Resource Committee

2022-05-03

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PDF Version

May 3, 2022

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lela Evans, MHA for Torngat Mountains,

substitutes for Jordan Brown, MHA for Labrador West.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Hogan, MHA for Windsor Lake, substitutes for

Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Sarah Stoodley, MHA for Mount Scio, substitutes

for Paul Pike, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lisa Dempster, MHA for Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair, substitutes for Lucy Stoyles, MHA for Mount Pearl North.

The

Committee met at 9 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Warr):

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Estimates of the Department of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. I certainly want to welcome both the staff

and the Committee here this morning.

Before

we get started, I'm going to make an announcement on some substitutions.

Substituting for the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's is the Member for Windsor

Lake; substituting for the Member for Mount Pearl North is the Member for

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair; substituting for the Member for Burin - Grand Bank

is the Member for Mount Scio; and substituting for the Member for Labrador West

is the Member for Torngat Mountains.

Just

some housekeeping duties. I see we have a non-affiliated Member this morning. I

just want to make sure that the Committee is okay with providing that Member

with time some at the end. Usually it's 10 minutes at the end of our Estimates.

Everybody in agreement? Thank you very much.

Just a

reminder to our department officials that if you have to speak to a question,

just to identify yourself, wait for your tally light and then continue on with

your remarks.

Members

are reminded not to make any adjustments to the seats they are seated in. They

are just specifically for the Members of the House of Assembly and if you need

water, water coolers are at both ends of the Chamber.

So this

morning, first I'll ask the Members of the Committee to introduce themselves and

then I'll ask the minister and his staff to introduce themselves. Following

that, I'll ask the Committee to move the minutes of the previous meeting.

Anyway,

if we could start with MHA Pardy to introduce yourself, please.

C. PARDY:

Craig Pardy, MHA, District

of Bonavista.

P. FORSEY:

Pleaman Forsey, MHA for

Exploits.

L. EVANS:

Lela Evans, MHA for Torngat

Mountains.

S. FLEMING:

Scott Fleming, Researcher, Third Party Caucus.

D. PORTER:

David Porter, Official Opposition Office.

N. RYAN:

Nathan Ryan, Official Opposition Office.

J. HOGAN:

John Hogan, MHA for Windsor Lake.

S. PRITCHETT:

Sonja Pritchett, Research Coordinator, GMO.

S. STOODLEY:

Sarah Stoodley, MHA for Mount Scio.

L. DEMPSTER:

Good morning, everyone. Lisa Dempster, MHA for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

P. TRIMPER:

Perry Trimper, MHA for Lake Melville.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I call for a motion to adopt the minutes of April 12.

Motion is made by MHA Pardy.

Seconder? MHA Forsey.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

I would ask the minister now to introduce himself and we will go through the

Committee as well.

D. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, Minister of Fishery, Forestry and Agriculture.

T. KING:

Tracy King, Deputy Minister.

P. IVIMEY:

Philip Ivimey, Departmental Controller.

E. SHEA:

Erin Shea, Communications Director.

L. ROBERTS:

Lorelei Roberts, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture.

S. BALSOM:

Steve Balsom, Assistant Deputy Minister, Forestry and Wildlife.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I will ask the Clerk to call the first of the subheads please.

CLERK (Beazley):

For the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture: Executive and Support

Services, 1.1.01 to 1.2.02.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.02 carry?

Minister, your opening remarks, please.

D. BRAGG:

My opening remarks today will be very brief because I know last year we didn't

have a lot of time. We have three hours this morning. We have a small but mighty

crew around us here, but we have a big department and we cover every inch of

this province in this department – whether it is Crown Lands, whether it is

Forestry, you name it, we are the ones. We are growing it, we are harvesting it

and it is just a wonderful department.

So I am looking forward to the questions from the Members opposite this morning

and I don't see any need to prolong this. Let us get into it, if you are ready.

CHAIR:

1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive.

MHA Pardy.

C. PARDY:

Thank you Chair.

I was fully expecting, Minister, that you would go over with all of your vacancy

and staffing numbers but I would say will all those be in the binder that we

will receive?

T. KING:

We can give it to you in a binder, yes.

D. BRAGG:

So yes, in response to that, as the deputy just said, we can provide that in the

binder because if you look through it, every subheading shows the positions and

throughout the year some may be vacant, some are not vacant. I think 165 last

year would have been the number vacant and then filled. So we can give you an

updated number with the binder.

C. PARDY:

I was going to tag along –

D. BRAGG:

And we will give you the binder at the end of the session by the way.

C. PARDY:

Okay. T hat is good.

Did the Department of

Finance indicate your attrition targets for this fiscal? I remember the figures

were stated in the Estimates last year as to what the attrition figure was for

the past two years.

D. BRAGG:

Deputy –

T. KING:

So for '22-'23 there is no attrition target. Our attrition for '21, for the

total, from 2020 to 2022, was 358,000, but there was nothing further for this

year.

C. PARDY:

Okay, so you had attrition

targets for the past two years but no attrition targets for '22-'23?

T. KING:

That's right.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

Just

another clarification; you stated you have a big department. You've certainly,

probably got one of the biggest departments in Newfoundland and Labrador. We

have three hours in Estimates. Would it be that if you've got subheadings of

three departments, would three hours be adequate to cover it, or would each

subheading –?

D. BRAGG:

We feel three hours to be

adequate; depending on the amount of questions you guys have, obviously. And

what does not come out here, any time if you want to drop by over to the office,

we can follow up on any follow-up questions you might have if you don't have

enough. So we'll get through what we can here today, and if you have follow-up

questions, by all means reach out to us, we'll set up a meeting and we'll work

through the rest of them.

C. PARDY:

I'm on record – my hon.

colleague from Exploits has said: Make sure you're succinct and on point.

Sometimes it's a struggle for me, so I'm going to make sure that I'm going to be

finished in about an hour and a half so he's got enough time.

D. BRAGG:

Okay, well, you've got to

think about the other people.

C. PARDY:

They've got their due

allotment anyhow, right?

D. BRAGG:

That's right.

P. FORSEY:

They're counted in.

C. PARDY:

They're counted in, yeah.

Okay,

1.1.01, in the Minister's Office, the department spent $15,000 more than was

budgeted last year in Salaries.

D. BRAGG:

Okay, so that's a variance

due to routine salary adjustments.

C. PARDY:

Routine salary adjustments?

D. BRAGG:

No – variance due to the

change in the ministerial executive assistant during the year, and salary

difference between the former and current EA. So the former EA and the current

EA would have had a different salary structure depending on their time with the

province.

C. PARDY:

Okay, incrementally as the

time.

Transportation and Communications, I'm assuming all the way through COVID this

would have been still a factor with the variance there.

D. BRAGG:

COVID was a factor and we're

hoping to get back to pretty well normal this year.

C. PARDY:

While only – I shouldn't say

a mere because every dollar is significant.

Purchased Services, $1,000 more than budgeted was spent.

D. BRAGG:

So that was a variance due

to higher than anticipated Purchased Services expenditure during the years,

meeting expenses – Tracy, can you help me out with that one?

T. KING:

In here would be increased cost for meetings that the minister would have had

with stakeholders on things throughout the year. So that would have been higher

than budgeted.

C. PARDY:

Okay. And that during a

COVID year?

T. KING:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

T. KING:

Also, the minister's first year in the department.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

1.2.01,

Executive Support: Again, $160,000 spent less and that is in the Salaries for

1.2.01.

D. BRAGG:

The variance is due to the

vacancies within the divisions during the year: manager of communications and

ADM of enforcement. So we were short an ADM for a while and that is about to be

filled now, the new ADM, within the next, probably, two or three weeks.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

Again,

I am assuming the Transportation and Communications right through the budget is

COVID related.

D. BRAGG:

Yeah, there was some travel

last year but not anticipated what it would have been in a normal year.

C. PARDY:

No. And then you bounce back

this year to what preCOVID would have been and settle on that.

Purchased Services, last year you spent $30,000 and this year you budgeted

$10,000. I wonder if you can explain that.

D. BRAGG:

So that would have been

meeting expenses. Variance due to less than anticipated Purchased Services

expenditure in the year are meeting expenses.

I might

be on the wrong page, b'ys.

C. PARDY:

1.2.01, Purchased Services.

D. BRAGG:

Okay. So this has to do with

zero-based budgeting. Sorry about that. The $28,500 reprofiled from Purchased

Services reflects the leased accommodations in Corner Brook for executive travel

and requirements for other accommodations when travelling to Corner Brook.

ended the lease in Corner Brook. We used to have an apartment in Corner Brook

for the Executive but now we use the hotel because of the time over there.

Before, we'd go over there way more so it made more sense to have the apartment.

Now it just makes sense to –

C. PARDY:

So you did a costing

analysis of that. Last year, I think, the answer to the question was the fact

that it was more financially better off to have accommodations than the hotel.

So I am assuming there would be fewer trips now.

T. KING:

Yeah. Because at that time the ADM of Resource and Enforcement Services was

filled, so there were two of us travelling very regularly to Corner Brook. Once

that position became vacant, and has been for some time, we ended the lease,

because it doesn't make financial sense just for only one person.

C. PARDY:

If this ADM is engaged now

and hired, will you be going back to –?

T. KING:

It will depend. That

position is advertised for St. John's or Corner Brook. So it will depend where

the position is filled from.

C. PARDY:

Good.

D. BRAGG:

So if the ADM who is

successful is from Corner Brook, they'll be living in Corner Brook and we won't

need accommodations there.

C. PARDY:

Makes sense.

D. BRAGG:

But if they're here in St.

John's, well then it's going to be back and forth. We may go back – it depends

on how it all works out, because you have to remember two people who use the

same apartment have to really co-exist together and be able to cohabitate sort

of thing.

C. PARDY:

Yes, that's good.

stated last year that in the Premier's Green report it was clearly stated that

the governance structure of the fisheries is not working for the province, and

we discussed that last year. I think you talked to a lot of harvesters and other

people out in industry about now and they would say the same thing. People that

have been in the industry, like the Gus Etchegarys of the world and others,

would say the same thing.

we're all on the same page as that, my question would be for the department: If

you believe that is the case, what action has been taken or is ongoing for us to

have a better governance structure? I do realize that the federal government

give quotas, but we seem to be blindsided by a lot of announcements being made

on the closing of fisheries that we haven't even sat around the table on to

discuss, and that is part of the governance structure.

D. BRAGG:

So I think you may be a

little confused and some of the fisher people may be confused and can't

distinguish between the federal component of this and the provincial component

of this. I assure you our department is structured as good as you could ever

expect to be, and we run like a well-oiled machine.

