PDF Version

May 5, 2022

GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Abbott, MHA for St. John's Centre,

substitutes for Brian Warr, MHA for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South,

substitutes for Chris Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Andrew Parsons, MHA for Burgeo - La Poile,

substitutes for Scott Reid, MHA for St. George's - Humber.

The

Committee met at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Pike):

Good evening, everyone. I'm

going to call the meeting to order.

I guess

there's a reason we're starting a half hour early, so I'm not going to try to

cut into any time by giving you any lengthy speeches or anything. But it's just

that I thank you all for being here. Thank you to the staff and the ministers

and thank you to my colleagues as well.

We have

some substitutions here this evening, which are– just one second now.

CLERK (Russell):

They were under here.

CHAIR:

Anything that looks like

it's not going together like it should, it's Bobbi's fault.

CLERK:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

For Scott Reid, we have

Andrew Parsons sitting in; for Baie Verte - Green Bay, Mr. Warr, we have John

Abbott; for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Mr. Tibbs, we have Barry Petten. I

guess that's the only substitutes we have.

we're going to look at, as well, the fact that we can only do – by the way, we

have unaffiliated Members here. Does the Committee agree to allow unaffiliated

Members present to participate in the proceedings by allowing them 10 minutes

each to ask their questions, once the Committee has concluded its business

toward the end of the evening?

Does

everybody agree with that?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Okay.

What

about a break? Would you guys like a break tonight, say at 7 p.m.? Or do you

want to go right through?

E. LOVELESS:

Depends on the questions they ask.

CHAIR:

You might need a break, is

what you're saying.

E. LOVELESS:

I mean, I guess we'll see

how the time goes.

B. PETTEN:

Maybe a five-minute break.

CHAIR:

Five-minute break? Okay,

that's fine.

couple of housekeeping things now, for sure. Always identify yourselves and wait

for the tally light each time you speak. Wave to identify one's self if the

light does not come on. Consistent with protocols in effect in Confederation

Building, masks must be worn in the Chamber by employees unless they are

speaking. It is discretionary for Members. Members and officials are reminded

not to make any adjustments to the chair they seated in; they are adjusted

specifically to the Member who sits in that chair.

AN HON. MEMBER:

You never wrote that, did

you?

CHAIR:

No, I didn't.

Water

coolers are located in the corners and for those without their own water bottle,

glasses

are located next to the coolers at the north end of either side of the Speaker's

chair.

The approach in starting the meeting – first, we will ask Members of the

Committee and any staff attending with them to introduce themselves, along with

other Members in attendance. Then I would ask the minister to introduce their

staff. This is only an introduction and I ask the minister to wait until the

Clerk calls the subheads to start with an introduction of the departmental

Estimates.

Following that, I will ask the Committee to move that the minutes of the

previous meeting be adopted and then I will ask the Clerk to call the first

subhead to get us started. We will then proceed through the Estimates by

subhead. The Chair then asks the Committee Members and departmental officials

and witness to introduce themselves. The Chair then asks the minister to

introduce department staff. T

he Chair brings the minutes of previous meeting to the attention of the

Committee Members and asks if any revisions or amendments are required. If

revisions are raised, they are noted by the Clerk. The Chair then asks for a

mover of the minutes. A seconder is not required.

So the minutes of the previous meeting, I think everybody has a copy. It is

dated April 11, 2022. Does everybody have a copy? Do we have a mover?

Moved by Jordan Brown. Thank you so much, Jordan.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

We are now going to do our introductions. So we will start with staff.

E. LOVELESS:

Elvis Loveless, Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Public

Procurement Agency. I will ask us to begin to my right and we can go up and then

H. TIZZARD:

Heather Tizzard, Chief Procurement Officer, Public Procurement Agency.

S. BURBRIDGE:

Stephen Burbridge, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations.

J. BAKER:

John Baker, Assistant Deputy Minister, Air and Marine Services.

P. MORRISSEY:

Patrick Morrissey, Departmental Controller, Transportation and Infrastructure.

D. MICHIELSEN:

Dan Michielsen, Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic and Corporate Services.

G. BUTLER:

Greg Butler, Budget Manager.

B. SCOTT:

Brian Scott, Director of Communications.

G. CLARKE:

Greg Clarke, Assistant Deputy Minister of Infrastructure.

C. GRANDY:

Cory Grandy, Deputy Minister, Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

There's a lady that's there

but she went to get my glasses because I need them, it's Margot Pitcher, she's

Executive Assistant to the Minister.

CHAIR:

Okay, now we're going to do

the Committee starting with Mr. Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Barry Petten, MHA for

Conception Bay South.

D. HYNES:

Darrell Hynes, Director of Research and Legislative Affairs, Opposition Office.

J. BROWN:

Jordan Brown, MHA for

Labrador West.

S. KENT:

Steven Kent, Sessional Support for the Third Party Office.

J. PUDDISTER:

Jess Puddister, Sessional Support for the Third Party Caucus Office.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Loyola O'Driscoll, MHA for

the District of Ferryland.

L. STOYLES:

Lucy Stoyles, Mount Pearl

North MHA.

J. ABBOTT:

John Abbott, MHA, St. John's

East - Quidi Vidi.

A. PARSONS:

Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo

- La Poile.

D. HAMLYN:

Dave Hamlyn, Sessional Support, Government Members' Office.

P. TRIMPER:

Perry Trimper, MHA for Lake

Melville.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

We're

now going to introduce the first subhead.

CLERK:

For the Public Procurement

Agency, 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Chair.

Before

I move into the Public Procurement piece, I just want to have a few words, I

guess. I won't read all the 21 pages that the comms record did for me, because

it would be too long. No, I'm just kidding.

Now

that the staff has introduced themselves, I just want to recognize each and

every one of them and to say they are valuable beyond words. I appreciate

everything that all of them do, as I said, it's invaluable.

From

the department's perspective, it's no secret that our employees touch on

services in all corners of the province. But I'll say as minister that much of

what we do sometimes goes unnoticed. We have dedicated employees who take great

pride in improving the safety and lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Before

I go further, we do have new ADMs this year. One is not an old face but is new

to the – and that's Dan – department and certainly appreciate and welcome his

experience. We have Stephen Burbridge, who plays a very important role in terms

of depots and the existence of them. He has visited a lot of them to date and

certainly getting a handle on what they do in the province.

And

just the staff in our department, I just want to make note of some of the things

they do. I know we all know what they do, but ensuring everybody who depends on

ferry, that they get home to see their family, I believe it's worth noting;

salting roads while we're asleep at nights and we're in our beds and we're calm,

they're out on the roads. They have family that are home wondering if they're

going to be okay because they're out in all elements. That's just to name a few;

there is more that I could say.

takes, certainly, a dedicated group of people to provide those services; we all

know that and appreciate it. I want to thank everyone right across the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador that do the work for Transportation and

Infrastructure because, as I said, sometimes they do get beaten up, even in

their own communities and it's a reality and nature of the work, but I certainly

value what they provide.

