first instance, I think it would be entirely appropriate to direct your

questions to my department.

CHAIR: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. I guess I will start with 2.1.02. It is a small

number, so that is probably the easiest place to start and work from there.

Under 2.1.01.05, Professional Services: As I said a number of times before, this

consumes a great deal of the finances of the Province, I suppose, if you look at

it across all departments. Since it is $7,000, maybe it is a small enough number

that you could tell me exactly what that professional service is. I do not mean

in general, I mean like-

MR. MATTHEWS: Under 2.1.02.05?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Sir.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is an allocation for charges associated with the

Mineral Rights Adjudication Board that is responsible to hear grievances that

are filed under the Mineral Act. We do have some level of activity in that area;

not a big lot, obviously.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I will move back to, I guess, 1.2.02.05, Professional

Services. The $139,000 there - and I know the Minister, in a general way, when I

questioned him on this one before, gave an explanation, but what would it be,

specifically? What individual or what company, or within the department if it is

within the department, or externally if it is externally, would that be?

MR. MATTHEWS: Under 1.2.02.05?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: That covers independent professional advice on legal - well

not so much legal, as on technical and strategic issues related to the project.

The project means the Voisey's Bay Project. I can tell you that we use people

such as Merrill-Lynch who have financial expertise in terms of doing analysis

for us on mining projects. They have technical expertise because I have met with

some of them in terms of telling us what is happening in a specific industry

sector such as the nickel industry or the copper industry. They have specialists

on virtually every type of metal that is produced in the world. They advise us

in terms of what is happening in the industry, the trends, the projections in

terms of where the industry is going, the value of the product that is likely to

be mined and produced; all that sort of thing. This is external, independent,

technical advice for the most part that we engage all the time, particularly in

the context of these discussions, the Voisey's discussions. My officials meet

with them, I have met with them on a number of occasions; various independent

experts whom we engage to give us independent advice.

MR. TAYLOR: Skipping over to page 144, 2.1.03, 05, Professional Services

again: There is a budget estimate of $190,000 this year similar to last year.

There was $144,500 spent last year. I guess, in a general way, I would imagine

what it was spent on, but, specifically, what would that $144,500 have been

spent on last year?

MR. MATTHEWS: This is another vote where we pay for some professional

services that we access within the department. Under this particular area,

Mineral Development, this is in a general sense where we seek to manage the

provincial mineral development programs, generally. The mineral exploration is

continuing in a number of the highly prospective areas around the Province. We

were down somewhat in our expenditure on this vote last year and it is, in some

measure, related to the delays in the development of Voisey's Bay, because

this has to do with services that we need to help us manage the development of

projects. Obviously Voisey's Bay, as a project, has not started into the

developmental stage. Monies that we had anticipated in the Estimates last year

that would be needed if the development went forward were obviously not expended

because the development, as we speak today even, has not started. We spent more

in the management of the various developments in the Province that we

anticipated might happen, including the Voisey's one, than we had budgeted

for.

MR. TAYLOR: Maybe you answered and I missed it, but specifically the

$144,500: I mean, it is not a large number. It is larger than what is in my bank

account, by $140,000 probably.

I would be interested in knowing. I know you are not interested in this

questioning continuing much longer.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is okay. I am in the hands of the Chair like you.

MR. TAYLOR: I was just joking, minister.

What specifically would that be spent on? Who would you pay there or what

would you pay them for? I would be interested in knowing who they actually are,

who or what it actually is. If I was paying $144,500 for professional services

in a life outside of politics, I think I or somebody around me would be able to

tell me, pretty well specifically, what that was for. I was wondering if you or

some of your officials who are with you today might be able to enlighten me on

that.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is a fair question, actually. I do not mind the question

at all, because this vote covers professional services that we have to purchase

with respect to new discoveries and the development of new discoveries. As new

discoveries move forward there are activities that have social and economic

implications and issues that have to be dealt with before they are approved and

as they are going through the developmental stages. It ranges all the way from

dealing with economic and social issues that arise from new developments all the

way through to infrastructure analysis, environmental impact work that we have

to get done, economic and technical feasability studies that we need to have

done from the department's perspective to be able to sanction or help move

forward new developments. It is that type of professional services,

environmental work, infrastructure analysis work, technical feasibility studies

and economic analysis in terms of projects. All of these are activities that

would be paid for, for the department's benefit and purposes under the

2.1.03.05 vote.

