May

12, 2008

Government Services Committee

The Committee met at 5:15 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (French): Okay, folks, I guess we can get started.

First I will start off by asking the committee to introduce themselves and

then I will ask the minister to introduce herself and her staff, and then I will

call the subheads. The minister can bring her opening remarks and then we will

start by taking questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition. I guess we

do not need to have the clock this evening because there is only one person

asking questions. So we will go from that.

One little bit of explanation, I guess, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs is in

the one lot of Estimates. So we will just do the Aboriginal Affairs piece

tonight. We will do the Labrador Affairs - it is scheduled for Tuesday morning,

May 20, at 9 a.m. we will start, and that is here in the House.

So without further ado, I would ask the committee if they would start by

introducing themselves.

Ms Jones?

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yvonne Jones, I am the MHA for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,

and the critic for Aboriginal Affairs.

MS E. MARSHALL: Beth Marshall, MHA, Topsail.

MR. DINN: Oh, I will go next will I? I thought we were going to go

around.

John Dinn, MHA, Kilbride.

MR. FORSEY: Clayton Forsey, MHA, Exploits.

CHAIR: And I know Mr. Buckingham is here but he just had to step out for

a minute, he is the Member for St. John's East.

Minister Pottle?

MS POTTLE: Patty Pottle, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, MHA for Torngat

Mountains.

MR. COOMBS: Robert Coombs, Deputy Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal

Affairs.

MR. HUGHES: David Hughes, ADM, Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. TOMPKINS: John Tompkins, Director of Communications, Labrador and

Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I will start by calling the first subhead.

Shall 1.1.01. carry?

Oh, we are going to do the minister's office too, I guess, if she is part

of that.

Minister Pottle?

MS POTTLE: As Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I am pleased to appear

before you to discuss the Estimates of the Aboriginal Affairs Branch of the

Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

As you may be aware, nearly all of the activities of this department,

including land claims negotiations and implementation of the Northern Strategic

Plan for Labrador, require a collaboration with other provincial public bodies,

For the fiscal year 2008-2009, major Aboriginal Affairs initiatives

identified in the grants

section include: $100,000 to address suicide and

detrimental lifestyle issues among Aboriginal Youth; $50,000 to support

Aboriginal women's groups and organizations to participate in the analysis and

review of the recommendations arising from last June's National Aboriginal

Women's Conference.

I am now available, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the details of the estimates.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister Pottle.

Ms Jones, whenever you are ready you can start with your questions.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, minister, for that brief overview.

I am going to start with the actual estimates themselves, in terms of the

numbers that are provided on page 57 of the Estimates book. From what I can see

based on the estimates, although Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs is

touted by government as being two distinct departments, it is quite obvious that

there is continuous overlap with the Executive and Support Services divisions of

these two departments, which leads me to believe that it is probably very much

one within the same.

I would like to hear your response to that because looking at the estimates

and how it is budgeted for under Executive and Support Services, it looks very

much like it is still just one department.

MS POTTLE: We do share a lot of the services, such as communications.

Labrador Affairs do have their office situated in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They

have an assistant deputy minister up there. We share a Deputy Minister, Mr. Rob

Coombs, who is permanently up in Labrador but does a lot of business back and

forth here to St. John's. The Aboriginal Affairs office is located here in St.

John's with a full staff. We have our own secretary. We have our own executive

assistant and such but there are overlaps with some shared services, yes.

MS JONES: What about with communications? Is there overlap with

communications people or are there separate communications people for each

department?

MS POTTLE: Mr. John Tompkins is the communications director for the

department. We have Val Oliver in Goose Bay - what is Val's title?

OFFICIALS: (Inaudible) Public Relations.

MS POTTLE: Public Relations, and he is situated in the Labrador Affairs

office and they sort of John is the overall communications director for the

department.

MS JONES: For both departments, or just Aboriginal Affairs?

MS POTTLE: For both departments.

MS JONES: For both departments.

The PR director who is based in Goose Bay, is that individual responsible for

both departments or just one?

MS POTTLE: Yes, they do overlap. They share, obviously, with some

Aboriginal issues coming out of Labrador. We use Val in that capacity up there

to keep us informed of Aboriginal issues arising and likewise, back and forth

here as well with Mr. Tompkins.

MS JONES: Okay.

How many employees do you have in your department?

MS POTTLE: There are approximately - is it eight?

MR. COOMBS: We have a total complement of twenty-five, thirteen being in

Aboriginal Affairs and twelve being in Labrador Affairs.

MS JONES: How many of those employees have overlapping responsibilities?

MR. COOMBS: They overlap quite frequently because Labrador Affairs and

Aboriginal Affairs a lot of times are linked. If you look at issues like, for

example, the Mealy Mountain National Park and the issues surrounding that, you

are dealing not only with a Labrador based issue but you are also dealing with

the implications of land claim agreements and Aboriginal communities and

Aboriginal reservations who also have a role in those types of issues. So, there

is quite a strong linkage between the two branches because there are specific

Aboriginal perspectives and policies and agendas but there are also the broader

Labrador policy and specific agendas that intermingle with those. It is a common

community where you have different Aboriginal groups and the general

non-Aboriginal populous which requires that blended approach.

MS JONES: I appreciate your answer but I mean Aboriginal Affairs overlaps

with every government department, not just Labrador Affairs, but you do not have

them sharing support staff. That was my question, in terms of how many of these

twenty-five people would actually know that it is their job to service both

departments?

MR. COOMBS: They would know that because other -

MS JONES: (Inaudible) other than Mr. Tompkins would know.