What

you would refer to, of the Gus Etchegarys of the world, they refer to the

federal component, in which we have no control over quota allocations or

anything like that. We just control it when it comes on the shore. So when it

comes on the shore, when it's landed, our job is then the inspection side of it,

to make sure that it comes in, it's the quality, it goes to the plant and it's

treated right.

We have

good resource people in that respect. Last year we were a little bit taxed

because we had a lot of our people on points of entry. You would have saw people

in Argentia, when the ferry was going there, in Port aux Basques when the ferry

was going there and in Labrador. So we were sort of short last year in our

enforcement side of it, but absolutely the structure that we have right now, we

have no reason whatsoever to provincially interfere with that whatsoever.

C. PARDY:

Just clarity on my question.

It wasn't anything about provincially as far as the team or as far as the

functioning. I know we got our own cocoons of which we're managing the stock. So

yes, the federal government got the water, the control of the stock and how it's

managed and so on. I know that we've got the land resources, the processing and

we do what we can and make sure we do whatever we can on land. But there has got

to be a little more of a union between the two to know that one hand knows what

the other hand is doing. Even if we sat around the table for these sessions, or

nothing to be announced unless we know that your department is aware of it to

start with, and probably get an opportunity that before something is released to

the media out there, that you've had a part or are privy to that discussion that

would be around the table.

That's

all I'm saying. I know there are two distinct entities and that's the way it's

set up, but it seems like lots of times that we seem to be settling in at what

we do with our land resources and what we do on our land and what happens

offshore, we just wait for them to let us know what is happening.

D. BRAGG:

One hundred per cent, and

that is 100 per cent how it's been since 1949. The feds control the complete

quota. They do the science on the quota. We have meetings with them from time to

time, but the decision rests solely on the federal government. We take the blame

for it from time to time, but any time there's a quota announcement for anything

that's offshore it's 100 per cent the feds.

C. PARDY:

Yeah, I agree.

D. BRAGG:

So I understand what you're

saying that yes, it would be great if we could coexist and have a kumbaya sort

of relationship, but that has not always been the case. Maybe it's never been

the case in the history of Newfoundland. But it's something that we strive for,

but still the quota allocations become the full responsibility of the feds. They

have all the science on that. We do none of the science offshore.

C. PARDY:

No, I agree. I know –

D. BRAGG:

We don't have the money for

it, to be honest.

C. PARDY:

No. The only thing I would

say to you is that since 1949, as you state, when we talk about the management

of our fishery, we're soon not going to have anything left to process. And I

think if you look at a lot, whether it be the groundfish stock, we have 13,000;

the haddock, less than a thousand. Then we look at the mackerel; we know where

the mackerel is now. It was 4,000, but now it's closed. Capelin, which we don't

know where that's going right now. The herring, less than 15,000.

If we

did comparisons with Norway and Iceland and some other countries in the global

warming phase, then by God, they're booming. But here we are in Canada and

Newfoundland and Labrador that we're soon not going to have a lot left to

produce. And what's saving our bacon is the shell industry. If something ever

happened to the shell industry, then I would say the great fishing Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be in deep trouble.

that's what I'm looking, that if it's not working and if we look at our quotas

and say it's not working, it hasn't rebuilt, then we need a stronger voice that

would be within Ottawa to say, listen, there's something wrong with our

governance model. That's where the Gus Etchegarys of the world would be. Back

then it was overfishing, but I think we need a stronger and a bigger voice in

Ottawa.

How it

happens – all I'm saying is that I would ask was there a plan, or is there a

plan that would say that we're going to try to get a bigger voice in Ottawa on

matters that affect us, which we're going to be eventually left with very

little.

D. BRAGG:

I guess we could debate the

fishery here until the full three hours expires.

C. PARDY:

Yes.

D. BRAGG:

And we can talk about what

was done right and what was done wrong. In '92, we went through a moratorium in

this province that shut down the whole industry. It caused mass outmigration. If

you go back to pre-92 and look at the decisions that were made, you could say it

was a little bit reckless and careless because no one really controlled the

quotas.

Since

that time, I would hazard to say, they're probably erring more on the side of

caution and trying to rebuild the stocks. If you looked in your email, the same

as I do, you get someone now out talking about herring, and they want to harvest

them, but they're smaller than what they've normally have been. Well, let it

grow. They're talking about the capelin. The capelin resource what it was now –

I'm no scientist but I look out my window and, for years, I would see like 50

seiners in Bonavista Bay and I don't see five today.

So if

you look at that – maybe if it was managed better a long time ago, we would be

like Iceland or Norway now. Maybe they were way ahead of us in their ability to

manage their quota. But we are in a place now – we cannot overexploit this

fishery. You're right; we're living on the crab, bar none. Crab is what's

keeping it all afloat right now and everything else is a small part of it. It's

a big part of employment when you look at the fish plants and that sort of

thing, but we still can't get people to get enough insurable hours on crab

alone. So we need a little bit of everything.

But I'm

not defending that the feds here, but someone needs to be aggressive in ensuring

that the fishery is there for generations and generations to come. I think it's

a debate that's going to be ongoing forever. With no science, we can only say

we're listening to a certain person with so much experience. But you need more

science and you need to listen to the science, because we need it for the

stability of this province for years to come.

CHAIR:

I'd like to remind the

Member that his time has expired.

1.1.01

to 1.2.02, MHA Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

You

said you were going to provide the binder to us.

D. BRAGG:

Yes.

L. EVANS:

Vacancies and staffing

numbers will be in the binder.

D. BRAGG:

It will be in the binder.

L. EVANS:

Okay, because that was one

of my general questions there.

Also

just to comment on what the previous speaker was talking about, though. If we

were able to

able to bring questions in to Estimates about quotas and the federal

jurisdictions, I am sure we would spend many a day here. The one comment that I

always make is: Cutting quotas is really not the sole thing to rebuild stocks.

You have to have better science. You actually have to have better

interpretation

of the science as well. And I think one of the things that is missing is

consultation with stakeholders. So Good comments there, and I know you are at

risk of taking up all of the time.

Moving on to 1.2.02, Administrative Support, Professional Services; what was the

source of the unbudgeted $15,000 expense?

D. BRAGG:

It is a variance due to professional services expenditures associated with the

over the estimate, yet this year's estimate has increased by approximately $1

million.

D. BRAGG:

So it was a $500,000 year one to a four-year Salmonier Nature Park boardwalk and

trail. So it is enhancements at the Salmonier Line facility. And the storage

shed for Corner Brook for the farm equipment.

L. EVANS:

2.1.01, Marketing Development – actually most of my questions were asked and

answered previously.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

MHA Pardy, do you have anything left under Executive and Support Services?

C. PARDY:

Just one quick question.

You had a merger last year and stated that the forestry and conservation

officers – that was stated. There was a merger of that team. I am assuming that

is done and seamless.

D. BRAGG:

That was for

management side and enforcement side. There is no issue there.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

D. BRAGG:

And we actively recruit for

those positions as one comes open. Enforcement is vitally important for that

side of it.–

C. PARDY:

I agree.

That

concludes, Mr. Chair, any questions I have on that section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

So is

the Committee ready for the question?

Shall

1.1.01 to 1.2.02 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.02 carried.

CHAIR:

Can I get the Clerk to call the next set of subheads, please?

CLERK:

Fisheries and Aquaculture,

2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.01

inclusive carry?

MHA

Pardy.

C. PARDY:

2.1.01, in Salaries you anticipate $83,600 in new spending this year?

D. BRAGG:

All right, that's the

question? Variance due to routine salary adjustment requirements for '22-'23.

C. PARDY:

And that is the incremental

staging of the way that salaries are set up?

D. BRAGG:

Right.

C. PARDY:

Transportation and

Communications, answered via COVID.

Supplies?

D. BRAGG:

Supplies?

C. PARDY:

In Supplies you have $18,000 less was budgeted last year. You spent less than

what was budgeted.

D. BRAGG:

It would have been COVID.

Variance due to less than expected supply expenditure due to COVID is why we

spent less last year.

C. PARDY:

That's Supplies?

D. BRAGG:

That is what I got.

C. PARDY:

You spent less than expected

as a result of COVID?

D. BRAGG:

Supplies, $6,100; is that is

what you're talking about?

C. PARDY:

Yes, that's right.

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to less than

expected supply expenditures due to COVID-19. Yeah, so this would have been the

trade shows and that sort of thing.

C. PARDY:

All right, good.

Professional Services, under the same heading, if you can explain what is

included here and there is a $61,000 variance between last year's budget and

your revised spending.

D. BRAGG:

I'm going to turn this one

over to the deputy.

T. KING:

Our Professional Services

here include our market intelligence reports that we would provide to the Fish

Price Setting Panel. So certainly, during COVID, when the market was very

uncertain, last year we would have done increased market intelligence –

C. PARDY:

Okay.

T. KING:

– and I think we would have

shared those reports with you all fairly regularly. So that's what is the

difference there, and then the increase this year is just recognizing we're

going to continue some of that increased market intelligence in the out-years.

C. PARDY:

Would the market

intelligence consume all of those Professional Services? Usually that's from one

budget line to another, if not all, the majority.

T. KING:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

2.1.02,

Licensing and Quality Assurance: Can you explain the variance between budget

2021 and the Estimate for this year?

D. BRAGG:

For the Salaries, $1.9

million from $1.8 million?

C. PARDY:

Yes.

D. BRAGG:

Variance on the $1.8 million

is due to overtime costs associated with COVID-19 points of entry coverage in

the Port aux Basques area during the year, and the $1.9 million variance is due

to salary adjustments for '22-'23. Salary funding reprofiled from 2.2.01,

Aquaculture Development and Management, associated with the anticipated movement

of two positions between the divisions, as well as a reversal of $170,000 which

was reprofiled to 3.2.01, Insect Control, for spruce budworm spray program for

'21-'22.

And

that's all right here in the notes. So don't worry about writing that down.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

D. BRAGG:

If I'm reading it, I can

guarantee you you'll get it.

C. PARDY:

In 2.1.02, Professional

Services, again, to look at what's included here, I think last year you might

have mentioned it was the Fish Processing Licensing Board meeting?

D. BRAGG:

Yes. They had five meetings

with 14 applications last year.

C. PARDY:

Okay, so we didn't budget

enough for the meetings during the COVID stage. We had more meetings of the

board last year than what would have been anticipated?

D. BRAGG:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

D. BRAGG:

It was five – how many,

Lorelei, in a normal year, for the board?