So from

a department's perspective, just to give you some numbers. Employees:

Transportation and Infrastructure had 1,658 employees as of March 31, 2022. This

includes 87 13-week employees. Of the 1,670 employees, we have 1,473 unionized,

non-management and 185 management. We have 1,427 male and 231 female; 767

permanent, 289 seasonal, 587 temporary, 15 contractual; 954 Operations Branch,

247 Air and Marine Services – my gosh, I am exhausted – 320 Infrastructure

Branch, 137 Strategic and Corporate Services; 609 in the Avalon region, 346 in

the Eastern region, 247 in the Central region, 379 Western region and 77 in

Labrador.

As I

said, the Public Procurement Agency, this year, we continued to modernize and

provide oversight of public procurement towards achieving best value in

government purchasing, which is important.

I know Members opposite know what's in

Budget 2022 so I'm not going to read any of that, but just to recognize that

$442 million investing in infrastructure funding and supporting a lot of

projects. I won't name any of them out because it is in the budget documents and

we have debated, even in the House, so far.

But I want to recognize something in terms of during 2021 this department and

our employees were faced with several adverse weather events. We talked about it

many times that most of them happen on weekends and so, again, those employees

are out attending to washouts when really the salt and the sand and the clearing

of roads is still their responsibility. So it has been a challenging season.

But before I end off I want to conclude with what we believe is good news.

During 2021, the department responded to a call for assistance from the Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources to help battle forest fires in that province and

we know it is a mutual agreement that we have with different provinces.

Sometimes it could be them coming to us and us going to them. I think it's

positive when you have got two provinces working together.

Budget 2021

allocated $450,000 in revenue to be received from other Canadian province for

the use of Newfoundland and Labrador's water bomber fleet. As a result of the

province's efforts this year to combat the forest fires in Ontario, the

government received $1.235 million in revenues, which is $785,000 additional

revenues for the province. So that is a good news story. And I know in some of

the debates it was talked about how we interact and I thought it was certainly

useful to mention that here tonight.

Also, the department has made it a priority to reduce spending on leased spaces

and unused assets. Since 2016, we have reduced our office space footprint by

201,882 square feet, which is currently saving taxpayers approximately $5.2

million every year.

I will end with COVID-19. It's still with us so what's related to in protecting

employees is still a cost to us and over the last fiscal year we have incurred

expenses related to COVID-19 of approximately $545,000 but we know that's

necessary in carrying out the safety of employees.

I will conclude with that and we will move to the Public Procurement piece which

is a smaller piece of the whole department. I have Heather here with me and I

will allow the proceedings to begin.

CHAIR:

Okay, the first questioner for the Committee.

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Public Procurement: Is there any training program online or in person and

virtual for public bodies pertaining to procurement?

H. TIZZARD:

We provide training to whoever requests it, so make a phone call to our office

and we'll make sure you get the training you need. We also partner with MNL,

PMA, the municipal sectors, whenever they have their conferences. When requested

we'll go out and do a larger training session, but we will do training for

whoever needs it and whoever wants it.

B. PETTEN:

Do you request feedback from

the public that can be reported back on these trainings? Do you require it, or

is it just an optional thing?

H. TIZZARD:

We don't specifically ask for it; I know after some of the MNL conferences and

PMA conferences sometimes it's one of the questions that they ask on a survey

that they do after, but generally not after our training sessions, no.

B. PETTEN:

So there are no actual

reports that's done, it's just if you request training, you provide it but

that's basically where it ends, is it?

H. TIZZARD:

Yes.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

During

COVID – this was used probably more during COVID than now, those trainings?

H. TIZZARD:

Well, I don't think COVID required more training. You know, we did extensive

training when the legislation was first introduced.

B. PETTEN:

Sure.

H. TIZZARD:

And like I said, we'll do training on demand, but I don't think COVID required

any extra training.

B. PETTEN:

No, I was meaning virtual

point – so it was all –

H. TIZZARD:

Oh virtually? Absolutely, yes.

B. PETTEN:

More in person I guess as we

gradually get back to normal.

H. TIZZARD:

Yes, absolutely.

B. PETTEN:

Whenever that is.

In the

years 2019-20, Deer Lake, Grand Falls-Windsor, Carbonear and Torbay were

provided training as it pertaining to procurement for municipal bodies. Since

2019-20, have any other towns completed the training, and are all towns aware of

this training?

H. TIZZARD:

I can't speak to what towns are aware of; again, it's my understanding that MNL

and PMA, we speak with them at least annually, when their conferences come up,

so I think most municipalities are aware of them. I don't have a number of

municipalities that have done training, but it's regular from our office that we

do training. I think we did five municipalities just last week, as an example.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

The

Procurement Advisory Council consists of public bodies with the responsibility

for procurement. Are any meeting minutes available for review?

H. TIZZARD:

We have minutes, yes.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. So they're available

for review? Are they public?

H. TIZZARD:

They're not publicly posted, but I have them if you want to request them.

B. PETTEN:

Yes, please.

H. TIZZARD:

Sure, yes.

B. PETTEN:

With the implementation of

the MERX, has there been any increase in public bodies completing RFPs?

H. TIZZARD:

I can't speak to the number of RFPs that are conducted by public bodies. So we

do our own RFPs and post to MERX, but I don't know how public bodies conduct

their procurements with respect to what tool they use.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Has

this been accepted by the public? Do you feel that this system is working?

H. TIZZARD:

Yes, absolutely.

B. PETTEN:

There's a good reception on

that?

H. TIZZARD:

Yes.

B. PETTEN:

Is there a list of

recommendations for public bodies to improve and enhance procurement processes?

Is there any list of recommendations they have for making improvements?

H. TIZZARD:

We audit public bodies as a part of the function of our Audit Division in the

Public Procurement Agency. So every audit report that we give back to a public

body contains recommendations.

B. PETTEN:

They're public, too, are

they, or can they be public?

H. TIZZARD:

We don't post the audit reports, but again, they're available.

B. PETTEN:

They can be requested? Okay.

H. TIZZARD:

Absolutely, yeah.

B. PETTEN:

In 2021-22, Salaries,

$2,010,400 less than the budgeted amount, and this year you're budgeting $10,000

more than last year. This was $200,000 less in the budget line.

E. LOVELESS:

So are you asking the

decrease of $211,000, is that what you're asking?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

The decrease is a result of

lower salary costs due to vacancies throughout the year. There were four

positions that were vacant for a large portion of the year: two policy and

research analysts, buyer II and a procurement officer III.

B. PETTEN:

And under Professional

Services it was not a big lot of money, but it doubled, basically, and it's gone

back to $23,500 again. So it went from $23,500 to $47,500. What did that

include?