MR COOMBS: - getting down into the workings of the department is that

they would be assigned. Often we ask Labrador Affairs analysts to participate in

Aboriginal meetings. We are a small department and there are times when we

require analysts on one side to work in the files of analysts on the other side

of the department. So, quite frequently we will ask Labrador Affairs analysts to

attend Aboriginal related consultations or meetings and vice versa.

MS JONES: Of the thirteen employees within Aboriginal Affairs who share

overlapping responsibilities with Labrador Affairs, how many of them would be

based in Goose Bay versus St. John's?

MR. COOMBS: The Aboriginal Affairs? None of the Aboriginal Affairs staff

are based in Goose Bay. The reason being is that the nature of their work is

largely - of the twelve, thirteen people - is policy development in the context

of Aboriginal peoples in the Province. This requires regular, frequent

consultation with all other line departments, resource departments of government

and to be based in Labrador it would be difficult for them to get access to

senior policy people, and particularly at the executive level in terms of

direction that relates to their mandate in terms of negotiating land claims and

development of programs and policies as it relate to the Aboriginal peoples of

the Province.

MS JONES: So the only real connection you are telling me, as a

department, would be the fact that the minister holds an office in the Labrador

Affairs building in Goose Bay?

MR COOMBS: Which minister? She currently does not hold an office. Her

primary office is in St. John's but there will be a transitional office that

will be available for her to sit in Goose Bay. Those accommodations are part of

the staffing up, I will call it, of the Labrador Affairs office in response to

ministers being dedicated and identified in the last election process and

governments decision to place heavy emphasis on Aboriginal and Labrador files by

appointing two dedicated ministers. So the minister's office - actually, I

think, right now work is beginning on it.

MS JONES: Where is your office, Mr. Coombs?

MR. COOMBS: My actual physical office space is on 21 Broomfield Street in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but I also have a dedicated office here in St. John's.

MS JONES: You are not included in the thirteen employees with Aboriginal

Affairs?

MR. COOMBS: I am the conduit between the two branches as being the deputy

minister for both. As a conduit I have an ADM for Aboriginal Affairs and an ADM

for Labrador Affairs, but my role is to support both ministers. So I am sort of

the conduit that brings together the work of the two branches.

MS JONES: Your answers are not concise in my mind. I asked you how many

people were employed with Aboriginal Affairs. You told me thirteen. I asked you

how many people were based in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. You told me they were all

based in St. John's -

MR. COOMBS: Aboriginal Affairs.

MS JONES: - but yet you are the deputy minister for this department and

you are based in Goose Bay.

MR. COOMBS: Yes. Well I am one then I guess, or half of one.

MS JONES: So are you the only one?

MR. COOMBS: Strictly dealing with Aboriginal Affairs issues, yes.

MS JONES: You say your reason for that is because the role of Aboriginal

Affairs is to look at policy development in the context of Aboriginal issues

across every department and therefore there is no real strong affiliation to

Labrador Affairs.

MR. COOMBS: Sorry, I am missing the context of your question.

MS JONES: When I asked you how many people were based there, you told me

that it was not particularly necessary to have people based there. Their job was

here to look at the policy developments of government in the context of how they

affect Aboriginal people.

In light of you making that statement, I have to ask the question: Why is

there so much interconnection then between those two departments in terms of

sharing staff, having staff that have the responsibility of both departments,

whether it is part of their initial job description of not? To me, there is a

complete overlap all the way through those two departments. They are not clearly

defined by government.

MR. COOMBS: Yes, there is also the fact that we tend to forget. I guess I

have sort of a bias as well, being from Labrador myself, that I forget there is

a huge Aboriginal population on the Island. So, we cannot forget those as well.

That is another reason why there is not really a need for Aboriginal Affairs

staff, or the reason why the Aboriginal Affairs unit is based out of the office

in St. John's, because Aboriginal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are

not only in Labrador, but they are also on the Island.

The other aspect of it, as well, is that all our dealings on Aboriginal

issues are done with full consultation and involvement and the need to have the

federal government involved. Relationships between the federal and provincial

government are best suited out of St. John's at the senior policy level, at

the Land Claims level.

MS JONES: You guys are responsible for implementing the Land Claims

Agreement that has been signed with Nunatsiavut, is that correct?

MS POTTLE: Yes, we are.

MS JONES: Can you tell me at what stage you are in the implementation

right now?

MS POTTLE: The Nunatsiavut government, as you know, is a fairly new

government. They are able to take down devolution in programs and services. They

are actually not ready for that yet, but we are supporting them in their process

forward. It is a working game with them right now. We are here for them, we

support them, we encourage them to move forward, but right now they have not

acknowledged taking down any of the programs and services.

MS JONES: What really do you do when it comes to the implementation of

this Land Claims Agreement? On a day-to-day basis, what would be your department's

involvement?

MR. COOMBS: I guess the best way to respond to that would be in terms of

a current event and that would be the decision by the Nunatsiavut government to

place a moratorium on uranium exportation. That sort of initiated a whole bunch

of policy

interpretation in terms of the provisions of the Land Claims Agreement

in terms of what happens if the Province chooses to continue with development in

the Labrador Inuit settlement area; what are our responsibilities, what are the

consultation obligations. We, as an implementation body, the one that oversees

the

interpretation of the Land Claims Agreement, it is necessary for us to

co-ordinate with all the other departments, Justice, Natural Resources,

Environment, etcetera. Again that is why I referred back to your previous

question about why the Aboriginal Affairs unit is housed in St. John's. Those

kinds of mechanisms get in place. You need to have an immediate and direct and

daily by-the-moment access with senior officials and all officials of

government.

Actually, David, if you would comment on that?