L. ROBERTS:

$7.2 million; '20-'21, $5.3 million; '21-'22, $3.6 million; '22-'23 is

anticipated to be $4.8 million; and '23-'24 anticipated to be $12.7 million.

That's all here for you to study.

C. PARDY:

Good.

2.1.04,

Salaries, the variance that would be found there.

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to vacancies

within the division during the year. There was a variance due to routine salary

adjustments for '22-'23.

C. PARDY:

That's good.

I was

going to read an email from a harvester who attended the session with Minister

Murray. I know it went into the news at some point in time, where I think after

listening to Minister Murray, the harvesters as well as the FFAW, as you know,

were concerned about what messaging was given out. In fact the harvester was

asked, point blank, are you confident that the federal government supports the

fishery? Just simply that was it.

Well,

she got back and stated that she was a little confused at the start, and thought

she might have been the only one; but when it was over, when she finished

speaking, she said the 57 industry reps and harvesters, after communication, all

felt the same way.

She had

four objectives, which she had stated. Number one was protection of the

environment, which nobody would have any issue with; two was reconciliation;

three was climate change; and four was marine protected areas. Those were the

four – it didn't say anything about the viability of the fishery, but I think in

the ensuing conversation that you and the Premier had with them after – what I'm

saying is just going by what the CBC or the VOCM declared that you had had

confidence in what the federal minister had stated.

Now,

you had an opportunity to engage her. I just wondered if you could speak to

that, what you gleaned from it, because I think you had mentioned before about

the seals, that you she was on board with the issue with the sealing

or seal predation. What else would have instilled confidence in what Minister

Murray said, knowing that she had spoken to the harvesters and they were pretty

well defeated as a result of it?

D. BRAGG:

So I guess Minister Murray is going to be like any minister in the new position.

She is going to trust the advice of her staff and then sometimes she is going to

speak off-the-cuff. I think Minister Murray was called out on that, and she can

speak for herself, for her off-the-cuff conversation she had that was outside of

what would have been, I'd say, put to her – it would have been her beliefs

because, as we all know, she is a strong environmentalist by nature, like full

stop on that.

But in this industry, I guess, when you are up to the speaker – same as me, like

any minister – sometimes you say things that you want to get out for your own

personal feelings, not really the feelings of the department. So when we talk to

her, we talk to her about the importance of the fishery. You cannot downplay the

fishery for this province at no point nor time. It is number one. It is the

biggest employer in this province. It is a billion-dollar industry last year,

not to be underestimated by anything else, and it is the future of our rural

communities and will sustain them for years to come.

So we did have a conversation with her. Some of the comments in that

conversation will always remain private with the Premier, myself and her. But I

have had a follow-up conversation with her as well. That's the questions you are

going to have to address to her. So you should probably reach out to her from

time to time and email and check with her on anything you don't agree with. Same

as the fishermen. From my thoughts – the word was that it was a great meeting.

The final comment that she made was it was a great meeting and that blew it all

out of whack.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

D. BRAGG:

Time up?

CHAIR:

Services, $40,000 reprofiled to Professional Services. I'm sure that made

perfect sense.

L. EVANS:

And you're reading so that's

going to be in our binder?

D. BRAGG:

Oh definitely. I tell you if

it comes out of these lips and you see me looking down, it's here for you to

read after.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Like I

said, I've been getting quite distracted by the information, just trying to

track things to make sure that I'm not repeating what was previously asked.

Still

under 2.1.01, Marketing and Development, Property, Furnishings and Equipment;

last year the actuals were $7,600 under budget. Can we get an explanation for

that?

D. BRAGG:

You're talking about the

$9,000. Variance due to the purchase of laptops during the year for new hires as

well as replacement of two chairs. I guess we had to buy more laptops because

more people worked from home. We had to make that allowance for people, and

sometimes people needed a chair to work from home. I guess you can call that

extra expense due to COVID adaptation in the workplace.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

2.1.02,

Licensing and Quality Assurance: Under Transportation and Communications, last

year's actuals were $27,400 over budget.

D. BRAGG:

So the $113,000 you're

talking about, right?

L. EVANS:

Yes.

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to overtime

costs associated with COVID-19, especially in points of entry such as Port aux

Basques during the year, and a variance due to no conference registration fees

would also be in there. Also, included in that is variance due to higher than

anticipated travel. When we had points of entry, we had to have people actually

travel across the province to these points of entries and needed accommodations,

so that's why there's extra money there.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Under

the same heading, Purchased Services, last year's actuals were $5,000 over

budget.

D. BRAGG:

That's $24,000 so that we're

clear, right?

L. EVANS:

Yes.

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to higher than

anticipated purchased services required during the year, meeting room rentals

for the Fisheries Licensing Board. They had five meetings last year and 14

applications. Again, it had to be bigger rooms to allow for the six feet and all

that sort of thing.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, last year's actuals were $9,200 over

budget.

D. BRAGG:

Okay, and that's $13,000 in

the budget. Variance due to the purchase of laptops during the year for the new

hires and current hires as well. That's again dealing with the COVID.

L. EVANS:

Right.

2.1.03,

Atlantic Fisheries Fund – under Grants and Subsidies, I think you answered this

but I wasn't quite sure. I didn't really understand some of the stuff you were

saying. Under Grants and Subsidies, last year's actuals were $368,000 under

budget. This year's estimate has increased by $4,498,300. Is this money from a

previous year that was not spent and is now being rolled over into this year? I

heard the words “rolled” when you were talking, but I wasn't quite sure.

D. BRAGG:

So that has to do with

Atlantic Fisheries Fund. It is the seven-year program that rolls over and is due

to expire in 2024. What is spent each year is rolled out earlier, but it is here

written down.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

2.1.04,

Sustainable Fisheries Resources and Oceans Policy: Are there any plans for you

to partner with DFO to study the seal population and its impacts to our

fisheries? And if not, is there something the department could do on its own or

contract out to scientists?

D. BRAGG:

I talked to your MP in

Ottawa a couple weeks ago and MP Jones has assured me that the federal

government has done a study. It should have been released this week, so I

anticipate and I look forward to the release of that study on the seals over the

next week or two. So we'll see where it goes from there, but she was pretty

encouraged by it.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

2.1.05,

Coordination and Support Services: Under Grants and Subsidies, there is no money

spent last year. When was the last time somebody availed of the money from this

particular fund?

D. BRAGG:

So that is a fund in case a

fish plant closes; that is $500,000 that is earmarked. If you are familiar with

CEEP funding that you would get in a year, this is a fund set up solely if a

plant burned or shut down during the season (inaudible) for employment –

OFFICIAL:

Permanently.

D. BRAGG:

Permanently closed, yes. So

burned down would be a good example of that. I know that happened in Twillingate

a couple of years ago. It happened on the Northern Peninsula another time when a

and incubate their own processing plants?

D. BRAGG:

So we have the Licensing

Board in which people would apply to, and I know currently there was five, if

not six, applications went to the board about a couple weeks ago. Plants, right

now, get to utilize, I guess, and process whatever they can get their hands on,

to be honest.

Last

year there was an abundance of squid comes to mind, and I know fishermen were

put on a quota of 9,000 pounds a day in my area. So if the capelin come and

capelin stocks are good, they process what they can. If herring are good, they

process what they can, what they can catch until the quota's caught.

But we

are not at our maximum in codfish, the staple of this province; we are not at

our maximum. We do not catch the allocation of cod, nor do we process it all,

which is unfortunate. I think it's like 60 per cent may have been caught last

year of the cod quota. Don't hold me to 60 per cent, but it was nowhere close to

100 per cent. In crab we were like almost 100 per cent if not over 100 per cent,

but in the groundfish we were not. We could have been.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

What

about redfish? Has there been any progress on looking into the harvesting

process of redfish?

D. BRAGG:

So redfish right now, I'm

told, will give you about a two-ounce fillet, if you caught it right now, so

basically it would be a baitfish. When redfish matures, I think it's 30

centimetres, so that's about a foot long, would be the ultimate size for it.

Then we're going to be ready for it, but that could be a couple of years out.

We hope

that there's not a gap between redfish and the shrimp. Because the more redfish,

the less shrimp. Of course they're eating the shrimp. Don't need to be a

scientist to know that; every fish has to eat some other source of fish in the

ocean, and they always usually eat what's smaller.

redfish is something that we look forward to, but redfish, and to MHA Pardy's

question, is something that needs to be closely monitored because I thought they

said it's about a 30-year fishery once it starts, you can anticipate. Then it's

going to fall off the face of the earth, and then for some unknown reason it

disappears and comes back again, and that's been the history of that.

I get

that information mostly from a producer on the West Coast, Bill Barry, who's

very knowledgeable in that fishery because he's spent 50 years in the fishery,

so he understands the cycle of the redfish. So local knowledge and science

knowledge is what we need to keep the redfish whole. And it's a Gulf fishery, by

the way. It won't be off the East Coast of Newfoundland; it's basically a Gulf

fishery.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

2.1.06,

looking at the Seal Product Inventory Financing. Last year it was stated that

Phocalux was in arrears and that the DGS was going to work on the collection of

this particular loan. Any progress made on that, this past year?

D. BRAGG:

So, very little on the

Phocalux. It's a hard word to say, actually, so it's there if everybody wants to

spell it. So the Phocalux plant opened and closed, basically, they owed the

province money and we've had no success to date collecting any of that money.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

D. BRAGG:

So we took it out of ours.

L. EVANS:

Yeah.

2.2.01,

Agriculture Development and Management. I'll just get one other question in

under Salaries. Last year's actuals were $160,000 under budget, and this year's

estimate has been decreased by $139,000. Can we get an explanation of this?

D. BRAGG:

So under Salaries, variance

due to two positions that were originally budgeted under 2.2.01, Agriculture

Development, have been located in 2.1.02, Licensing and Quality Assurance

Division, during the year. And there's a variance there due to the salary

adjustments for the '22-'23 salary funding reprofiled to 2.1.02, Licensing and

Quality Assurance, associated with an anticipated movement of two positions

between the divisions.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

remind the hon. Member that her speaking time is expired.

2.1.01

to 2.3.01, back to you, MHA Pardy.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Chair.

Could

we get the figure on how much of the cod was harvested, how much of the quota. I

think it's higher than that number, but I stand to be corrected.

D. BRAGG:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

So the redfish eat shrimp?

D. BRAGG:

Yeah.