E. LOVELESS:

The increase is due to a

number of auctions resulting in higher auction fees based on a percentage of

revenue generated from the disposal of the assets.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

It's

understandable that during COVID there was less than 25 per cent of the

Transportation and Communications budget. Has consideration been given to do

more virtual meetings in '22-'23? Therefore trying to reduce the transportation

budget. Have you given any consideration to that?

E. LOVELESS:

The answer to it is yes, but

are you asking about the decrease and what that represents?

B. PETTEN:

Well, that was less

transportation due to COVID, we assume.

E. LOVELESS:

Right.

B. PETTEN:

But we're wondering, there

was a savings, is that something into the future that's something you're

considering?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, I think not just for

Public Procurement, but any division within our department if we can certainly

produce savings by doing webinars, absolutely. We're evaluating that on a daily

basis, I guess, to see what we can.

I think

we all can appreciate that the interaction is required moving forward as well.

So there'll be a balance and I think that's something that probably is a

positive thing that has come out of COVID-19 and the challenge.

B. PETTEN:

That's all my questions I

have on Public Procurement, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, MHA Petten.

Any

other Committee Members with questions?

MHA

Brown.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Chair.

I only

have a couple of questions for Public Procurement there. Currently how many

vacancies are in the Public Procurement Agency right now?

H. TIZZARD:

I think we have eight vacancies right now.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Currently, does the Public Procurement Agency handle the larger procurement,

like the P3 for the correctional facility?

H. TIZZARD:

Infrastructure procurements are handled by Transportation and Infrastructure.

J. BROWN:

Okay, directly by the

department.

Perfect, that's all my questions for Public Procurement.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

MHA Trimper.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you.

I just

have one question, and it's just a bit of an update. I believe, Heather, you and

I spoke some time ago about the procurement of janitorial services across

Labrador, and some issuing of tenders, then withdrawing, then issuing again. I

just wondered if you had any comment on that, what might have happened, just a

status.

Thank

you.

H. TIZZARD:

So I apologize, I don't

remember that exact file, but if you want to talk to me afterwards or later, I

can certainly follow up on that for you.

P. TRIMPER:

Okay, just to sort of

refresh, in case it jolts – but I can reach out to you again. Certainly, over

the last 12 months, from various bidders across Labrador, there was frustration

because the tender had been called for services, they would have submitted, and

then it was withdrawn and then called again. There was sort of a couple of

start-stops.

One

other element that I just remembered on the procurement that I'm hearing from

some of the bidders is the requirement – and I don't have my notes in front of

me, I apologize. They're finding it exorbitant, the amount of money that's

required for the deposit, vis-à-vis the opportunity on the contract. I just

wondered if your department is seeing that across the board, or is it specific

to this, or maybe just to these bidders.

H. TIZZARD:

So is that the bid bond, you're referring to, I guess?

P. TRIMPER:

Yes.

H. TIZZARD:

I haven't heard anything

about that. Nobody's complained to my office or to me directly about that.

P. TRIMPER:

Okay. I'll reach out to you.

H. TIZZARD:

Absolutely.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Could you recall the

grouping, please?

CLERK:

Public Procurement Agency, 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Motion carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

The total.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Motion carried.

On motion, Public Procurement Agency, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates of the Public Procurement Agency?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Motion carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Public Procurement Agency carried without amendment.

CLERK:

For Transportation and Infrastructure, Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to

1.2.06 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.06 inclusive carry?

Minister.

E. LOVELESS:

I know I am allotted some time, but all I want to do is just a household item,

really. So the Public Procurement binders for the three Members are on the desk

there, so you can get them after.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you.

Minister, I have got some general questions ,

if you don't mind, in between through tonight. I guess you have binders for TI

as well, do you?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah. We have it on the –

B. PETTEN:

Stick.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

Got you, sounds good.

I'm

going to ask a couple of questions first. I have done Public Procurement from

MHA Wakeham – (inaudible) I'm more comfortable.

Anyway,

attrition plan – I know you give me lots of numbers starting out, but are you

still following the attrition plan?

E. LOVELESS:

We are. I'll allow the

deputy minister to give you the numbers on that.

C. GRANDY:

I'm actually going to refer to the controller if I can.

P. MORRISSEY:

(Inaudible.)

C. GRANDY:

For 2020-2021 and '21-'22, the department reached its attrition plan of $678,000

in 27 positions over two years.

B. PETTEN:

So right now, do you have

any idea how many vacancies are not filled by the department?

E. LOVELESS:

We currently have 93

vacancies in TI and some of them are seasonal.

B. PETTEN:

Some seasonal.

E. LOVELESS:

Yes.

B. PETTEN:

What about retirements? How

many retirements in that last year?

E. LOVELESS:

How many retirements? I have

to lean on the staff behind me.

P. MORRISSEY:

Retirements are 55 as of March 31.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Did you

get any funds from the COVID fund last year?

C. GRANDY:

There were a couple different places where COVID funding through the federal

government came. Is that your question? So there was a piece of the ICIP, and I

don't have the amount right in front of me. There was a COVID resiliency fund

that we did avail of funding under ICIP.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. That's the

federal-provincial-municipal fund, right?

What

about from the contingency fund? Did you get any funds from the contingency

fund?

E. LOVELESS:

I am being told no.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

How

many new hires in the last year?

E. LOVELESS:

New hires?

B. PETTEN:

Yes.

E. LOVELESS:

Like from the whole

department perspective?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, basically.

C. GRANDY:

That is not a number

that we have with us tonight. There is regular turnover in terms of recruitment,

whether it is through retirement or people leaving. So it is a very fluid

number.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. Have there been any positions eliminated last year?

C. GRANDY:

Nothing beyond the attrition number we had discussed.

B. PETTEN:

I have got some line items. I will go back (inaudible) after tonight.

Minister's Office – I guess a question on Transportation and Communications. It

appeared to be stable. It is not a big amount of money but there was no change

in funding. We have noticed that there has been some savings in other

departments and wondering why the Transportation never changed.

E. LOVELESS:

So are you asking under Transportation and Communication?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, 1.1.01.

E. LOVELESS:

There was no change there. What we budgeted –

B. PETTEN:

With other departments we have seen savings but it is the same amount. It is

straight – there was no dip. There was no less funding last year. Do you know

what I mean?

E. LOVELESS:

I don't know how to answer your question any more than what we budgeted, we

spent. So we didn't go over and we didn't go under. We were right on target. I

actually put a smiley face on that page and I need all hon. Members to use

#TIawesome.

B. PETTEN:

Right on.

E. LOVELESS:

On this one that is.

B. PETTEN:

That is right.

Under 1.2.02, Administration and Support, the reduction in Salaries of $104,000.

E. LOVELESS:

Just give me a minute – trying to follow it through.

1.2.02. Correct?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

Under Salaries – why am I not seeing that?

This reflects salary plan changes, including vacancy factor and step changes.