MR. HUGHES: As you are aware, the Nunatsiavut government is a work in

progress. It has basically been in existence for two years. We have been working

with them on the implementation of the Land Claims Agreement and there are

really a number of aspects to the Land Claims Agreement. The minister mentioned

the devolution of programs and services which you will find in

chapter 17 of the

agreement, where we have committed to devolve not just programs and services but

facilities and everything else. That was supposed to have been initiated in the

first three years, but basically at the request of the Nunatsiavut government we

have not been pushing because it is not in our interests, the people's

interests or the Nunatsiavut government's interests to push this when they are

not ready.

There is a social aspect to the agreement. There is also a lands and resource

aspect to the agreement. What you have seen over the last year or so is the

Nunatsiavut government implementing legislation with respect to management of

the lands and their own internal affairs and we have certainly been involved

with that. We worked with the Department of Natural Resources in assisting them

doing their mineral policies. We have been actively involved with them in the

creation of boards, because boards are a joint responsibility between us, the

federal government and the Nunatsiavut government, and over the last year or so

you have seen the establishment of boards. Those boards, again, you will see

upcoming, really starting to operate in terms of management of resources as

appropriate through the agreement.

We have been actively involved with the Nunatsiavut government and the

federal government in working through the implementation process, developing

plans in terms of how that process can be evaluated. What you probably will see

over the next year is the kind of planning process and business plan in terms of

the implementation of the agreement that we are seeing in business plans which

are coming through the House; transparency and accountability. You will see that

coming over the next year as we work within the Nunatsiavut government and the

federal government.

We have been actively involved in some of the discussions that are going on

now over Makkovik and the Makkovik agreement, which you have seen go through the

House of Parliament. As Rob said, on a daily basis, in any week, we can get

requests from the Nunatsiavut government for assistance and we will either

assist them ourselves or direct them to the appropriate department and then work

with the department and the Nunatsiavut government in addressing whatever the

particular issue was. We have seen that in housing issues, we have seen that in

a whole raft of issues. Rightly or wrongly, we are the first point of contact,

in many respects, for this new government. Our work is to work with them and

with other government departments.

MS JONES: In terms of the devolution of programs and services that would

be taken over by Nunatsiavut at some stage, how was the transfer of financial

revenues then done to accommodate for those services that they will control? Is

that then still paid by the provincial government or paid by the federal

government?

MR. HUGHES: At some other point if you want to talk about the fiscal

agreements we can certainly do that, but there are four agreements respecting

the financial aspects of the new government. There is a thing called the Fiscal

Financing Agreement. The Fiscal Financing Agreement is really in two parts: The

first

part is the federal government's transfer agreement. Essentially what

the federal government did is all of the programs they used to provide directly

to the LIA or to the LIHC, the Labrador Inuit Health Commission, they bundled

them all up together, clocked them in an agreement and put certain requirements

on the Nunatsiavut government. That is their funding agreement. When we were

doing the negotiations we offered to do the equivalent, to bundle our programs

together and look at the transfer, but because of the pace of the negotiations

it was not the appropriate time to do it.

What you will see in the Fiscal Financing Agreement is the commitment from

the government to transfer funding for the programs and services. What we have

committed to do is basically to transfer the programs and services. Whatever it

is we are paying now, or government is paying now, for education in the five

Inuit communities that money will go to the Nunatsiavut government. We will have

an agreement with them to deliver that program or service in the community.

It is anticipated in the self-government agreement and the Fiscal Financing

Agreement that there will be some variation in that program to make it more

appropriate for the Inuit, especially if the Inuit are actually managing the

program. You have that aspect of it. So this provincial money is going in in

terms of, we have not taking anything off the table basically. We will provide

them with whatever it costs to deliver the program in the community. It is not

frozen at 2008 or 2005 levels, it will be whatever we do when we fund a board.

It will be equivalent to the funding process that we go through with a board. We

will be funding the Nunatsiavut government.

The second source of revenue the Nunatsiavut government has gotten, you have

probably seen that much of this is being used now just for the running of the

their government and that is their own source revenue. There are really two or

three parts to that. There is money they are getting through the capital

transfer with the federal government; there is money they are getting through

resource revenue sharing which they have achieved under the Land Claims

Agreement; and then there is impacted benefit money which they are getting

through Voisey's Bay, PIBA, Park Impacts and Benefits Agreement, and other

sources like that. It would be three sources of funding going up into the

community, federal money for federal programs, provincial money for the basic

programs and then own source revenue which is coming through the Nunatsiavut

government.

MS JONES: I assume then that there will not be any transfer of those

services in the next fiscal year. We have not seen anything budgeted for it in

any way in the Estimates.

MR. HUGHES: It would be very, very unlikely that anything will go this

year, minus small things. We basically said we are prepared to transfer anything

that goes on in the community. One thing that will be happening this year is

money for off-reserve housing. That money, rather than being administered by the

Province we will do it through the Nunatsiavut government, which would be a

small administration. As I said earlier, it is not in anybody's interest to

push this issue with the Nunatsiavut government and we are very much waiting for

them to ask. That is not to say that we have not put out feelers on education

and feelers on health care. Basically we are at their call.

MR. COOMBS: (Inaudible) very limited capacity resources to take on huge

programs.

MR. HUGHES: If you look at what they have achieved in the short time they

have been in existence it is a tremendous amount, when you look at just putting

the basic infrastructure of a government together, in getting all the

legislation in place you need to operate. That has really consumed them in the

last year or so.

CHAIR: Just for the interests of people who are keeping track of the

minutes and so on, when you move from speaker to speaker could you just state

your name, please. I should have told you that in the beginning actually. I

apologize for that.