C. PARDY:

I stated last year that I

spoke with a Quebec fisherman. Around his feet were about eight empty gas cans

in the inner harbour in Bonavista. So I pulled in with my truck, thought he may

have been a constituent, and nothing wrong with even if he was travelling down

there in Bonavista, but I offered did he need a hand. So I ended up bringing him

with his gas cans and he made the journey down.

But he

said in Quebec they were concerned about the redfish biomass, because they know

that it's going to deplete the shrimp, which they were getting a much bigger

return on. I know that when we look at our industry we're talking about they're

underdeveloped. We wait (inaudible) see the size of the fillet as you had

answered my hon. colleague. But he was professing that it was a different

approach in Quebec, because they were concerned about the predation of the

shrimp.

I know

where we are now, if you think about it, we're talking about a gulf redfish, and

now we look at with the shrimp in the gulf and well, I just wondered is one

effecting the other? I know that's where science comes in, or the Bill Barry.

I'm not sure what Bill Barry would say in the –

D. BRAGG:

Yeah.

C. PARDY:

But anyway I just throw that

out there, because I know that for me, I was thinking that was a whole different

paradigm shift than when I spoke to the industry players, because they were

looking at down the road too early to harvest, where this Quebec fisherman was

saying, well, there's more to it than that.

2.1.06,

Sealing, when did we stop giving grants to the Canadian Sealing Association? At

what point in time did we stop? Do we contribute now to the Canadian Sealing

Association?

D. BRAGG:

I'll turn that back to the

ADM, Lorelei.

L ROBERTS:

No, we don't contribute to

the Canadian Sealing Association. We don't provide, actually, funding for core

funding for any groups. In terms of sealing associations, we do work with those

groups in terms of developing markets and things like that, under the Canadian

Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund, but no we don't provide a grant of any

type.

C. PARDY:

I think government once did,

did they not? Again, I ask and I don't know the answers. That's why I ask.

L. ROBERTS:

Certainly not in the time

that I've been with the department.

C. PARDY:

Okay. Yeah.

D. BRAGG:

Can I give you some

interesting seal numbers before you go on? For the kills? While you're looking

for the next question.

2012, it was 60,000 seals harvested. In 2013, 95,000. You don't need to write

this down, because I have it all here for you. In 2014, it was 59,000. 2015 was

35,000. In 2016, 66,000. So even in the height of it we weren't harvesting

enough seals. In 2017, 80,000, almost 81,000. In 2018, 59,000 ;

2019, 32,000. In 2020, we took 395 seals. And 2021, 26,000.

So I will anticipate this year is going to be just as well as what it was last

year. Yeah.

C. PARDY:

Has the department reached out to look at interested parties or groups that may

be looking at doing something within the sealing industry that we can, at least,

come close to catching our quota? Have we reached out to groups in Labrador?

Have you been in discussions with the Tors Cove proposed proponents?

D. BRAGG:

So I have been in Tors Cove and I went though the proposed plant they have

there. The trouble with seals is always going to be, and has been, the markets.

The problem is one year it is the fur; one year it is the fat and the next year

it is the meat. It could be organs. It has been all over the globe, the sealing

industry has been, for the last 20 years, to say the least.

We just need to find some stable market to control and we need a market,

actually, that takes off the old seals, because the young seals, as you can tell

from this, all of that what I read you would have been mostly the young beater

seals, which would only have been about a month old. So we are not even touching

the old-seal population at all. But we are hoping for a conversation any and

every day of the week on seals, to be honest. Anybody who has got a great idea

on the seals, bring it forward.

C. PARDY:

We probably need to be initiating something, knowing what an impact it was on

the history. We should be initiating, I would think.

Doug Swain, DFO fish biologist, says that “the cod population is now about five

per cent of the levels in the 1980s, and the downward spiral is accelerating

despite a moratorium on a directed cod fishery in the Gulf” of St. Lawrence

“since 2009.” Quote, he said “We've observed that the grey seals continue to

forage in the vicinity of these cod aggregations, that cod comprise a very high

proportion of their diet in these times and places.”

Jane Adey had a gentleman on that I think he had stated – I should have recalled

his name but it was a scientist on – had stated that they weren't aware of the

grey seals pupping on the island. But I have since heard others to confirm that

they are. And that would be something new, I think, for the province, that they

pupped here. Usually Sable Island was their pupping ground,

whereas now they are

on the coast.

The

only thing I would say is that we talk about the numbers I gave out about the

stocks that we have, that rural Newfoundland depends on, that the Province of

Newfoundland gets their $1 billion from, which I would state unequivocally we

ought to be getting in $5 billion to $10 billion, not just a mere one billion.

The seals are the ones that we can control, that we can do something about with

an action. There is no doubt about that.

Here's

Doug Swain saying that eventually it's going to come a point in time that we

could have an extinction of a species which he, being a fish biologist in DFO,

is stating that we've got a big issue. You ask do any harvester on the Bonavista

Peninsula, without exception, everyone will say big issue. Bill Barry who you've

been talking to, I guarantee you, which I never met the man, but I would think

that Bill Barry would say the same thing from an industry perspective.

The

only thing that's contingent on us, to make sure that we take action on the

sealing to make sure that if it's not happening in our province, then we need it

to happen. Norway is not concerned on the marketing – that's what I hear. Bob

Hardy would often say they're not so concerned on the markets. They're concerned

on making sure that they keep the ecosystem in check and the seal predation is

kept minimized so that they can get their funding and their harvesting and the

money from the other fish stocks.

So the

only thing I would say under the sealing section, it's empty – as my hon. Member

had said, when we look at what we've got here, the seal product inventory

financing, we're pretty well – it's a placeholder or we'll put a placeholder

there eventually, but there should be a lot more there that we, as a province,

are doing to tackle the seal predation issue. Not trusting for industry to

combat the economics of it all, but I will just close on that one.

CHAIR:

Minister, do you want to

comment on that before I go to the other –?

D. BRAGG:

Yes, I dispute and I guess I

question how we're going to go from a $1-billion industry to a $5-billion

industry based on what you said on eliminating the seals. We went to the billion

dollars because the price of crab went from $2.50 to $7.69 basically is what got

us to $1 billion dollars. That's why we got to a $1 billion last year.

To go

from $1 billion in the fishery to $5 billion, if we extinct the seals completely

I don't know how the stocks rebound, how we harvest and how we find the markets

to that. So I don't know where your science is based on that or where your

information comes from. Anything you have there, I look forward to that.

Again,

on seals, I am open every day of the week to a conversation on seals. It's all

right to say we should do something; we need to know what we need to do.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

2.1.01

to 2.3.01, MHA Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Public

engagement on foreign ownership in the fish-processing sector concluded February

4. Does the department have a timeline on when we can expect a final report on

the foreign ownership review?

T. KING:

So to your point, MHA Evans, the consultations have concluded on foreign

ownership. We've got a draft report, so I am hoping to have something in front

of the minister very soon on that so that we can release the results in the near

term.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Moving

to 2.2.01, Aquaculture Development and Management: Under Professional Services,

last year's actuals were $20,000 over budget; can we get an explanation of that?

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to professional

services required for the fairness advisor for the Bays West project during the

year.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

2.2.02,

Aquaculture Capital Equity Investment: Under Loans, Advances and Investments,

last year is zero, but it was allocated out as $6.5 million. This year's

estimate has been reduced down to $100 placeholder. So can we get an explanation

for that?

D. BRAGG:

That is just a placeholder

for future years.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

So the

$6.5 million that was allocated last year, was that just a placeholder too?

T. KING:

So this was $6.5 million that had been budgeted for the aquaculture capital

equity agreement with Grieg and I think we will have seen last year they didn't

need to draw down that funding and things changed in the program. We're in

negotiation with the company about the future of their ACEP and what that looks

like after some changes so we won't need any funding for that this year.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

2.3.01,

Aquatic Animal Health: How many escapes have there been in the past year from

open pens and how many fishes escaped in each incident?

D. BRAGG:

So we had one major fish escape last year and it was a landlocked facility down,

I'll say, around Seal Cove, down the Connaigre Peninsula. An otter chewed

road; they use it sometimes while they're waiting to harvest the fish. I can't

be 100 per cent sure if it's steelhead trout or if it was salmon, to be honest,

because that was last year when that happened. But an otter chewed through the

net and the salmon escaped out into the pond.

basically what they did, they tried to recapture what they could, and then they

opened up the pond for anglers. Because what happens, when they say landlocked,

there's no way for the salmon to get upstream or downstream because it's all

barred off for them. It's a perfect pond for what they need for that job.

I think

there was two salmon that made their escape from one of the sites.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

D. BRAGG:

Four? Oh, they caught two

and two are still on the loose.

L. EVANS:

You said one major and some

minor, so, just to qualify, you said there was one major escape which was

landlocked and minor escapes?

D. BRAGG:

Yes, minor escapes would

have been a sea pen – I think that was basically they were handling the fish,

just looking at them, and it just jumped out of somebody's hands.

L. EVANS:

That's happened to me too

when I'm taking fish out of the net.

D. BRAGG:

But we've come a long way,

because the offshore pens now have steel-enforced twine in them. So you need to

be more than an otter now to chew into it; you need a pair of wire cutters.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Minister.

Could

we have an update on the Integrated Pest Management Plan used to combat the

spread of sea lice, please?

D. BRAGG:

I'm going to turn this over

to my ADM, Lorelei.

L. ROBERTS:

Could you repeat the question? I never heard it fully.

L. EVANS:

Just an update on the

Integrated Pest Management Plan used to control the spread of sea lice.

L. ROBERTS:

Okay.

So,

what that is, it's a plan where the vets with our department work with the vets

of the company's departments, develop the plan how they're going to treat sea

lice. So our waters are known for sea lice, particularly after it gets up to

about five, six degrees, it's prime opportunity for sea lice to proliferate.

Basically what they do is they look at multiple treatments and, in this

province, many companies use lumpfish to treat sea lice. They also use different

methods like mechanical methods, where they put the fish through like a

warm-water bath and it takes the sea lice off of them. Also like a little

scrubber that takes it off of them.

they've moved away from a lot of, what I'll say, chemical treatments, to more

natural-type treatments. But basically each company, depending on where the site

is located, with their integrated management plan has a specific plan to deal

with their particular salmon population, wherever it is. So it will look

different for every single company.

L. EVANS:

And do you do inspections to

sort of monitor the rates of sea lice?