That's the budgeted revised from 2022-2023 budget. There is also a budget, less

the 2021-2022 revised, there was an increase and the increase in salary plan

changes, including filled vacancies and step increases.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Then Employee Benefits went from $2,098,000 up to $2,588,000. Can you explain

what that increase is for?

E. LOVELESS:

$2 million to $2.5 million?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

That increase was workers'

compensation payments. They are demand driven and can vary based on the number

of claims submitted and duration of the claims. TI was also notified during the

year about a new WorkplaceNL retirement benefit that applies to all injured

workers who receive extended earnings loss benefits.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, the revised expenditure of Transportation and

Communications was $113,000 less than budgeted.

E. LOVELESS:

Yes. That was a reduction in

travel for financial operations and corporate safety divisions, partially due to

the pandemic. Also savings on mobility contract and reduced postage costs.

B. PETTEN:

And Purchased Services:

What's the decrease? What was the reason for that to drop from $123,000 to

$70,000?

E. LOVELESS:

Purchased Services, under

same heading, right?

B. PETTEN:

Yes.

E. LOVELESS:

Why the decrease? That was

through savings at headquarters and regional offices for Xerox printing costs

due to the pandemic. Also less than anticipated ergonomics assessments

throughout the year. This is demand driven and can vary year over year.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Purchased Services in 1.2.03, there's a drop of $37,000.

E. LOVELESS:

In 2018-2019, the Department

of Transportation and Infrastructure entered into lease agreements for mail

machines in the regions, as these new machines are newer, they do not require

the same level of maintenance; however, as the machines age, maintenance could

increase.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

1.2.06, it's a small amount, but just curious, there's two unbudgeted

expenditures under Professional and Purchased Services, $2,000 and $10,000.

E. LOVELESS:

Did you say –

B. PETTEN:

They're by themselves. There

are two amounts, they're only small amounts, I'm just curious. The Professional

Services and Purchased Services, under Land Acquisition, 1.2.06.

E. LOVELESS:

Oh yeah, I've got two; I

must have missed over one.

B. PETTEN:

Small amounts, but just –

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, the increase, overruns

due to Professional Services required for legal services related to land

expropriations mainly on the Team Gushue Highway.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

E. LOVELESS:

That's under Professional

Services. And the increase of $10,000 for 2021 revised, one-time appraisals

conducted for land valuations.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Minister, in the remaining time, I got just a few general questions.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

Can you update us on the

asphalt studies, any tests the department have done? I know that's been an

ongoing thing every year or regularly back in the day, but it's been forever.

Are there any new updates on that or where we're to with that?

E. LOVELESS:

I can, but I'll divert to

the staff after.

It's a

conversation that we certainly had and I have requested, but things get so busy

in terms of even touring the place that – I call it – mixes everything together.

But it's a good question, and even talking to contractors and various others,

this does come up. So it's a good question. But I'll rely on the staff to

provide some insight to it.

C. GRANDY:

So what we've assessed so far, we haven't been able to reach any conclusive

evidence that one of the tests were any better than the other. We continue to

monitor it. We try to do that twice a year. So we haven't done the measurements

following the winter season. We try to do it in the spring following the winter

season and then again the fall after the summer season. So there's nothing

conclusive in what we've seen so far in one test over the other. We continue to

monitor.

B. PETTEN:

So the polymer additive that

was supposed to really work good for the rutting, it wasn't a natural product,

it was artificial, that's not being used now, is that correct?

C. GRANDY:

We continue to use the polymer additive in the asphalt on higher volume roads. I

think there is clear evidence that on high volume that does add to the

elasticity in the asphalt.

B. PETTEN:

Synthetic is what I was trying to find. Synthetic, yeah.

C. GRANDY:

We do get better results from that.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. But on less busy roads

you're back to the regular?

C. GRANDY:

Yeah, we don't use the polymer additive across the board.

B. PETTEN:

Right, just regular 57,

whatever regular mix.

C. GRANDY:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

Grace Hospital land, besides

a tank being buried there, what are the latest happenings with that piece of

land?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, I think I was posed a

question the other day by one of the Members. We're progressively and

aggressively trying to come to a good ground in terms of that land because we

know it's valued land. We have the minister that sits behind you; we've had

conversations with this department from a social perspective.

We did

move a parcel of the land with the city and a developer that – I don't have all

the details on it, but in terms of parking, there was a parcel of land. I don't

know if the contractor has developed it yet in terms of – it's a building.

OFFICIAL:

It was the former fire hall.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah. The former fire hall

that is on that piece of land. But the parcel of land where the building sits,

no, we don't have anything concrete right now to – I'd like to, I'd like to be

able to tell you, but we don't. We're certainly actively looking at options. And

once we have something that's solid, we'll certainly be able to announce it.

B. PETTEN:

Is that the nursing, the old

nursing units or residence there – I drive by there regularly because I'm back

and forth the hospital lots over there last few months, that's a hazard, right?

I know it's under provincial – that kind of spurred my thought, I'm looking at

that a lot. It's dangerous, a lot of broken glass, windows. I mean, it's

provincial government, we own it, basically, as a province. It's a huge

liability, I guess. It's a valued piece of land; it's right in the centre of the

city.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

Well, I

know when I came into the department first, we had an extensive conversation on

it, just putting on, I guess, my real estate hat and looking at it, you know, as

you say, it's a liability. I mean, with the windows broken and there's a

contamination.

I don't

know what's in there, I haven't been in there, but presenting it as is when you

want to sell it and stuff. There are people – I know when I did the story at the

time, I had real estate agents that reached out to me about that, because they

know the location. I mean, when you're selling something: location, location,

location.

It is

in a good location, but certainly what you mentioned is a concern, but if

someone is willing to come to take it as is and we can negotiate terms, then I'd

be all for it, but realistically it is a deterrent, no doubt.

But,

again, on the other side of this, location, location, location is attractive. So

hopefully we can find the right piece and move this piece of land that will give

us good return, as well, for the province.

B. PETTEN:

Absolutely.

Minister, Team Gushue Highway, what's the status? When are we going to see it

completed? What's completed so far is pretty good but –

E. LOVELESS:

Well, I think from the

beginning of when all this started in terms of development of the Team Gushue

Highway, a lot has changed since then. We've met with federal counterparts and

we've met with the City of Mount Pearl, we've had a lot of discussions around

it. But no bones about it, in order to finish it, it's going to require

significant investment. Right now, that's not in our budget to do it. That's

kind of the discussion that we had, certainly, with Minister O'Regan and

some locals MHAs, it's of interest to them as well. I made it clear to them that

we need them at the table with us.

So we're hoping that's going to happen sooner rather than later because, as I

said, there is lots of interest in completing it.

B. PETTEN:

The Nain Airstrip, any updates on that status to replace or upgrades to that

airstrip?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, we have allocated – we had this discussion because I was asked the

question last night when we were hearing the Executive Council Estimates. We've

committed $3.5 million for a feasibility study and that's now with the

Nunatsiavut Government. They're taking the lead on it.