MS JONES: I certainly understand that there has to be a process that they

go through before they are ready to take on some of these services. I am just

inquisitive as to what the role would be in Aboriginal Affairs when this starts

to happen. Let's look at the education piece, for example. If they start

taking over their own education system, running their own education system, will

that then, transfers, be done through the Department of Education or will it be

done through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. HUGHES: That has not been determined. I can give you a preference

which would be through education. That will be a very complex process because

that is going to involve very complex discussions, not only relating to-

MS JONES: Well, that is just an example. You can pick a simple example.

My question is based on who will be the department that administers the fund to

the Nunatsiavut government. Will it be Aboriginal Affairs or will it be the line

departments of government, no matter what the issue is? I just used education as

an example.

MR. HUGHES: Obviously we are going to seek direction when we get involved

in these negotiations, and that is possibly a question that we will ask.

The Nunatsiavut government wants to develop a government-to-government

relationship with the Province. There has been a lot of internal thinking

without any conclusion about how best to achieve that. That is something that we

will bring to Cabinet as appropriate and that will involve heavy discussions

with the departments and the Nunatsiavut government.

MR. COOMBS: Mr. Chair, if I could add to that.

Again I will revert back to the recent mineral decision of the Nunatsiavut

government. That created quite a flurry of activity, because at the time we did

not know who would be the principle contact point with the Nunatsiavut

government because the issue spanned several different agencies, particularly

Environment, Justice, Natural Resources and Aboriginal Affairs.

This was just one small piece. I can imagine when we get to the bigger pieces

of education and health and justice or everything else that we want to pass on,

that there will be a lot of dialogue between all the various agencies.

MR. HUGHES: As you are aware, obviously, by your question, this is

something that none of us has done before, and it has not really been done in

this way anywhere else before, except for B.C. In B.C., the example we have

there was Indians on reserve, the Nisga'a.

This is very, very different, because we have a different relationship with

the federal government and the Inuit. We have never done it before, they have

never done it before, and this is something that we are going to have to work

our way through, but we will be doing it together, in association with the

departments as well. It is a good question. It is a question we have asked

internally.

MS JONES: The thirteen employees who work in your department, Minister,

what are their job titles?

MS POTTLE: (Inaudible) the breakdown here. We have the Assistant Deputy

Minister, five analysts, two chief negotiators, a Director of Policy and

Planning and support staff.

MS JONES: The salary in your office has doubled up this year. It went

from $104,000 last year to $204,000. Is that because there are now two ministers

in this Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs? I do not know how else to

ask the question because the estimates are all based on two ministers in two

different departments.

MS POTTLE: Yes. Well, the increase in salaries would be because of the

two dedicated ministers and the support staff.

MS JONES: Okay. This one is just the salary, I guess, for the ministers.

Last year you spent $30,000 less than you budgeted for salaries in the minister's

office. Why was that?

MS POTTLE: There were vacancies throughout - one of the policy analysts

was vacant. Pardon? Oh, the minister's office?

MS JONES: Yes.

MS POTTLE: Oh, I am sorry. Which one is -

MS JONES: 1.1.01.

MS POTTLE: David, can you take that?

MR. HUGHES: We got our two new ministers late in the year and there were

estimates based on what it would cost to fund the two ministers after November.

There was a delay in hiring my colleague here, Mr. Tompkins, and the minister's

secretarial staff. So the estimate that went in - we had our budget increased

last year to take account of the new minister. That was basically - we did delay

in recruiting the staff to fill those positions.

MS JONES: You budgeted $50,000 for Transportation and Communications but

you spent $70,000. I am just wondering what the extra $20,000 was spent on?

MS POTTLE: Part of that, again, was because of two dedicated ministers.

As you probably can appreciate, I come from the coast and they had added expense

there. The cost of travel itself has gone up. Was there any

MS JONES: Last year you spent $9,000 on Purchased Services, which was

$6,600 more than you had budgeted. I am just wondering, what additional services

did you buy or what services did you buy last year under that heading?

MS POTTLE: Under Purchased Services?

MS JONES: 1.1.04.

MS POTTLE: There was an employment opportunity ad that was for a

department secretary for the Minister of Labrador Affairs, and there were

conference and trade show costs associated there.

MS JONES: What was the conference and trade show?

MS POTTLE: There was a Circumpolar Agriculture Conference, a UVS Canada

Conference, and a Northern Lights 2008 Trade Show and Conference.

MS JONES: I cannot hear you very well. Can you fix your mike or talk a

bit louder? We are having trouble trying to get your responses.

MS POTTLE: Okay. The conferences were: the Circumpolar Agriculture

Conference, the UVS Canada Conference, and the Northern Lights 2008 Trade Show

and Conference.

MR. COOMBS: Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

Those numbers as well, because it is a blended department, those reflect the

Labrador Affairs branch.

MS JONES: Yes, I am aware of that.

Under Executive Support, line 1.2.01. Last year you budgeted $548,600 for

Executive Support Salaries, you only paid out $463,100. What salaries were

budgeted for but were not paid out in the last fiscal year?

MR. COOMBS: We have been dealing in both branches, and I think all

government is dealing with the issue of a drain of employees and a lot of

vacancies in positions.

On the Labrador Affairs side, at one point between last summer and fall we

were short three analysts.

In Aboriginal Affairs, we were short a director for approximately seven

months, an analyst for another three months, and we still have vacancies yet. So

the savings that are realized is due to vacancies and difficulty in recruiting,

which is being faced by all businesses and government.

MS JONES: This year you budgeted $569,900 for these Salaries, $57,500 of

which is listed for temporary and other employees. Can you give me some details

on that, please?

MR. COOMBS: The details there, is that in this budget we were approved

for a new analyst position. As well, there is provision there for funds for the

communications director. So that bumps it up - and a departmental program

coordinator on the Labrador Affairs side.