L. ROBERTS:

Absolutely.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

L. ROBERTS:

Yeah, we do inspections, and in actual fact when you see the numbers in the

budget, it reflects that. Our staff, our veterinarians and our inspectors go out

and inspect the nets on a regular basis. Our veterinarians go out and do what we

call aquatic health surveillance where they check sea lice. So companies are

required to report their sea lice once it gets above a certain temperature,

because you can't bring fish up top to count the sea lice because they would

die. So you have to wait for the temperature to rise in the ocean to be able to

bring them up to count.

And we

actually do an audit. We have our vets go out and do an audit so that when we

count the sea lice and the company counts the sea lice that we make sure they're

getting similar numbers.

L. EVANS:

Variance due to increased expenditures required for laboratory purchased

services due to the ongoing management of aquatic animal health reporting

disease and mortality events encountered in '21 and '22.

L. EVANS:

Okay, and that's in the

book.

Thank

you, those are the questions I have for this section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA

Pardy, do you have anything left in this section, 2.1.01 to 2.3.01?

C. PARDY:

I wanted to wish them good

luck in catching those two rogue fish in that landlocked pond.

D. BRAGG:

I've been at it all winter.

C. PARDY:

We're rooting for you.

On a

sealing note – and no need for a response – I don't have science to back, but I

just look at it and say that if we harvest a commercial

harvest of 200,000 metric tons and we yield $1 billion – if seals are determined

by science to eat that every six to 12 days, then I would say just do the math.

So if we are looking at seals eat and consume what we harvest in 200,000 – and

it might not be totally that linear but by golly one would say – and all you

look at is the revenue that Norway and Iceland and those countries that pull in

that do not have a seal issue and they struggle with climate change. They

struggle with environmental issues, the same as every other country in the

world. The big difference would be is that they don't have a pinniped or a seal

predation.

The only thing I would say of every species that we have, then the sealing could

be an issue. Because if they are bountiful elsewhere, then Doug Swain is

probably right, as a fish biologist.

I would say, not based on science, but I just think to look at that, and that is

how most people will look at it. That is like the Bob Hardys of the world who

would state and it seems quite plausible to me to look at the figures that he

would throw out to know that we ought to be doing a lot better in Newfoundland

and Labrador than what we are doing and the seal predation is an issue that we

should have a much stronger, concerted effort to deal with.

D. BRAGG:

I couldn't agree with you more but I will go back to that we need the markets to

be able to go out. So it is twofold. We have a lot less fisher people now, a lot

less commercial sealers. It is not as simple as that we need to destroy the

seals. We need to find a way to harvest the seals. We need to find a way to find

harvesters to harvest the seals.

If you look, the first week of April is when the crab season opens; that is when

all of the longliners or 99 per cent of the longliners take

part in the crab

fishery. It is more lucrative; less chance of damage. Going to the seal fishery,

I know for a fact because I have been there, the chance of destroying your boat,

sinking your boat or causing major damage is great when you are out amongst

those big ice pans.

It may look great on land but once you are out there in a big swell and you eat

your heart a couple of times, let me tell you, you would appreciate why people

have gone away from the sealing. I mean, we are not going to see the day, I

don't think anymore, where you are going to have big ships going out to the seal

fishery because it is no longer the whitecoat fishery. That was lucrative in

those days.

Now what happens, when it becomes a beater and gets in the water, you have to

chase the seal, so they are harder to harvest at a time when everybody wants to

take

part in the lucrative crab fishery. So it is not just the seals;

it's finding the balance of

how we put that together.

As we

all know, everybody's talking about now they want to get their crab because

they're afraid of what might happen to the condition of the shell. Nobody wants

to wait until the middle of May to start fishing the crab; they want to get the

crab early as possible. It's the better quality; it is a harder shell. Seals are

a big conversation that we continue to have. But let's not fool ourselves by

thinking there's a rabbit we can pull out of a hat and fix all that. There's

about 9 million of them out there by, I guess, a conservative estimate.

Someone

said they're growing shorter. Who knows that, I guess, but the seal? But as it

sends a small (inaudible) because I have been out there and the seals, I mean

you would have seen pictures of White Bay this year. Anybody who don't think

seals are a problem has got their head in the sand. Seals are definitely a

problem. Seals eat something. I said long before I sat in this chair, seals

don't eat chicken. They obviously don't. They eat whatever they can find in the

ocean, and I don't think they eat seaweed.

So it's

a problem, it's a problem we need to address, but if you look at our numbers,

even back from 2012, we weren't doing a good job of catching what the quota was

even in them years, or controlling the population. It can only explode, the

least number of younger ones you harvest. We do our moose populations based on

studies and surveys and road reports and that sort of thing, but the seals have

been left to the north, to move farther to the south.

yeah, whatever you can say on seals, you're not going to get me to go against,

because I'm with you 100 per cent. We need to do something with the seals.

C. PARDY:

I was always a big advocate

of incentivizing the catch. You've got a line item here under 2.1.06 that's

blank. So I'm saying there's ways you can incentivize, that's – I would have

been a big supporter of that, but then if I talk to Keith Bath out in the

Chair's district, he is certainly a seal harvester. He's just waiting to go out

there, and probably is already out there. We've got the Hammonds in my district

that go out there. But I think what we need to do, our job as the provincial

government is to make sure that we create some markets.

And I

know that I've got neighbours in George's Brook-Milton that live alongside me,

and they travel down – as soon as the flippers hit the wharf in Catalina,

they're driving over an hour to make sure they get their seal flippers. And I'm

saying that's in my district. It's almost like there's a demand there that's not

being met in the District of Bonavista. I hear about it. I didn't get my seal

flippers this year.

So there is a market and there is an appetite. It just needs to be nurtured. I

don't think the District of Bonavista is unique. It's certainly much similar to

your district. I am sure there is a demand for seal products.

If we are talking about nine billion in the world that are going hungry, we have

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that can use seal. I can guarantee you that.

And we have other markets in the world that we can – because our primary focus

ought to be having them out of the water so that the balance in the ecosystem

could be found that we can generate revenue to be able to use in all of the

things that we have important.

And before now my hon. Member for Exploits gets upset with me that we are

encroaching on the time that comes, I am going to have move on.

D. BRAGG:

So can I make a comment on what you just said about feeding the hungry with the

seals? I mean, that takes quite a bit of work and quite a bit of money. Where

that money would come from – you are talking about incentivize. So if we can

give a bounty of $50 per seal, what do we do with it after we give the bounty?

What would you do with 300,000 seal carcasses on the wharf in Bonavista, for

argument's sake? You can't let it rot. So how do you square the circle to move

that seal to feed somebody who is hungry even if they are in St. John's? So you

have to process it. You need processing. You need canning or bottling or

something or salting. And I don't know whoever eats salt seal, to be honest.

So it is great what you are saying but is it really realistic, is my question.

When we think of hungry people we think about Africa more than anywhere; how do

we take seals from the wharf in Bonavista, process it and get it to Africa? Who

pays the bill? You can't expect that to be the provincial government, to be

fair. Because that is a multi-millions alone just to do something like that.

Maybe it might sound great. We say that Sunday: look at the food we hove out; we

could feed another family on what we just threw in the garbage. But the actual

fact is you are not going to take that and run in Gander with it or go across

the bay with it. So I know what you are saying. I know that to be – in our

hearts that is what we want to do. But the reality side of it is making that

work and making that not so much profitable, but on a break-even. And that would

only be if the government did it on a break-even because no company is going to

do it on a break-even.

C. PARDY:

A little while ago we were talking about billions. You referenced millions. And

I am saying if we did a cost-benefit analysis of what you put in and what you

get out, it would be interesting. I would say, not only Africa, when you talk

about sending food to Africa – I just said we have a bigger market in the

District of Bonavista for seal products than I would say that we could increase

our catch and satisfy that market within the District of Bonavista. What do we

need for that?

When I say incentivize, I know it is not just per quota and say the $50 for a

catch for a seal. Incentivize means incentivize the industry in some way,

whether it be some

production component, some processing outfit that would be out there.

You toured Tors Cove. If

Tors Cove is going to move and need the seals and if they're going to make the

money on the oil, if the pelts are going to be used and the rest returned to

powder, I would say, good stuff. That is good stuff, and that is what I'm saying

to incentivize and probably the wrong term, to work with it. Would I, right now,

with the limited amount that I would know – and I don't have the background as

far as incentivize for catch on seals, because I think the benefits of doing it

are far greater than the money that you're going to put in.

If the

federal government don't see, well, Doug Swain sees it, the fish biologist in

DFO. I think you might have referenced that the minister probably knew that

there was an imbalance within the ecosystem. It is a bigger picture than just us

in Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal government ought to be very involved

with that too, because rural Newfoundland and Newfoundland itself, we've got an

untapped amount. We settled and we celebrate the $1 billion, and I firmly

believe that it ought to be more.

that's what the tackling is on the seal predation, that's one I think that we

can make headway with but it all begins with the first step, and then the next

step. It might seem like to be a bigger journey, but we have to be seen to

making that first step on doing something that would be there.

I would

say to you, well, I can look at since this government come into power, in 2015,

there hasn't been one news release on sealing industry, and if you go back and

look at what you have posted on your site, on the government site, then I would

say to you, there were umpteen prior to that, in years before, in John Efford's

time, which is the same government. When you look at when he was the minister as

far as the press releases that were out, the actions that were taken on seal

predation, and on the sealing, travel for markets, established markets.

So all

I'm saying is that we just need to be seen that we are taking the first step in

an issue that everyone knows that is an issue, and I think you do, too. I think

you're fully aware that it is an issue, but we've got to do something about it,

not just trust to say too great of an issue that we can't begin.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

D. BRAGG:

Can I respond to that, Mr.

Chair?

CHAIR:

Sure.

D. BRAGG:

All right.

So what

I have to say to that, you can talk about the ability of your neighbours running

down for two flippers or three flippers. The seal fishery is much like the food

fishery. Anybody can get a licence to go out and harvest six seals. So there's

no reason for anybody in this province who wants a seal, who's got a boat, and

motor and a rifle, not to go out and harvest their six seals. Bar none, full

stop, on that. So there's no reason for anybody in this province not to have

seal in their fridge if they wanted it.

What

you talked about in the news releases of the John Efford days, that was before

there was anything about embargos and trades that we could not export seal

products into the US or the UK. So we deal with current market conditions. So in

John Efford's day, there were no restrictions. You could put a seal pelt

anywhere in the world. You get on a plane now, and try and fly into the United

States with a sealskin jacket on; it's confiscated at the border, point of

entry. You lose it. If it's a purse, if it's a pair of shoes, they're gone. You

cannot bring it in.