In terms of where it is right now, it is with them and we look forward –

obviously, we're partnering as well with the federal government so it's 50-50

cost shared in terms of that $3.5 million come $7 million. We look forward to

what that is going to bring us in terms of results and moving the file forward.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA Brown.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Chair.

I have just got some general questions there as well.

Right now, other than the correctional facility, is there any other P3 models

being discussed or evaluated right now in the department?

E. LOVELESS:

For –?

J. BROWN:

For any future construction – any consideration of any other P3 models?

E. LOVELESS:

There are discussions ongoing, you know, always around, I guess, infrastructure

needs in the province, whether in Labrador or the Island portion of it. But I

don't have anything that I can say concrete to you that here it is and list off

– but I don't know if there is any staff members who want to – did anybody want

to comment on – if you can add anything to it other than there are lots of

discussions ongoing in terms of infrastructure requests.

J. BROWN:

Okay. Perfect.

I know the Member for Conception Bay mentioned there about the old Grace

Hospital. Could we have an update on the Impacted Sites Liability Assessment

Program and any cleanup work and stuff that is going around at this time?

E. LOVELESS:

I will ask Dan to answer that, please.

D. MICHIELSEN:

Yeah. Sure.

You know, we participate in the

Impacted Sites Liability Assessment Program in partnership with Environment and

Climate Change. We provide, I guess, updates annually to them

and their experts look at

the sites and determine what is and what is not a liability.

This year is ongoing in

terms of gathering the information, but last year we had seven sites that were

confirmed as liabilities. The total liability of $990,000. But there was also

about $22 million in impacts related to properties that weren't considered

government liabilities. And a total of 64 sites that we have where we have

identified potential concerns and seven of them, like I said, were identified as

actual liabilities.

J. BROWN:

Could we get a list of all

the sites and potential sites, too, please?

E. LOVELESS:

Yes.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you, my

friend.

Under

the Land Acquisition: Was there any land acquired this year or in the near

future?

C. GRANDY:

We are, through this particular activity that you might be referring to, clueing

up old expropriations. So I think that is the bulk of what that particular

subhead would be used for.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

there is nothing new; it is just finishing previous work?

C. GRANDY:

Correct.

J. BROWN:

All right, perfect. Thank

you.

The

study that was done on the Labrador-Island link and that it was moved over to

the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Is there any ongoing discussions with the Canada

Infrastructure Bank on that project?

E. LOVELESS:

I haven't had any to date.

There had been some preliminary discussions but I certainly look forward to

further discussions on what it all means for Newfoundland and Labrador.

J. BROWN:

Perfect.

Thank

you, Minister.

E. LOVELESS:

You're welcome.

J. BROWN:

That would be all my

questions for this subhead right now.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you.

I have

no more questions in this subhead.

CHAIR:

Clerk.

CLERK:

For the Department of

Transportation and Infrastructure, Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to

1.2.06 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.06

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.06 carried.

CHAIR:

Clerk.

CLERK:

For the Department of

Transportation and Infrastructure, Operations, 2.1.01 to 2.4.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Road Maintenance, yeah.

CHAIR:

Operations.

B. PETTEN:

Operations.

CHAIR:

2.1.01 –

B. PETTEN:

2.1.01?

CHAIR:

– to 2.4.03.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah. I'm looking at Road

Maintenance.

CHAIR:

I was just making sure

you're on –

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, that's Road

Maintenance, 2.1.01, Administration and Support Services. Under Salaries, what

is the nature of the $354,000 extra spent last year?

E. LOVELESS:

That was overruns primarily

related to unfunded severance costs and increased overtime due to emergency

call-outs. This is primarily related to supervisors attending emergency road

repairs, as I referenced in my opening remarks, and snow and ice control

operations beyond their normal working hours.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Severance is included in that too, did you say?

E. LOVELESS:

Yes, unfunded severance

costs.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, there was an additional $300,000 over the

budgeted amount.

E. LOVELESS:

That was increased

communication costs for Internet services, radios in remote locations and

satellite phones in Labrador.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Purchased Services, again, there was an increase of $122,000 from what's

budgeted this year.

E. LOVELESS:

The increase represented

overruns primarily related to 511 enhancements plus utility and maintenance

costs for street lighting. This budget has now been rightsized.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Can we

get a list of the Grants and Subsidies there that are listed in that $40,000, or

probably even just explain it might be enough?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, this funding is

provided for local roads where it's more feasible to provide a grant for road

maintenance than carry out the work directly.

He's

smiling at me back there.

B. PETTEN:

He's laughing there.

2.1.02, Summer Maintenance and Repairs, increase in Salaries of $674,000.

E. LOVELESS:

That, again, is kind of the same explanation as before in the previous one:

Overrun due to unfunded severance payments and increased summer maintenance

requirements, overtime and shift differential due to road washouts.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

There was a drop in Purchased Services of pretty well almost half a million, a

little less than half a million.

E. LOVELESS:

Purchased Services decrease: Reduction primarily due to fewer repairs and

industry productivity levels.

B. PETTEN:

2.1.03, there is an increase in Salaries.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

As you can see from the revised budget, there was a decrease and savings

primarily due to lower than anticipated backfilling costs and overtime for the

year. Increase of $145,200: The department has rightsized the budget for

2022-2023 to reflect anticipated salary costs.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under Purchased Services, 2.1.03, there is an extra $400,000 in the unbudgeted

amount.

E. LOVELESS:

Are you referring to the increase?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

Okay.

The increase is primarily related to the additional cost for renting

snow-clearing equipment to support government's fleet. This is demand-driven and

depending on the conditions of the weather, there may be more rentals required.

For example, this year, additional snow-clearing equipment was required for the

Northern Peninsula due to significant snowfall. My colleague, Minister Howell,

had a lot of heartburn about that.

Listen, it's no secret that all across the Island – I mean with weather

patterns, you don't know what you are going to get. When you have snowfall like

that, then it proposes problems when the snowfall is a lot higher than the

equipment.

B. PETTEN:

Minister, on that question, existing equipment we have, is that probably as a

result of some of that equipment not being repaired or in disrepair, not getting

on the road? Because I know that mechanics is an issue, not only in the province

but it is across the board in the country.

E. LOVELESS:

No, you touch on that. We've had many a discussions and it is no secret that

this equipment is out

in the elements of salt, water, freezing and thawing. Our equipment takes a

beating, no doubt about it.

Are we

challenged? Yes, in terms of getting mechanics. I mean recruitment, no

difference than years ago, every year; we're always recruiting, sometimes facing

challenges. Sometimes, when you don't have the mechanics it can pose problems.

I mean

overall we're doing a good job this year, but certainly faced with challenges.

In terms of our fleet, it's a yearly review we do anyways to see where we are in

terms of the needs in whatever parts of the province.