MS JONES: Both of them are on the Labrador Affairs side?

MR. COOMBS: Well, the Director of Communications is across both.

MS JONES: It is just that in the salary estimate, which is a separate

document from this estimate, it talks about it as being temporary employees.

MR. COOMBS: The departmental program coordinator?

MS JONES: The $57,500 of which was listed.

On page 47 of the Salary and Benefits of Government, under the Department of

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, it talks about, under Executive Support, that

there would be an extra $57,500 budgeted for temporary and other employees. That

would tell me that they are not permanent employees, they are not new positions

that would become a permanent part of the public service. I am just wondering

what those temporary employees would be, what period they are being hired for,

what job they will be responsible to do?

MR. COOMBS : It relates to, one is there is an analyst position created

that - David can correct me. It is an analyst position to deal with implementing

recommendations of the National Aboriginal Women's Summit that occurred in

Corner Brook last year. The department budgeted for this analyst and was

approved. That amount was for $32,500 and we are also approved to another - I

don't know the exact details, but we are also approved for a departmental

program coordinator. Partial salary, I think, was $31,000.

MR. HUGHES: The analyst position that we have hired is because of the

government's priority on Aboriginal communities, especially women's issues.

What we wanted to do was hire someone to assist us in the process of working

with Aboriginal women's groups in the Province, a senior executive in

developing programs and looking at how the various recommendations that came out

of Corner Brook can be implemented. That was not put in as a permanent position

because, being responsible, we wanted to see how this thing worked out over time

and then, subsequently, it has been approved as a temporary position for three

years, subject to appropriation. It is only funded for six months this year,

basically because, as Rob said, of the difficulties in recruiting these kinds of

positions in government. There just are not the people around.

MS JONES: Also, in the salary funding under Aboriginal Affairs there are

permanent and other adjustments being made of $33,715. That is up about $20,000

from last year in terms of adjustment. Has there been some reclassification of

employees in your office? I do not know what could have contributed to such a

high increase. I know there are standard, normal raises that the public service

gets, but I am just wondering if there were some reclassifications, some step

increases, something that might have been done in your staff to contribute to

that?

MR. COOMBS: Purely what you indicated.

MS JONES: Pardon?

MR. COOMBS: Purely what you indicated, step increases.

MS JONES: Okay. Were there any new positions created to accommodate those

step increases or were they done to accommodate new positions, I should say,

that were created?

MR. COOMBS: No, I think they are just your standard year by year

increases for staff, employee benefits -

MS JONES: So there was always an ADM, there was always a director?

MR. COOMBS: Yes. Now the only difference over last year was that - no,

you have hit it.

MS JONES: Last year there would have been an ADM for Aboriginal Affairs

and an ADM for Labrador Affairs?

MR. COOMBS: Correct, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. The director positions, there would have been one for

Labrador Affairs and one for Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. COOMBS: Correct, yes (inaudible).

MS JONES: There were no new positions created like that?

MR. COOMBS: No, not last year. No new permanent positions, no.

MS JONES: That full $33,000 would have been step increases?

CHAIR: If I could interrupt here, are we waiting on a response or a

question?

MR. COOMBS: No.

MS JONES: Oh, I thought I was waiting for a response.

MR. COOMBS: No, I am sorry. No, it is just simply that

MS JONES: I was just wondering how many people were reclassified to make

up that $33,000?

MR. COOMBS: There were no reclassifications last year.

MS JONES: Okay. They were all step increases?

MR. COOMBS: They were all step increases, yes.

MS JONES: And none of them were new employees, they were all existing

employees that were given step increases? It is just that it is a lot of money

for step increases when you weigh it out against other estimates in other

departments. That is why I asked the question. If it looked like it was in

configuration with regular step increases I would have just skipped over it.

MR. COOMBS: Yes. I am going to think on that one. As I indicated, it is

expressly that. I think probably we can get back to you with the information to

confirm that, have a chat with our HR people, our finance division.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under

section 2.1.01., which is directly related to Aboriginal Affairs

spending, last year the spending for Salaries was $539,200. It was $148,900 less

than you had budgeted. Why did you spend less last year than you had budgeted?

MS POTTLE: It was based on vacancies within the department.

MS JONES: So, there were vacancies here as well as in the support staff

in the department? Can you tell me what positions were vacant under that

heading?

MR. HUGHES: Rob has already mentioned, we were without a director for

seven months, an analyst for four to six months. Secretarial positions we were

filling late in the term. It is basically the difference in the salaries not

being spent, not that the people were not needed.

MS JONES: Okay. I understand his explanation was for

section 1.2.01.

headings. That is why I am confused now. He told me, when I asked about the

savings under that heading, that it was due to the fact that there was a

director's position and an analyst position that was not filled. It cannot be

under two budgets. It is only under one budget. Were there any other positions

that were not filled?

MR. HUGHES: I might be getting confused, or we are confusing you.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under

section 2.1.01. you spent almost $149,000 less than you had budgeted

for Salaries. Can you tell me what jobs were not filled?

MR. COOMBS: Under 2.1.01?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. COOMBS: Okay. That was the position David mentioned. It was the

Director of Policy and Planning for Aboriginal Affairs was not staffed for

approximately seven months, and there was another analyst position that was

vacant for three months. We are currently still one analyst short. So we are

realizing savings as we go on. That is sort of why I commented on, not only

across Aboriginal Affairs but Labrador Affairs side as well.

Last year we had, for one period, three analysts at one time that were not on

staff. So we were realizing savings at that point as well. There was about a

three-month period before we got them all staffed.

MS JONES: Are all the positions filled now?