We face

these trade hurdles when it comes to the seal industry right now. That was never

there 20 years ago. You have to look at it, of today's conditions, what it is

today. No good to look at 20, 30 years ago, what it was or 40 years ago. You

have to look at the world today and what it means.

The

picture is still there that we club whitecoats. That's long gone. But if you

look at any of the Wildlife Federation, you'll see a picture of a whitecoat. You

will not see a beater. You'll see the whitecoat is in that picture. That has not

gone out of people's minds. That's what the Hollywood stars went for. That's

where we are today, to deal with it.

We're

dealing with more than just this province's ability to market. We're looking at

a world that probably doesn't want it, for the most part.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

D. BRAGG:

It's finding a way where to

put it.

CHAIR:

Thank you. We'll just leave

it there.

If the

Committee is ready for the question, shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Can I get the Clerk to call

the next set of subheads, please.

CLERK:

Forestry and Wildlife,

3.1.01 to 3.3.02 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 3.1.01 to 3.3.02

inclusive carry?

The

Chair recognizes MHA Forsey.

P. FORSEY:

I was going to ask a question. I don't know where actually it goes into – if it

goes into animal – aquatic animal or not, but the salmon in the river, the

inland waters. Do that come under that heading or is it in the wildlife part of

it here, which?

D. BRAGG:

It's under Wildlife.

P. FORSEY:

Under Wildlife.

D. BRAGG:

That would be the

enforcement.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Just

for starters, salmon seems to be on the increase. I'm sure the biologists are

after doing their studies. Salmon seems to be on the increase in both the

Exploits River and Gander River in the past couple of years. Just wondering in

this year's salmon fishery, angling, salmon fishery if there will be an extra

tag allotted for that with the rebound of the –

D. BRAGG:

I'm going to turn that over

to my ADM, Mr. Balsom.

S. BALSOM:

I'm not quite sure DFO has released that management information yet, that they

have made their final decision. I know they have had the management science

committee meetings but I'd have to double check if they've made the final

decision on the retention.

P. FORSEY:

All right, that's fair; it

is only just a question I had there.

Under

wildlife, centrefire rifles, again this year in the guide, were banned between

mid-September up to December with regard to coyote hunting. I understand the

reasoning for it; I really do. It is because you want to control poaching and

that sort of stuff. But aren't you giving a little bit of leniency to the

predator themselves?

They

don't hunt coyotes – they do; I know you're allowed. There is only July, that

month, when they're breeding or whatever they're supposed to be doing, but

coyotes will breed anytime. So while you're trying to protect the moose from

poachers, aren't you increasing the predator – giving the predators a bigger

chance to populate rather than being taken and streamlined, the predation on the

smaller animals of the moose population.

D. BRAGG:

Most of the coyotes that are

taken in this province are trapped. Compared to – what's the number?

S. BALSOM:

We see the vast majority come in as trapped versus taken with a rifle. Very few

are taken during the big game season. Most are taken in the winter and the

spring, this time of year now, is when the rifle hunters seem to do best.

We were

getting very few carcases sent in during the big game hunting season, which led

us to conclude that there is not a lot of coyote hunting taking place during the

big game season. Licensed trappers are still allowed to operate during that

season. A big game hunter is also allowed to take coyotes under a big game

licence as well.

D. BRAGG:

We did consultations in

which we went live online; Blair Adams and myself sat there for two hours. We

had like 50 or 60 people registered to ask questions. That was one of the big

concerns: small calibre rifles and the poaching, or the suspected poaching of

big game animals. In many circles it has been applauded; there have been some

people: Why did you take this from us? But in a lot of the circles that we go

through, the vast majority has been applauded that we took these out during the

actual big game season.

We know

how it works. People get a bear licence so they can hunt with their partners. It

is not legal, but it happens. That rifle, substituted when the bear season

closed and what you would see then a lot of these rifles, people would shoot a

moose, cripple the moose, run away and die, and someone else would kill it later

on as a big green spot in it and they have to dispose of the animal. So we're

going to err right now on the side of caution with that. I would say way more

animals are taken by poaching than coyotes.

You

have to remember in the fall of the year is when the moose is healthiest. In the

spring, you have to worry about the calf. In the winter, when there's a lot of

snow, is the moose not being able to move, if the hunter can go back with the

rifle then.

But, as

the ADM said, if you have a big game licence you can shoot a coyote. You can use

your 30-06, 270, whatever you have. There's no reason not to. It was my personal

experience from a lot of people I talked to. I don't know if you're a moose

hunter or not, but a lot of people out my way, it's a big complaint.

P. FORSEY:

My argument to that, really,

would be during the hunting season, nobody is going to shoot a coyote. If they

have a big game licence on the seat of their truck or while they're walking

along or whatever, nobody is going to shoot at a coyote. A moose might be just

around the corner, just hid in the woods. They're not going to scare that animal

away if they have a chance to get that animal.

Most of

the hunting season, even rabbits, is done in the fall of the year. I know

there's a nice bit of winter hunt done on rabbits as well, but you have a 12

gauge in the woods with you, on the roads, you see a coyote, with a 12 gauge,

that coyote is probably too close. Then you're causing damage to the coyote.

It's just a comment to be made there. Do you know what I'm saying?

D. BRAGG:

You shouldn't shoot coyotes

on the roads, just so you know. Let's be clear on that.

P. FORSEY:

Woods roads, I'm talking

about.

D. BRAGG:

Same thing.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

From

the woods road, okay.

D. BRAGG:

Off the woods road,

preferably.

P. FORSEY:

Off the roads road. But

anyway, that's the general comment. Most hunting is done in the fall of the

year, when all the guns and everything is being carried, yet I still think

you're giving leniency to the predator. That's just a comment.

D. BRAGG:

Okay.

P. FORSEY:

3.1.01, Salaries, the

revised budget spent $80,000 less salaries to plan the budget 2021. Additional

$99,000 allotted to spend this year.

D. BRAGG:

So the variance was due to

vacancies in the division during the year for the $2.6 million. And the variance

was due to routine salary adjustments would be the $2.8 million.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, I guess that's the same thing, COVID issues

again?

D. BRAGG:

Yeah, and you have to keep

in mind, too, some of our people then were on points of entry.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Supplies – spent $10,000 less on Supplies than anticipated, but anticipated

spending $7,700 more this year.

D. BRAGG:

So get up to the $53,000

from the $34,000, you mean?

P. FORSEY:

Yes.

D. BRAGG:

All right, variance due to

less than anticipated supply expenditure during the year primarily due to

COVID-19 and lower than anticipated fuel supply. So we're hoping to get back to

where we were in previous years, and we know there are adjustments. We're even

up from the $44,000. So $53,200 we feel is going to be accurate or close for

this year.

P. FORSEY:

So what kind of supplies

would you –?

D. BRAGG:

ADM.

S. BALSOM:

Yes, the increase that we're seeing this year, we have $8,600 as being

reprofiled from the compliance division into this subhead because the industry

services group is taking on the responsibility for administering the load slip

books that are used in the transportation of timber. So this was just an

increase based on that program moving from one division to another.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Purchased Services were $55,900 more than expected last year. Why was this?

D. BRAGG:

I don't know what Remsoft

is, so do you want to go with this?

S. BALSOM:

Under this subhead we have the strategic planning

section which does the wood

supply calculations for the province. They use a software program that's

provided by Remsoft. We had some turnover within that unit. New foresters were

hired and we had to provide additional Remsoft software training, and that's

only direct from the company. So that was some of the increased cost there.

We also

did some survey work for a dock in Cartwright, Labrador, which we're looking to

make a decision on. That's currently owned by the department. We also took on a

royalty rate review contract. We're working with the industry association. It

was an area that they felt the industry should have a review. So we took on a

contract there. So that was the increase from $41,000 to $97,000.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Does

the minister expect a similar discrepancy this year with $46,000 allotted for

this year?

D. BRAGG:

No, it should be good.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Operating Accounts: The department spent $17,900 less than planned in 2021, yet

plans to spend $8,600 more this year. Can you explain the extra spending?

D. BRAGG:

Operating Accounts – I'm

going to turn this to Tracy King.

T. KING:

The Operating Accounts, I mean we've talked about the changes throughout,

because these are just the additions of the Transportation, the Supplies and the

Professional and Purchased Services discrepancies that we've already talked

about. So, you know, travel budget goes back to normal; for next year, we

anticipate the Purchased Services. We've just spoken about those things, so

that's just the tally of the variances we've just discussed.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

3.1.01

to 3.3.02 inclusive, MHA Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

3.1.01,

Administration and Program Planning: Under Professional Services, you had $200

of unbudgeted costs. What kind of professional services do you get for just

$200?

D. BRAGG:

I won't give you the

response I had that came quickly. I was thinking it was a checkup from the

doctor for $200, but it's a variance due to requirements for medical

documentation during the year related to the integrated disability management

L. EVANS:

I don't know if this is the

And thank you.

Supplies, last year's actuals were $20,000 over budget; can we have an

explanation for that?

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to higher than

anticipated expenses related to PPE and related to the avian influenza, as well

as required safety equipment for trucks.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, last year's actuals were $74,800 over budget. This year's

estimate is increased by another $26,600; can we have an explanation?

D. BRAGG:

On Purchased Services,

right?

L. EVANS:

Purchased Services, yes.

D. BRAGG:

All right.

Variance due to higher than anticipated expenditures associated with wildlife

control equipment, ATV and snowmobile repairs during the year.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Section

3.1.03, Silviculture Development: Under Salaries, this year's estimate has

increased by $153,600; is this a new position being added?

D. BRAGG:

So this is salary adjustment

required for '22-'23 reflection of an additional $150,000 related to a two-year

federal-provincial cost-shared initiative. It's two positions.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, last year's actuals were $200,500 under budget. This year's

estimate has increased by $1.2 million?

D. BRAGG:

So that's the $1.4 million

federal-provincial cost-shared initiative.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Moving

on to the next

section 3.1.04, Resource Roads Construction. Under Professional

Services, no funds were spent last year. Can we have an explanation of that?

D. BRAGG:

Professional Services

variance due to no requirements for professional services, for example, with

structural engineers for large steel bridges during the year related to Resource

Roads Constructions.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Purchased Services, last year the actuals were $85,000 over budget. Can we have

an explanation for that?

D. BRAGG:

The variance was due to

higher than anticipated Purchase Services expenditures for the year associated

with Resource Roads Construction repairs and maintenance, more washouts and

points put in due to the weather. So weather events would have caused more

washouts and we had to respond to it.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Under

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, what was the source of the unbudgeted

$82,800 expense there, and what are the plans for the newly budgeted $250,000?