B. PETTEN:

Under 2.2.01, Maintenance of

Equipment, there's an extra $323,000 budgeted this year for Salaries to what was

spent last year.

E. LOVELESS:

2.2.01, correct?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

And you're asking about the

increase?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

So the increase is due to

step increases and anticipated backfilling requirements for the 2022-23 fiscal

year.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

And we

just touched on the mechanics thing. I was going to ask up there but I said I'll

wait. Are we short on mechanics now, the department?

E. LOVELESS:

I don't have the numbers in

front of me.

Do you

want to comment on that, Cory?

B. PETTEN:

I'll group that together,

Cory – and operators.

C. GRANDY:

We don't have a regional breakdown in terms of vacancies, but we do certainly

have vacancies in both operators and mechanics. I mentioned earlier the turnover

tends to be a regular routine thing.

We take

advantage, where we can, of the apprenticeship program, particularly as it

relates to heavy equipment mechanics. We have a fair bit of success with that,

but it continues to be a recruitment and retention challenge in both operators

and mechanics.

B. PETTEN:

I think the province needs

to do a better job with the mechanics. I've reached out to Minister Byrne's

department on it. There are mechanics waiting to go, but they have to wait until

they get a certain number to get in school to kick-start the program.

People

have to wait until the fall to start the program because they have five wanting

to do it; they need at least six. Typical government bureaucracy that kind of

gets in the way of – and I know that's not only just your department, but I have

people out in my district looking for mechanics. So it's something that

government should probably look at doing, promote it.

I think

word on the street is they'd probably get more interest, you know what I mean?

The salaries are another issue. I know that becomes a problem, too, because

there are people interested in other trades. It's a big issue. It's not just

within the department, but it's worth a conversation.

E. LOVELESS:

And it's a valid point. I

think we can all appreciate, as MHAs, that we hear it. Recruitment and retention

we've heard in the last several months is around doctors and nurses and

everything else but, operationally, for this department as well, we face the

challenges. Anything that we can bring in to fast-track getting a man or a woman

in a vehicle or whatever for Transportation, we should be there; we should

entertain it and do it. So I'm always open for that.

B. PETTEN:

I appreciate that.

So snow

clearing last year, do you have an idea of what you spent, with private

contracting out really. Do you have a number for that or contracts you have in

place?

C. GRANDY:

I don't have a full breakdown. If you look in that subhead, under Purchased

Services, the funding there would relate to mechanical repairs, the road

maintenance equipment and the vehicles. But in terms of a specific number within

that, I don't have that kind of breakdown here tonight.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

So the

increase in Purchased Services in 2.2.01, was that a purchase of equipment or is

that the rental piece? That went up to $1.7 million, or more than that.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, the increase reflects

increases in auto insurance rates and sending more equipment outside to third

party garages for repair.

B. PETTEN:

To the point of –

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, exactly.

B. PETTEN:

Okay, my time is up.

CHAIR:

MHA Brown.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll

just ask a few general questions here first on that. The Labrador Highway

snow-clearing contract, is that located in 2.1.03? What was the amount spent on

that last year?

E. LOVELESS:

What's the

section again,

Jordan?

J. BROWN:

I'm just asking if it was

2.1.03, Snow and Ice Control.

E. LOVELESS:

For Labrador you're asking,

right?

J. BROWN:

Yeah. What was the contract

total for Labrador for highway clearing?

E. LOVELESS:

I don't have that here in front of me. Cory, I don't know if …

C. GRANDY:

I think Patrick has that number for you.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

P. MORRISSEY:

$8.4 million was spent in '21-'22 for the Labrador contract for snow and ice.

J. BROWN:

All right, perfect. Thank

you.

Chair,

just a quick question, we're up to 2.4 is it we're going to? Yeah, 2.4, I just

wanted to make sure.

2.2.02,

Equipment Acquisitions: Would that be for new acquisitions of new equipment into

the fleet or just rentals and leases?

E. LOVELESS:

It provides for the

acquisition of heavy equipment and light vehicles for core government

departments. There are 938 light vehicles in the fleet and 794 heavy vehicles.

J. BROWN:

Okay, so this is for new.

Are you looking at any new equipment or just replacement of existing into the

fleet?

E. LOVELESS:

I'd love to be looking at

new. But, obviously, it comes with a cost. I mean, in that

section there,

unfortunately, we had a fire in Baie Verte last year that destroyed two plough

trucks, so that was one example that we had to purchase two new replacement

trucks.

speaks to the overall challenge around it, but certainly what we're looking at

as department is our need versus our cost and what we will invest in, moving

forward, trying to stay within the financial envelope of the department.

So we

certainly could need new equipment in lots of areas, but we're doing a balanced

approach. The new ADM, he's certainly done a fair bit of travelling to even look

at that as well. Even when I visited a lot of districts last year, I certainly

had a discussion with the local depots to say what's your need, we'd like to

know. I think that planning is important because certain areas of the province

have tougher winter seasons than other parts. So putting it all together to

determine where we will invest, that's part of the process.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you so much,

Minister.

2.3.01,

Building Utility and Maintenance, there's a reduction in Salaries in the revised

from '21-'22 but there's an increase going into '22-'23. Can you explain this

and what's the process here, Minister?

E. LOVELESS:

Explain the increase is what

you're asking?

J. BROWN:

Yeah, and then the decrease

but now the increase in the future budgeting.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

The decrease was savings due to extended recruitment and vacancies. That was the

explanation for the decrease.

The increase of $176,900 was a one-time savings in 2021 and salary plan

increases in 2022-2023 including backfilling costs and set progressions.

J. BROWN:

Okay. So I guess there are people required that you are going to need in the

future coming up by the looks of it.

Under Transportation and Communications: Was the decrease a result of COVID and

less travelling?

E. LOVELESS:

Yes.

J. BROWN:

And under Supplies, the sharp increase under Supplies.

E. LOVELESS:

If I can just –

J. BROWN:

Oh yeah. Sure.

E. LOVELESS:

So you asked about Transportation and Communications, 2.3.01.

J. BROWN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

The decrease you asked about correct?

J. BROWN:

Yeah. Was it COVID related?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah. Reduced travel for building maintenance staff based on operation

requirements in their respective regions, but some of this is also due to

COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. So I didn't want to just – I know COVID was

mentioned there but –

J. BROWN:

Yeah. Okay.

E. LOVELESS:

When I saw other explanations there I just wanted to give you the fulsome

explanation.

J. BROWN:

Oh, absolutely. I appreciate it.

Under Supplies, the sharp increase in the spending on Supplies: What was the

rationale for that?

E. LOVELESS:

This one is due to COVID-19 PPE supplies.

J. BROWN:

Okay. Perfect.

And under Purchased Services, there was a large increase in Purchased Services

for this year: What was the rationale for that?