MR. COOMBS: The Labrador Affairs -

MS JONES: No, this is just Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. COOMBS: No, we have a new policy analyst position to fill. The one

related to the NAWS, National group of Aboriginal Women's Summit that was

approved in this budget. We have another analyst position, permanent position to

fill, and that's it.

MS JONES: Okay.

Also, in the budget you have allocated $93,000 for temporary and other

employees under Aboriginal Affairs. Can you tell me what positions they are?

MR. COOMBS: Pardon me, under what

section again?

MS JONES: Under

section 2.1.01.01., which is your Salaries. You go to

page 47 of the Departmental Salaries for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and

there is $93,000 budgeted for temporary employees. Can you tell me what

temporary positions this is?

MR. COOMBS: Those numbers relate to a secretary to the assistant deputy

minister position. That is temporary staff on an ongoing basis, and then there

is a Clerk III that is on a temporary staffing as well.

MS JONES: The $93,000, that would cover two secretaries on a temporary

basis?

MR. COOMBS: Secretaries and -

MS JONES: They get paid good, $47,000 a year secretaries.

MR. COOMBS: That includes estimates for increases. That is the estimated

amount.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under Purchased Services, last year you budgeted $420,000 for Professional

Services. Obviously, you did not spend all this money. You spent only about

$268,000 of it. I am just wondering what it was purchased for that you did not

need to use afterwards? What it was budgeted for, I should say, that you did not

need to use afterwards?

MR. COOMBS: This relates to funding for the National Aboriginal Women's

Summit, $340,000. That was a one-time measure and was budgeted in Purchased

Services.

MS JONES: You spent $268,000. So I guess it must have cost $268,000

after, did it, or?

MR. COOMBS: No. Actually, I think it was more than that, because it was

also spread across - and there was a federal offsetting measure as well.

MS JONES: Okay. The federal revenue that you received, which was

$150,000, was that all received for this women's conference?

MR. COOMBS: Yes.

MS JONES: It was?

MR. COOMBS: Yes.

MS JONES: Therefore, the other $200,000 would have come from Purchased

Services, is that what you are telling me?

MR. HUGHES: The way this is being handled by our finance and

administration people is

whereas we budgeted it in Purchased Services, the

actual recording of where the expenditure was made is actually in other

accounts. So it is an adjustment which is being made for this being accounted

for elsewhere. Now, do not ask me - I can find out for you where it was but it

is a bit of arcane science I am not familiar with.

MS JONES: Yes.

Well, you did budget $420,000. Was there another event, another service you

were going to require that you did not require afterwards?

MR. HUGHES: No. This was an estimate of what we thought the conference

would -

MS JONES: - women's conference would cost.

MR. HUGHES: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. HUGHES: And then we had the offsetting funding to balance it.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under your Grants and Subsidies, you also budgeted $664,000. You only spent

about $472,000. First of all, I do not know what your Grants and Subsidies are.

Maybe you could tell me that?

MR. COOMBS: On this item, that purely relates to Labrador Inuit Land

Claims Agreement implementation. You are basically looking at the cost for the

wildlife management board, the fisheries board, and the Dispute Resolution

Board. That is the biggest bulk of those.

MS JONES: Okay. So you would pay for these board operations to do the

(inaudible)?

MR. COOMBS: It is a three-way payment because the federal government is

also a member of these boards as well. So we have a contribution agreement

between the parties to the land claims agreement.

MS JONES: Okay. I guess the federal cost is incurred directly by them. It

does not come through you guys.

MR. COOMBS: It does not flow through us.

OFFICIAL: It flows through the Nunatsiavut government.

MS JONES: Okay. All right then.

I guess the reason your Grants and Subsidies is up again this year is because

you are projecting that you would spend that amount of money. It is nothing

extra built into that, is it?

MR. COOMBS: No.

MS JONES: Okay, it is all for that.

Also, you have there that the provincial revenue collected last year is

$22,000. I am just wondering what you would be collecting money for? What would

that be?

MR. COOMBS: That was also related to the National Aboriginal Women's

Summit. There were sponsorships made available. That reflects sponsorships from

two corporations.

MS JONES: Okay.

That is basically it for the numbers, but I have some other questions as

well.

One of them, I guess, is related to the Metis hunters who were charged in

Labrador. Metis being an Aboriginal group in Labrador who had traditionally

hunted under agreements with the provincial government without prosecution and

without investigation or being stopped other than for routine checks, like would

happen with any hunter, but last year they were stopped and information was

collected. At that time the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was in the media

saying they were doing routine checks and that there was not an intention to

prosecute. However, months later they did receive a summons to go to court. They

now have to go to court to look to have this case settled.

Basically, what it comes back to is that Metis, consecutively for two years,

hunted under agreements with the provincial government whereby they allocated

tags for a caribou hunt to their own members and they had rules and regulations

that had to be abided by in order to do that hunt. They thought they were

operating under the same context back a year ago but in essence, later, months

later actually, leading into the fall, their members were charged.

I have to ask, why was there a switch in this? Why would the Minister of

Aboriginal Affairs, at the time, be saying that they would not be charged but

yet four or five months later charges were indeed laid and now they have to go

before the courts to be able to defend themselves?

MS POTTLE: I am not aware of any agreement that was made between the

provincial government and the Labrador Metis Nation with regards to hunting

rights.

MS JONES: You may not be aware of it, it dated back prior to your

election. For two years they did hunt and were not charged by the provincial

government. I do not know if there is written documentation or anything of that

nature, but I know there were rules and regulations around conservation that was

worked out. I know that they did hunt, they issued tags and that they were not

charged. I guess my concern is the fact that they are now being charged and I am

wondering why that is?