D. BRAGG:

So I can give it to you for

the $82,800 and I'll turn the $250,000 over to Steve. The variance for the

$82,800 was due to requirements of fuel equipment for new hires and replacement

of ATVs during the year. I'll look to Mr. Balsom for an explanation on the

$250,000.

S. BALSOM:

If you look under Property, Furnishings and Equipment for the '22-'23 estimate,

we're reprofiling $250,000 from Supplies down into this category to match the

operational requirements under zero-based budgeting this year.

L. EVANS:

Okay. Thank you.

Moving to the next section, 3.2.01, Insect Control.

Would you have an update on what work has been done in the past year through the

spruce budworm spray program?

D. BRAGG:

I am going to turn this over to Mr. Balsom because he is going to give you a

more fulsome answer than what I have in my notes.

S. BALSOM:

Included in the Estimates binder is a good outline of the spruce budworm

overview. I am wondering: will that suffice?

L. EVANS:

Yes. That should be fine. Thank you.

Loves that binder.

Moving on to Salaries. Last year's actuals were $5,000 over budget. Can we have

expenses during the year related to the Spruce Budworm Early Intervention

Strategy Treatment Program.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

I am still under the same section. Under Transportation and Communications, last

year the actuals were $177,500 over budget. Could we just have a brief

explanation of that as well?

D. BRAGG:

So the variance on the next four subheadings, I guess, would be variance due to

realignment of spending associated with the spruce budworm spray program within

the operational accounts. Spray services were provided by Forest Protection

Limited and expenditures were primarily captured under the Purchased Services

and Transportations and Communications during the year, versus Supplies, where

the funds were originally budgeted.

Tracey is going to add to that – the DM.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

T. KING:

Thanks, Minister.

I just wanted to note here that the insect spray program is a partnership with

the federal government. So we do our best to figure out who is going to pay for

what at the beginning of the year, but sometimes that changes. So that is just a

little more colour to what the minister had described. It was just in the end

the feds picked up different things than we anticipated at budget time last

year.

CHAIR:

Thank you. And I remind the hon. Member that her speaking time has expired.

And before we go back to MHA Forsey, we are going to take a five- or six-minute

break to give people an opportunity to

D. BRAGG:

Water up.

CHAIR:

– water up and use the facilities.

D. BRAGG:

Or water out.

CHAIR:

You got it.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

We're

back. We're going back to MHA Forsey, 3.1.01 to 3.3.02 inclusive.

P. FORSEY:

3.1.01, Grants and

D. BRAGG:

I'm on the wrong page

altogether.

P. FORSEY:

he's on caribou. He gives us where the caribou are, where they need to be and

what the quota needs to be. He has a very specific – he can probably give you a

presentation sometime on the caribou and moose management, how that's all

defined.

So my

quick answer to rambling around the bush is going to be no.

P. FORSEY:

Okay, fair enough.

We'll

get back to Silviculture now: permits and allocations. Just a general question.

We're getting contractors in our area that are being denied extra allocations.

Is there anything being done regards to those extra allocations for those

people?

D. BRAGG:

For silviculture?

P. FORSEY:

Yeah.

D. BRAGG:

I'm going to look over my

shoulder to my ADM, since it is a question for that one, and he is going to give

you a long-winded answer this time.

P. FORSEY:

Don't take up my six

minutes.

S. BALSOM:

No, I won't be that long winded. I'm not sure the subhead, I think you were

referring to commercial cutting permit allocations.

P. FORSEY:

Commercial cutting permits,

yes, sorry.

S. BALSOM:

In the Central districts, 10, 11, 12, those area, we have been, I guess, very

fortunate that since Abitibi closed back in 2008, we were looking for a new

entrant in the area and it never came to be. We looked at pellet production

facilities, sawmill facilities, but the proponents never did – they went through

a number or request for proposals and the successful candidates never did

develop their proposals. There are a number of reasons and that would be a

long-winded answer when we get into the difficulties of running a forest

operation in Newfoundland and Labrador.

But

what did happen is that the traditional operators there were provided

allocations, the contractors that work for Abitibi, there were two sawmills at

the time that also would purchase all their fibre from Abitibi, Cottles Island

and Sexton Lumber, so all the harvesting contractors and the sawmills were

provided allocations to keep their businesses going. Through the natural process

of, I guess, the business community, those two sawmills were successful and they

grew to a point now where the allocations in Central Newfoundland are primarily

allocated. There is no additional timber to give to new entrants or people

coming up with new ideas.

Yes, we

would love to have the opportunity. We just put a request for proposal out for

the Northern Peninsula district where there was unallocated timber. But in order

to allocate more timber in the Central districts, we would have to take it away

from these businesses that, on their own, invested and grew and are now cutting

the full allocation, which is a great success story.

From

that has spawned – pressure-treating facilities have moved to the province now

and set-up shop and invested. So we have a very integrated industry. They

support Corner Brook Pulp and Paper with a flow of wood chips and biomass for

their generating facility. They support the agriculture industry with planer

shavings and sawdust.

we're managing the forest industry from a provincial lens. It's difficult to do

it at the local lens. But it is a success story for Central all the same that

all the wood is getting harvested there and it's creating a lot of value-added

products and a very well integrated industry overall.

But,

yes, would we love to have more timber to give to new projects, yes. But we can

only grow so much and harvest so much in a sustainable fashion. So we can only

allocate out the sustainable volume that those districts will provide. We're

kind of at that point in those districts, which is, again, a good news story.

P. FORSEY:

Yeah, okay, I get your

drift, I know where you're coming from, but when Abitibi did go down, some of

that forestry was, like you did say, there for the local industry probably to

reboot and find another secondary processing, if they could. I know it's been a

long time, I realize that.

Now, I

know there's been a proposal put to you guys only in the past little while, it's

been put on your plate. So how would you entertain that, if there wanted to be

another secondary processing industry to be right directly in the forest

industry, which is in (inaudible)? Because right now it's just being cut and

taken away. People are seeing this everyday.

D. BRAGG:

So I guess again you refer

to a proposal which you gave me there about probably a month ago.

P. FORSEY:

Yes.

D. BRAGG:

So our staff will review

that, we'll follow up with a meeting, if we need it, with the proponents.

Anybody who's serious in this industry, we'll talk to them. We'll be realistic

as well, because it's no good for us to build something and we can't supply the

timber to it, anymore than to build a fish plant and you can't supply the fish

to it. So we'll take every proposal to be very serious and we will do our due

diligence and we'll follow up. And I'm sure on the one in Central you'll do a

follow-up with me as well.

P. FORSEY:

Yes, no doubt. Anyway, thank

you for that.

On the

P. FORSEY:

No, they didn't even cut

their first part.

D. BRAGG:

Oh no, the one we just

proposed.

S. BALSOM:

Yeah, you're referring to Active Energy Group.

P. FORSEY:

Yeah, that's the one, yeah,

Timberlands.

S. BALSOM:

They were given a five-year permit to cut 100,000 cubic metres per year on the

Northern Peninsula.

P. FORSEY:

Two permits, yeah.

S. BALSOM:

Yeah, from two different districts that added up to that amount. By the midway

point, they had not harvested any or done any start on any kind of facility, so

under the allocation policy that we follow their permits were cancelled.

P. FORSEY:

Okay. All right.

3.3.01,

under Salaries: Why were there $137,000 more budgeted in 2021?

D. BRAGG:

So the variance due to the

students and the additional capacity being required at the Salmonier Nature Park

during the year for the $3.1 million. The $2.9 million is variance due to

routine salary adjustments required for '22-'23.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I will

remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

3.1.01

to 3.3.02 inclusive.

MHA

Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Just a

general question here. Last year, two native bat species, the little brown and

the northern myotis bats, were placed on the provincial endangered list due to

continued presence of white-nose syndrome.

Is the

department surveying this issue? Are there plans and programs to sustain the

habitat for the bat populations, such as adding the bat houses that seem to be

successful in other regions?

D. BRAGG:

So we have asked the general

public if they come up on a bat colony and they find white nose just to report

it to us. Our staff are always actively responding to whatever reports we will

get. We're trusting to the general public on most of these because we're not

actually out in the bat world but people who are in the bat world can report to

us – not to sound like Batman.

L. EVANS:

In your press release back

in, I think it was 2021, you said, “The province is continuing research and

exploring potential habitat protection for these species.”

What

are you doing in terms of habitat protection?

S. BALSOM:

You're correct, we did list the little brown bat under the endangered species

listings and from that we have formed a bat recovery team.

So what generally happens once a listing takes place is that a recovery team is

formed of local experts and then they will write the management plan for that

species. Included in that will be recommendations on habitat protection. They do

have some known locations already across the province that we kind of manage

though our current wildlife referral system, but this will now go through the

formal recovery team and management planning process. If critical habitat then

is listed, it is protected under the

Endangered Species Act and the legislation that protects it from any, I

guess, destruction or any use through the legislation.

So we are under way. There was one virtual meeting held and we have a draft that

we are working on currently and that has been circulated with the team for

comments. So they are making good progress on that piece.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Under

Section 3.2.01, Insect Control, Grants and Subsidies: Last year's actuals

were $2,500 under budget. Can we get an explanation for that? 3.2.01, Insect

Control, Grants and Subsidies.

D. BRAGG:

So that is subheading 10, right?

A variance due to less than anticipated expenditures for the SERG-I, spray

efficiency research group grant for '21-'22. No annual meetings due to COVID in

'21 either.

L. EVANS:

Okay. Thank you.

3.2.02, Fire Suppression and Communications: Could we have a quick overview and

update on our current fire suppression capabilities, the size of the fleet and

numbers of the staff available during fire season, et cetera?

D. BRAGG:

I am going to turn that over to Mr. Balsom.

S. BALSOM:

Just one second, I will find the subhead here.

L. EVANS:

It's 3.2.02.

S. BALSOM:

So currently under the '22-'23, there are 99 positions under this subhead that

are dedicated to fire protection. Within that there are approximately 70

positions that are dedicated, front-line Conservation Officer I position that

are our primary firefighting group. We also have conservation officers then

within the regional operations group. It's not their primary role but they are

trained and also supplement that group.

We work closely with Air Services. They have the four air tankers that support

us. We have a helicopter contract where we use helicopters under contract for

support to move

personnel and they also bucket water and move equipment and that type of thing.

So we have a very – well, I

would say, we have a really good resourced firefighting group. They've been very

successful not only here in the province, but we've also been supporting

out-of-province deployments through our cross-Canada agreement with the other

provinces. We've had deployments that went to Ontario. We had deployments to BC.