E. LOVELESS:

TI paid $847,000 of the invoices in 2021 that should have been paid in fiscal

2021 and has seen a CPI increase on various service contracts including HVAC and

cleaning services and an increase in building maintenance. Fuel cost for

government-owned buildings is also $1.6 million higher than last fiscal.

So when one thing goes up, it all goes up.

J. BROWN:

Yeah. Absolutely.

Under Building Maintenance, just a general question. My office in Labrador West

is in a government building. I've noticed that every year there seems to be like

a lot of, you know, out of service in the building up there. And I get a lot of

comments especially where it's shared with the courthouse. In the men's room, on

the courthouse level, only one toilet out of four is available right now. And

you see like a broken tile, you see a broken – and it has been noticeable for

the last number of years.

I am just wondering: How is it being categorized and prioritized for repair in

these government buildings? Because I have noticed that this has been – like the

toilet has been out of order since I moved into that building in 2019 .

Just out of curiosity, what's the priority system for getting these things

repaired in these government buildings?

E. LOVELESS:

So you're telling me the

only toilet in your building is out of service?

J. BROWN:

There's one in the men's

room that's available right now on that floor – it's a multi-floor building.

E. LOVELESS:

Okay.

J. BROWN:

And that's the courthouse

floor.

E. LOVELESS:

Right.

J. BROWN:

And I don't know in the

women's room, because I haven't been in there, but in the basement where it's

currently a lot of vacant offices down there, there's only one office down

there. Everything down there seems to be fine, but this is the floor that's used

by the general public, the courthouse floor.

I'm

just curious on how you prioritize things getting fixed, because I see year to

year there are some things that just go year to year to year.

E. LOVELESS:

Right, okay.

I'll

let staff speak to it.

C. GRANDY:

That situation does sound a little bit unusual. I think I'd take that away as a

particular item in that particular building. We try to keep everything in

service. In a lot of our buildings, it's as you break you repair it.

Now, I

do know we've had some retention of staff issues in Lab West. I don't know if

that would've played a point. I think there are (inaudible).

J. BROWN:

It's hard to say because I

haven't noticed anyone missing or new or anything like that. But it just seems

that 2019, 2020, going on – it just kind of sparked my curiosity, how do you

prioritize. Because I understand it's not easy, I did building maintenance, I

understand. It's just I'm curious on the evaluation that you're using right now.

C. GRANDY:

In that kind of a situation when a washroom is out of service, we certainly

would prioritize it and put it back. I think you've raised an interesting

question here, I think we'll probably have to take away and just (inaudible).

J. BROWN:

Okay, yeah, perfect, I

appreciate that. Just out of more curiosity than anything else. No, that's fair,

thank you so much.

I just

have one more question on 2.3.01, the revenue: Just where does the revenue

stream come into for this here?

E. LOVELESS:

That's the revenue from the

rental of government buildings and sale of steam heat.

J. BROWN:

Okay, yeah. All right,

perfect.

And

then 2.3.02, can we get a list of leased accommodations, buildings and stuff,

currently leased by the provincial government?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, we can provide it, but

it is available online.

J. BROWN:

Oh, it is provided online.

Okay, I wasn't 100 per cent sure. But, yeah, even if it's just a link to it, it

would be appreciated.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

J. BROWN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, we're going to have to

J. BROWN:

Yeah, perfect, I'm good.

Thank

you so much, Chair.

CHAIR:

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, deferred maintenance on various government buildings; do you track

that? Is there any tracking, or how do you follow for (inaudible)?

E. LOVELESS:

Deferred maintenance on

buildings?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

C. GRANDY:

We do have a program that does look at deferred maintenance. The accuracy and

the number that is in that system – and the name of the software now is escaping

me, the name of the program that we use. The accuracy in that number depends on

how much you refresh from an inspection point of view. So we do track it; how

well it reflects the true nature of the building, someone might question. I

don't have that number here tonight in terms of what that value is, but there is

a system that we use to track it.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

2.3.02, in Leased Accommodations, in Purchased Services, an even $400,000. Just

curious what that is, I guess.

E. LOVELESS:

2.3.02, right?

B. PETTEN:

Yes.

E. LOVELESS:

Purchased Services?

B. PETTEN:

Yes.

E. LOVELESS:

Are you asking about the

decrease or the increase?

B. PETTEN:

Decrease, yes. Well, it's

gone up again, the decrease from revised.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, the savings were

primarily due to delays in moves and terminated lease.

B. PETTEN:

Moves by government,

terminated lease, okay.

2.3.03, under Salaries, a drop of $657,000 – drop to sorry, not of.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, the decrease –

alterations and improvements work being influenced by the pandemic; fewer

employees working on projects, therefore less salary recharges that occurred

during the year.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Professional Services, there's a budget of almost $3.1 million, but last year it

was less than a million spent, but it's gone back up to the regular amount this

year. Can you explain that one too, please?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, the decrease was lower

than anticipated Professional Services due to pandemic, and the increase,

one-time savings in 2021-22 and budget returning to its usual allocation without

the COVID-19 resilience stream funding in 2022-23.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

What

about Purchased Services? There was $20 million this year, budgeted for $23

million and went down to $20 million, so the numbers seem to be fluctuating

about.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, the decrease savings

primarily from the COVID-19 stream funding as a result of COVID restrictions and

delays in construction.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

under Revenue - Federal, again, self-explanatory in the question I am going to

ask, I guess. Deviation $16 million to $3.9 million and back to $18 million.

E. LOVELESS:

I'll see if I can explain it

to you. The federal revenue for ICIP COVID resilient funding, plus that

anticipated from the sales of properties no longer meeting the programs needs of

the provincial government. As we can see, the federal portion is $18.75 million;

the provincial is $678,000, which includes the sale of land and buildings.

The

$578,000 is a one-time sale of government-owned property in Pleasantville. The

sale of properties 2021-22 included land for East White Hills Road, Portugal

Cove-St. Philip's and a wildlife building in Millertown.

I don't

know if that answers your question.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, I guess. I was just

curious as to whether the – so these acquisitions, would they be for the new

school?

E. LOVELESS:

No, the new schools unless –

B. PETTEN:

(Inaudible) for that.

E. LOVELESS:

No, not here.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

2.3.04, Purchased Services, you see, again, the fluctuation, I guess.

E. LOVELESS:

Are you asking – well, there

are decreases.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, $8.1 million last

year, it went down to $7.1 million and now it is down to $4.8 million this year.

So why the fluctuations.

E. LOVELESS:

The 2022-23 budget, less the

2021-22 budget, is about $3.24 million – well, that is a decrease obviously.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

That reflects contract costs

for low carbon economy projects that are to completed, which includes various

boiler additions, upgrades and conversions from fuel.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

E. LOVELESS:

That was on that $3.2

million. The notes here – the $2.2 million decrease and that's the 2022-23

budget, less the year before revised, and that reflects cash flow adjustments

for 2022-23.