MS POTTLE: I guess you are referring to the no seizure policy. As far as

I know, there was not any agreement with regards to allowing them to hunt at

leisure but there is a no seizure policy, unless the equipment, game and have

not, would be required as evidence before the court.

MS JONES: No, there is a no seizure policy. They fall under a different

agreement. There were sixteen of them that were stopped, information was

collected, recorded in terms of their licences, their permit to carry guns, all

of the other federal-provincial pieces that have to be looked at. None of their

gear was confiscated or seized by the authorities. It took them five to six

months before any charges were actually laid.

I have concerns about it because there are interviews documented. We have

both audio clips and written clips in which your predecessor, the former

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, said that they had no intentions at that time of

laying charges but was doing a routine check.

MS POTTLE: I am not aware of any agreement between the Province and the

Labrador Metis Nation. So I will let Rob -

MR. COOMBS: There is no formal agreement. What the Province has been

operating under for a number of years now is a restrained seizure policy where

they will check people and they will take information, they will take

photographs of equipment and any game that may be captured, but the bottom line

is there is a no seizure policy and it is not a no charge policy. So, yes, a

charge can follow. I would rather defer that to our counterparts at Justice, but

that is essentially my understanding of the dealing with the Labrador Metis

Nation when it comes to their assertion of traditional harvesting rights.

MR. HUGHES: There has never been an agreement with the Labrador Metis

concerning hunting. The Labrador Metis has approached the Province on a number

of occasions, wanting the Province to recognize their ability to issue tags and

recognize those tags, but that process has never been accepted by the Province.

MS JONES: You are aware that they were engaged in hunting practices and

enforcing their own conservation practices for several years while this

government was in power, prior to this happening?

MR. HUGHES: They have been doing that even prior to this government being

in power. As I said, they have been seeking for recognition by the Province -

well, acceptance by the Province of the licences issued by the Labrador Metis

Nation, and that has never happened.

MS JONES: Also, on the Mealy Mountain Park area, as you know, there are

Aboriginal groups in Labrador impacted by this. The Innu Nation and the Metis

Nation originally supported the original footprint of land, the 21,000 square

kilometres that was to be looked at as the basis for the park in the Mealy

Mountains. Your government is now proposing to cut this footprint in half, down

to about 12,000 square kilometres.

I am wondering if you have had any consultation with these Aboriginal groups

directly on that issue?

MS POTTLE: I have not had any direct conversations with the Aboriginal

groups. I know that they are represented. They are a part of the steering

committee. The Labrador Metis Nation, the Nunatsiavut government and the Innu

Nation all stood at this steering committee. As far as I know, the steering

committee has not come back to the provincial government with regards to their

latest proposal.

MS JONES: There is also some dispute over whether Parks Canada will

negotiate separate agreements, IVA agreements, with the Metis Nation. I am

wondering if you have had any intervention there?

MS POTTLE: The first I heard about that was on CBC this morning. It is

something that they are seeking from Parks Canada, which is federal

jurisdiction.

MS JONES: But, they are an Aboriginal group and they were invited to

participate in this process. I guess from where I sit, I think they are probably

- their people are most impacted by anything that is going to happen in this

park, probably more so than some of the other Aboriginal groups in Labrador.

Well, especially more so than the Labrador Inuit because it falls outside of

their initial land claim areas.

I am wondering if you are prepared to make representation to the federal

government to ensure that there are impact benefit agreements looked at for the

Mtis Nation with regard to this issue.

MS POTTLE: We know that the Labrador Mtis Nation is waiting for the

federal government to make a decision on their claim. Right now they do not have

any title, the Aboriginal (inaudible) has not been determined, and until that is

done we support that. We have written the federal government on a number of

occasions just like past administrations have done, on behalf of the

(inaudible), to encourage the federal government to make a decision on their

claim, and to date there has not been a decision made.

MS JONES: What representation have you made to the federal government to

ask them to fast track their consideration of the Mtis claim in Labrador?

MS POTTLE: Just last month, in April, we wrote Minister Strahl again

encouraging them to view the Labrador Mtis Nation's claim.

MS JONES: Are you aware that they have money allocated now to do further

work on their claim by the federal government?

MS POTTLE: Yes, I am.

MS JONES: In terms of the Mealy Mountain park, why is it that your

government wants to take the Eagle River out of this national park area?

MS POTTLE: Mealy Mountain park is something under the Department of

Environment and Conservation and I would rather the minister for that department

speak on behalf of their discussions there.

MS JONES: Approximately 25 per cent of the children in Innu communities

in Labrador are in foster care. We realize, and I am sure you do, that

Aboriginal communities have very unique and special issues that they oftentimes

have to face. We have had this raised with us on a number of occasions, and I am

just wondering what your involvement has been in the issue and what is being

done to increase the number of spaces that can be available for foster children

in the Innu communities. Also, are there any programs, new programs, I guess,

being initiated in those communities to help the healing process with parents,

so that we can see some of these children returning back to their homes?

MS POTTLE: I had numerous discussions with the Minister of Health about

this social work issue within Labrador itself, on the North coast. We know that

there are a number of vacancies there. Recruitment and retention of social

workers is extremely difficult. We are trying to be creative, to think outside

the box of ways to encourage social workers to come to Northern Labrador. There

are vacancies right across the Province and it is something that is a work in

progress.

MS JONES: Are you asking for special benefits to attract social workers

into Northern Labrador?

MS POTTLE: Well, social workers are unionized and their union would

negotiate that for them, but we are trying to find ways of attracting social

workers to the isolated communities.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Chair, this is part of my education, this process.