We had air tankers go to Quebec and assist Nova Scotia, so overall a very

successful program.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Keeping

with this same heading, under Salaries, last year's actuals were $592,500 under

budget. This year's estimate is increased by $112,000. Can we have an

explanation for this?

D. BRAGG:

So the $1.7 million in

Salaries is variance due to less than anticipated salary expenditures associated

with the '21-'22 fire suppression activities during the year. The $2.4 million

Under Professional Services,

there's a new line for the subsection. What specific services will this line pay

for?

D. BRAGG:

So Professional Services,

$8,500 was reprofiled from Transportation and Communications for medical

services, i.e. fitness testing. So this all got to do with zero-based budgeting.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, this year's estimate has increased by $33,100. What's the

reason for the increase?

D. BRAGG:

So we reprofiled that from

within the division.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Under

3.3.01, Wildlife Operations, under Salaries: Last year's actuals were $137,000

over budget. What was the reason for going over?

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to students and

additional capacity being required at Salmonier Nature Park and COVID response

plans, I have in my notes here as well.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

D. BRAGG:

And the variance this year

of $2.9 million is due to routine salary adjustments required for '22-'23.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, last year's actuals were $65,700 over budget. What was the

reason for going over?

D. BRAGG:

So the variance was due to

higher than anticipated expenditures associated with the printing and postage

for big game licence and salmon tags. And as you would know, this year we're

gone online for our big game licences and so we'll save some money this year.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there was an unbudgeted expense of $9,900.

What was the reason for this expense?

D. BRAGG:

So we had to purchase

cellphones for our employees and equipment like desks for employees throughout

the year. So it was all extra expense. The easy answer to that is COVID; we had

to work more outside the office than ever, so we had to make adjustments for

that.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

3.3.02,

Co-operative Wildlife Projects, under Salaries, last year's actuals were $50,000

under budget.

D. BRAGG:

Variance was less than

anticipated salary expenditures under the Caribou Conservation Agreement during

the year.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Purchased Services, this year's estimate has decreased by $15,000: What was the

reason for this decrease under the Purchased Services Estimates?

D. BRAGG:

So it's a $15,000 decrease

as per planning (inaudible) under the Caribou Conservation Agreement for year

four.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

And

under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there's an unbudgeted expense of

$2,000. What was this expense?

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to purchase of

a laptop required for a new hire.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

I just

have one further question. Regarding caribou, are there any plans to follow up

on the poaching activity from cross-border kills and transport of caribou that

would actually result in charges being laid? Are you making any progress for

that?

D. BRAGG:

This year, actually, I think

the overall – it's not something to be proud of, but it seemed to be that the

kills were down; the weather was unusual. We were aware of a group that were

inside of our boundaries in Labrador. The problem becomes actually identifying

the people.

I mean,

we were wondering what to do. I was mad enough last year that I just wanted to

go up and spray them all purple, to be honest. So that when they got into

Labrador that the officials there could do it. We're working with Labrador

officials; we continue to work with them. I have had meetings with the three

ministers in Labrador.

Until

the feds really bring us together, this is going to – this is a problem that is

not new, it has been ongoing. I talked to MHA Trimper a long time ago about

this. This has been an ongoing issue for years and years. It is so sad that the

herd is almost depleted because of this and people in our own province go

without caribou.

L. EVANS:

Yeah.

Minister, I think you mentioned Member Trimper as well, but I think we're all in

agreement that it is unfortunate. But the feds seem to not want to take any

action. Meetings and education is important but we don't have the time for it.

The caribou is practically depleted and unless something stops the depletion of

the caribou there is going to be no caribou, right. I think we all agree on

that.

My time

has just expired.

CHAIR:

Yes, thank you.

D. BRAGG:

So a follow-up to that

before we go on.

cannot condone poaching, anytime, anywhere, within our province, or outside for

that matter. I think it comes down to us educating the young people in our

communities about poaching not to be there.

Member opposite, a little while ago, asked about the .22/250. That was taken out

to prevent a lot of poaching of big game in the hunting season.

We need

to educate each other to this. It is our resource, not to exploit, but we need

to protect.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

Is the

Committee ready for the question?

Shall

3.1.01 to 3.3.02 inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.3.02 carried.

CHAIR:

Can I get the Clerk to call

the next set of subheads, please.

CLERK:

Agriculture and Lands,

4.1.01 to 4.5.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 to 4.5.01

inclusive carry?

MHA

Forsey.

P. FORSEY:

4.1.02, Land Management: Why

is there a discrepancy of $165,000 in this area?

L. EVANS:

Could you repeat the line

number, please?

P. FORSEY:

4.1.02. Am I correct?

P. FORSEY:

Salaries, yes.

D. BRAGG:

Okay.

Variance due to routine salary adjustments required for '22-'23 will be the $1.7

million. The reason for $1.5 million is variance due to savings as a result of

vacancies within the division during the year.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

D. BRAGG:

That's the $1.5 million.

P. FORSEY:

All right.

Supplies: Why was there an extra

$49,000 in '20-'21?

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to higher than anticipated expenditures related to road and bridge

infrastructure. We had some major washouts. So it would have been there.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Purchased Services: Why was there savings of $100,000?

D. BRAGG:

Variance due to less than anticipated requirements for roadwork and bridge

installation. We just did the repairs, which drove it up but we didn't do any, I

guess, new roads.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Revenue - Provincial, there was a discrepancy drop of $5,358,000 in the

provincial revenue in 2021. Can you explain that?

D. BRAGG:

So variance due to less than anticipated sale of recreational, residential and

commercial lands throughout the province.

I guess like everything, everybody stopped going out, building cabins or

whatever. There was less Crown land sold during that year.

P. FORSEY:

the bridge is on site. It's just when the company gets, I guess, the contractor

available to put it in. So it may not be a bailey bridge but it's similar to a

bailey bridge. One is coming out and one is going in. I guess they will notify

people because there are cottage lots on the other side.

P. FORSEY:

Well, the thing is to get it done for their purposes, really, because I know it

was going through all of the EAs and one went through Environment, another one

Forestry. There was a couple of different areas there.

D. BRAGG:

It has passed through all of the hurdles right now. It's just waiting on the

contractor and the company to do it when it works for them.

P. FORSEY:

Perfect.

Now, Crown Lands itself, there was a backlog back in November probably of close

to 4,000 applications being backlogged.

D. BRAGG:

No. Where did you get that news?

P. FORSEY:

There was some news on that. I did hear some news on that. So that was close to

4,000 backlogged applications in November. Where is the status on Crown lands

now with regard to backlogged applications and actually the 90-day reply time is

T. KING:

Thanks, Minister.

right now, the average turnaround time for a routine Crown lands application is

Sixty-eight business days for routine Crown lands applications. Just bear with

me because I can't find my notes.

So to

date, in 2022, we've received 1,147 applications so far this year. Last year, we

received 2,767 applications. So as of today, we have 1,394 applications that are

under review with the division with a decision pending.

P. FORSEY:

Okay. Back to 68 routine

days, what do you call routine?

T. KING:

So that would be, you know, a normal cabin development, just a straightforward –

most of the things we get in are like that, so your run-of-the-mill thing,

everything from a transfer to a new cabin, but it would not include something,

say, on Abitibi land. What I would say is 80-plus per cent of our transactions

fall in that kind of, just normal citizens doing their regular business with

We can go home.

4.2.01,

Salaries: Why is the discrepancy $100,000 for Salaries? Was there a vacant

position?

D. BRAGG:

4.2.01, sorry, I'm one page

ahead.

Salaries there is the variance due to routine salary adjustments. That's the

$1.7 million – didn't I just answer this question? $1.5 million is variance due

with regards to putting it in, will be the same time frame?

D. BRAGG:

Yes, it will be the same

time frame but, unfortunately, we're going to be down less loads, because of

this – now farmers can still go buy it direct, right, but this is under this

program. And it goes to people who produce fruits and vegetables first.

P. FORSEY:

So Wooddale Road will

certainly get their fair portion of this?

D. BRAGG:

Wooddale Road?

OFFICIAL:

First come, first serve.

D. BRAGG:

It's the first come, first

serve, yeah.

One

would hope that most people can get something out of this.

P. FORSEY:

Okay, I'll pass that along.

D. BRAGG:

Yes.

P. FORSEY:

Okay. All right.

Yeah,

that it was bad news actually, it really was.

You've

mentioned the potatoes; I know last year $2.7 million was given to two farms.

What's the status on both of those farms, actually?

D. BRAGG:

It would do your heart good

to visit these new farms that we put into circulation last year on the West

Coast. I forget the name because it's a brook up around Cormack and the other

one is near – not the brook but the name of a brook; we obviously aren't farming

a brook – but the two farms, one by the brook and one just before you get to

Deer Lake; you need to go in there.

If you

have ever been to PEI, it is the reddest clay anywhere you are going to find in

this province. If you want to find a small pebble or a rock to pickup, it is

just not there. It is great soil.

I was

so amazed; I visited last fall and the b'ys said, get out and we'll get a meal

of potatoes. And I said, well the stalks are only that high and I laughed. I

said there's nothing there because our stalks are like you need to mow them down

to get through them in the fall. The farmer said you'll be surprised. They get a

return of one on 10 for every potato they put in the ground. And every potato I

pulled up was the size of that glass. It was amazing.

You

should go over when they're doing the planting and go back again later in the

fall during the harvest because, like I said, it would just do your heart good

to see what we can actually produce here in this province.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

4.1.01

to 4.5.01, MHA Evans.

I just

want to remind the Committee that we are due to clue up somewhere around noon

and we have 10 minutes allotted to MHA Trimper as well; I just put that in the

back of your mind.

Thank

you.

L. EVANS:

4.1.01, Land Management, so

we're back at the beginning again. Transportation and Communications, last

year's actuals were $13,400 over budget. I'm just looking for the reason why.

D. BRAGG:

It is just higher travel

expenditures during the year.

L. EVANS:

Higher travel.

Thank

you.

You

already partially answered the question there for Revenue - Provincial. Last

year's actuals were $5,250,000 under budget and the actuals for this revenue has

been drastically lowered than estimated for the last three years. Now, is that

all because of COVID?

D. BRAGG:

I wouldn't be able to say

that it is all because of COVID because you never know what some land values

will be. Previous years may have been a big development somewhe

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2022-05-03
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga50_22-05-03rcdepartmentoffisheriesforestryandagriculture.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5b680ba1e76864ba31e4ab7ce13f5570c557d46b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).