MR. TAYLOR: So that would be done internally or externally?

MR. MATTHEWS: That would be external consultants' work that we would

pay for. Now, in terms of providing you with a list of who we paid for what, in

terms of how much environmental work we had done under this vote and how much

economic analysis work we had done and how much technical analysis we had done,

that is a question that you would have to put to me in a different forum. We

could respond to it if you are interested in that level of detail. But,

obviously, on the environmental side we used environmental firms; firms that are

involved. In terms of a technical side of it, we would use the firms that would

be giving us the best technical information depending on the type of

development, the type of minerals that are under development, and all that sort

of thing, you know.

MR. TAYLOR: You mentioned the environmental evaluation, I suppose, in

this section. Can the Minister tell me what kind of information your department,

either under this sub or some other place, if at all, would have on the impact

of - I know it has been raised as a concern in the Southern Gulf and on Georges

Bank and, to a lesser extent here in Newfoundland and Labrador, it has been

raised recently; the affect of seismic survey work on fish, specifically? Maybe

it is not a fair question for you, I do not know. Maybe it is an environmental

question to the Department of Environment. In this one here: Do you or have you

information or do you, over time, accumulate information, to conduct research or

whatever to determine if there is any negative impact on fish habitat and stocks

and what have you, as a result of seismic work or drilling or whatever?

MR. MATTHEWS: This has to do with our mineral development program in our

Mineral Development Division. So, my guess is that - and I will ask Wayne to

respond if he has anything to add, because it is a guess - the amount of seismic

work that is concluded under this program is minimal. My guess is that we spend

most of this money on professional services to do with environmental initiatives

and with technical aspects of a new development that is coming or proposed to

come on stream. From the Mines side of it, from the regulatory side of it, the

responsibilities we have, we execute our responsibilities and know what is going

on from questions that we have to answer to the environmental process, as an

example.

The Department of Environment has responsibilities to issue certain approvals

after they have done their due diligence in terms of what requirements companies

and mines have to meet up there. From our perspective, we want to ensure that

the department can promote development, it can also defend the promotion of the

development and can speak to the environmental issues that we have a

responsibility to give responses to.

Wayne, I do not know if there is anything else that can be said under this.

MR. TAYLOR: If I could jump in there for a second, Minister. I did not

mean to suggest that specifically under this subheading of Mineral Development -

in your answer, you mentioned the environmental issue, so I just spawned a

question, I suppose, related to it. I meant to ask it and I figured it was just

as well to ask it here as anywhere. I am looking for information on seismic

surveys, I guess. If it is somewhere else and not here at all, I would be

interested in knowing where it is.

MR. MATTHEWS: How much seismic work, I guess, do we get involved in with

respect to mining? Seismic, to me, is more the offshore.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. RYDER: None that I am aware of in the Mineral Development Division. I

think your question probably would be better answered by the Environment

officials. We have no involvement with seismic in this division.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Wayne.

My understanding is that all (inaudible) seismic work and activity in my

department has been singularly focused in the area of seismic with respect to

the offshore, to try and find out what is underneath the water, underneath the

seabed type thing. On the mineral side, as I understand it, there is more of a

conventional type of activity called exploration, drilling, core samplings and

those sorts of activities that lead to indications of reserves, indications of

ore bodies and that sort of thing. I would guess - and I say guess - that there

are not a lot of seismic, if any seismic, services covered under this vote.

MR. TAYLOR: As I said - and I say again - my question was more a general

one than it was specific to this section. I realize there would not be much of

an impact irregardless of whether there is seismic work or not done on land to

fish out in the middle of Bay St. George.

My question was just that, there has been seismic work done off the Port au

Port Peninsula, as I understand it, and the West Coast and the Northern

Peninsula.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh yes.

MR. TAYLOR: I was wondering if there were any one department that would

have -

MR. MATTHEWS: It would not be under this one. This is the minerals one.

This is the mines side of my department. That stuff would be under the Energy

side where the oil, gas, hydro and other forms of energy projects and management

responsibilities are taken care of.

MR. TAYLOR: I will move over to Petroleum Projects Monitoring, subhead

3.1.04, and ask you the same question. No, I won't do that.

MR. MATTHEWS: What page are you on now, hon. member?

MR. TAYLOR: No, I was just joking on that.

I just assume, from your answer, that you do not do it and it is more of a

question for the Department of Environment.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. F