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Do we restrict ourselves to Estimates here or do we go

into policy? Is it part of the Estimates Committee to go policy route? Again, it

could very well be yes but I do not know so I thought I would ask.

CHAIR: I guess in past traditions we have done the line by line items and

then the committee has the opportunity to ask questions to the government of the

day. The only thing I can say to it is that the Speaker made a ruling today that

the references stay close to the department and not ask ministers questions

related to other departments, if that is what you are referring to.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: No, no. I was just wondering where this is- we have gone

through the line items there and I was wondering about the function.

CHAIR: Generally speaking the committee can ask

MR. BUCKINGHAM: But you fetter out more information about where the

department is going.

MS JONES: Just for the information of the Member for St. John's East,

and I understand that you are new to the committee, I have been doing the

estimates for thirteen years now in the House of Assembly and every estimate

committee I have ever been involved with has asked questions relative or

somewhat related to that department and what the responsibilities of that

minister would be. That is just my own experience, but if there is a written

policy somewhere that says you cannot ask these questions I am certainly not

aware of it.

CHAIR: My understanding is it is the responsibility of the minister.

MS JONES: It is always up to the minister if they want to answer or not.

They do not have to.

MS JONES: My other question is around the Aboriginal Housing Program. I

understand that that particular program was signed off by the federal government

nearly two years ago. We have yet to see an application coming forward in the

Aboriginal communities for people to apply, and I am wondering why it has been

delayed for so long.

MS POTTLE: From what I understand, last season there was some concern

from the Nunatsiavut government as to how this money flowed through to the

Province without their consultation from the federal government. That issue has

been resolved. All Aboriginal groups have been consulted and have been a part of

developing this program. In the very, very near future the Aboriginal groups

will have the opportunity to have applications available for their people to

fill out and apply for a home repair program. For this season, the upcoming

season, the money will be there and the money will be disbursed.

MS JONES: I understand from the officials with Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing in Labrador that there could be well over a hundred applications on

their books that are relative to Aboriginal families. Will those people have to

reapply or will they automatically be turned over for consideration under the

new funding?

MS POTTLE: What program would that be? Aboriginal people are still

eligible for the home repair program through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

The money that is flowing through now, through the Off-Reserve Aboriginal

Housing trust, is a different program. If they want to apply for that, they will

have to fill out an application for that program.

MS JONES: Because my understanding is that there is a wait-list that is

up to two years under the regular home improvement program - I do not know what

the actual word for it is now, but where people get money to do upgrades to

their houses - and that there are a number of Aboriginal families that have

applied that are on that wait-list. What you are telling me is that if they want

money under the Aboriginal program now, they have to resubmit a new application,

even though they have been on a wait-list for two years for a regular program.

MS POTTLE: If they want to apply for the additional funding.

MS JONES: So you can get funding under both programs for the same family,

the same home?

MS POTTLE: There is the program through Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing. I think it is up to $6,500 that you would be eligible for, and then

over and above you can apply for the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing trust. That

is how I understand it, yes. They would have to actually fill out another

application for the new program.

With regard to the wait-list, what I understand with our last meeting with

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing was that I think they had six applications

last year from some Aboriginal communities and four of them did not get done

because they did not have contractors or workers in the community to do the work

for them. It was just two of the six that the work was completed for.

MS JONES: In my district, as well?

MS POTTLE: I am not sure about your district.

MS JONES: Well, I have an Aboriginal district too and those were not the

numbers they gave me.

MS POTTLE: They did not discuss the numbers on the South Coast of

Labrador. They were numbers that were discussed during a meeting with the

Nunatsiavut government.

MS JONES: In the future, as the minister, maybe you should ask about all

of the Aboriginal communities, because I was told different numbers in terms of

Aboriginal applications. I have communities that are predominant 80 per cent

Aboriginal people. I know there are a lot of applications from those communities

that have been on a wait-list.

You are telling me that they can access money from both programs for their

home at the same time. Is that what I am understanding from you?

MS POTTLE: That is how I understand it, yes.

MS JONES: The regular program offered by the Province is a grant program.

The new program, being where the funds are allocated by the feds, how does that

work? What is a homeowner eligible for?

MS POTTLE: Pardon?

MS JONES: What is your eligibility under that program?

MS POTTLE: I do not have the details in front of me but we can get that

as soon as it is available.

MS JONES: Okay. But it is for upgrades, it is not for new houses? It is

to fix up the house that you currently have, is it?

MS POTTLE: The Off-Reserve Aboriginal Trust is for home repair.

MS JONES: Home repair, okay.

Those are about all of the questions that I have.

I want to thank the minister for her answers, and her officials, and thank

you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I guess we will call subheads 1.1.01 to 2.1.01, excluding, of course, 2.1.02

which is Labrador Affairs.

Shall they carry?

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 to 2.1.01, excluding 2.1.02, carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

On motion, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Aboriginal

Affairs carried?

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs carried.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Again, thank you, Minister, and thank you to your officials for taking time.

I have a couple of small housekeeping things we have to do.

First, can I have a motion to adopt the minutes of the Government Services

Committee Department of Finance this morning? Before I do I would like to note

that Mr. Clayton Forsey is not on the list, so if the MHA could be added to

those minutes.

Could I have a motion to adopt the minutes please?

Moved by Ms Marshall and seconded by Mr. Dinn.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: One more thing, the next meeting of the Government Services

Committee is on Wednesday afternoon after the session of the House in the

Executive Dining Room and it is Government Services. So it is Wednesday night,

Executive Dining Room, Government Services.

Just a note too, that as I mentioned earlier the Labrador Affairs piece will

be done Tuesday morning at 9:00, May 20, here in the House of Assembly.

Thank you very much.

The Committee meeting stands adjourned.