B. PETTEN:

And what about Salaries,

there's a one-time salary there last year, $470,000.

E. LOVELESS:

In that same section?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, 2.3.04.

E. LOVELESS:

That was to reflect proper

job costing, TI staff are recharged to low-carbon projects for the amount of

time spent on them, and it says this was an oversight, as an allocation should

have been included in each of the individual line objects.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Revenue

- Federal down below there, it went from $5.9 million budgeted to $2.4 million.

Is that from those federally sponsored programs?

E. LOVELESS:

Yes, and again I will try to

break it down for you in terms of – so the '22-'23 budget, less the budget the

year before that, federal revenues associated with the Low Carbon Economy

Leadership Program.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

E. LOVELESS:

And the 2022 budget, less

the 2021 revised, that's the $2.7 million and the decrease in that reflects

anticipated federal revenues to be received.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

So in

2.3.05, under your Purchased Services, there was no expenditure of the $4.225

million last year, looked like there was nothing – then we're back to $2.149

million this year.

E. LOVELESS:

And we're back to $2.150

million – government had announced a biomass conversion in six CNA campuses. The

initial procurement for this initiative was not successful and cancelled. A

second procurement concluded in March 2022. Review and evaluation is ongoing and

money is carried forward into '22-'23.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Revenue - Federal, I guess that's probably maybe tied to that, but again that's

half what it was last year, in 2.3.05.

E. LOVELESS:

That's associated with the

low-carbon economy cost-shared agreement. One hundred per cent federal.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

E. LOVELESS:

We like those agreements.

B. PETTEN:

And need more of them.

E. LOVELESS:

Yes.

B. PETTEN:

2.4.01, Airstrips, the Revenue - Federal piece there. There is a drop of

$131,000.

E. LOVELESS:

The decrease – there was a reduction in landing fees due to lower traffic with

the ongoing pandemic. This revenue source is demand-driven and depends on the

air traffic on the airstrips and federal revenues received toward the Natuashish

airstrip. The increase in the revised of $131,500 is revenues for landing fees

and those are demand-driven.

B. PETTEN:

Under 2.4.02, there's a $1.4-million increase from last year in spending and it

is gone back to $1.3 million this year. So again, any explanation or what was

included in that?

E. LOVELESS:

Which part of that?

B. PETTEN:

2.4.02.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

Purchased Services.

E. LOVELESS:

Purchased Services?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

The increase was due to an oversight during the budget 2021 process. Funding was

not allocated to the LCARP for the resurfacing of the airstrip at Makkovik.

Funding was allocated during the 2021-2022 year to complete this project. The

decrease to 2022-23 budget is reduction as per cash flow requirements in '22-'23

fiscal.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you.

I think my time is up there now, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA Brown.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Chair.

Just a general question on Airstrips now, and I know it was mentioned in

yesterday's Estimates in the House but I want to bring it here. There was a bit

of an update for the Nain Airstrip and that. I am just curious, is that going to

be cost shared with us and the feds, or is that project 100 per cent

federal-driven – the Nain airstrip relocation?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, I can only speak right now to the feasibility study, which is cost shared,

fifty-fifty, of $7 million; our cost being $3.5 million.

J. BROWN:

Okay. So, I guess, that's a (inaudible).

So at this current stage there is only the feasibility that is being carried out

right now. There are no other commitments.

E. LOVELESS:

Well, I mean it is all in stages. So right now we are at the feasibility study

and once that is completed, then who knows where it is going to go.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect. But that is going to be fifty-fifty cost shared.

E. LOVELESS:

Correct.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

T hat is my last

question for this section.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you.

I've

got a couple there. So under the Revenue - Federal, Minister, under Airstrips,

$3.7 million increase. It went from $1.8 million to $3.7 million, back down to

$1.3 million.

E. LOVELESS:

That increase was due to

additional revenue as a result of the timing of claims for LCARP. The $1.3

million, that's again anticipated federal revenue to be received for LCARP in

'22-'23.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

If you

don't mind, I've got just a few generals I'll slip in there now.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, sure.

B. PETTEN:

I was going to ask this in

the leased

section but I know I had it allotted out to ask separate.

Government's footprint, I know it's been a big effort by this and the former

administration, or the same administration I guess, the Liberal administration

to reduce the footprint, leases, the duration, what have you.

So how

big is the footprint, or how successful have you been in reducing, I guess, the

government's footprint in the last couple of years?

E. LOVELESS:

I don't know if I have that

in my notes there. Well, since 2016, we've reduced our office space footprint by

201,882 square feet. And that brings the current savings to taxpayers

approximately $5.2 million per year.

B. PETTEN:

You don't have for the last

year – that's just 2016, but you don't know in the last year, if there's been

any –

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, I don't have it in

front of me. I don't know if we have it, but we can provide it.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

The

Roads Plan, Minister, and I know we talked about this already, but –

E. LOVELESS:

Say that again?

B. PETTEN:

Favourite topic, right?

Tenders this year, like carry-overs and cancellations, where are we to across

the board? You should do it right here than in the 45 seconds in the Question

Period –

E. LOVELESS:

I agree.

B. PETTEN:

Where are we with tenders

this year, because it is an issue of course.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, and that's the

difficulty about trying to answer a question in the House when you have 45

seconds in trying to do due diligence to it. We've had, I believe in terms of

carry-over, if staff can correct me, I think it's like $47 million that was

carried over from last year.

I had

conversations with the NLCA as well, because we've had a lot of conversations

around early tendering. And to give contractors some heads-up as to what's

coming and we, even in terms of the Roads Plan – and I make no bones about it;

that's difficult in terms of planning, there's no doubt about it. And you can

appreciate that. But we did do some early tendering and as per, really, the ask

of the NLCA – not them, but just conversations to the department as well. So we

did get some early tenders out on the TCH. More so because we know with the gas

prices and everything else it's a concern, obviously for contractors, a concern

for us, what's going to come back.

So we

did that and I believe, when we were walking over, that there are letters that

have not been signed – I believe you said you signed nine today – even though

the Roads Plan is coming out very soon. But we believe that was necessary

because then contractors can, especially on the TCH. And let me say there is a

lot of bridge work that needs to be done. We're at a point right now – and when

it comes to bridgework, when the department officials, the engineers come to you

and say a bridge needs to be replaced, there's no negotiating. And we're at that

point right now and that's going to be reflective in the Roads Plan. Not just

this year, but in the years to come. It's necessary, because I always refer to

it in the department, as what lies beneath the blacktop is more important than

the blacktop itself.

We're

working through it and I believe we've landed in a good spot in terms of talking

to contractors and NLCA and advice from across the way. We need to take that

seriously as well. So from a balance perspective I think we're in a good spot.

But what we get done this year, I mean obviously contractors have to do the work

as well. And hopefully we anticipate that we're going to have a good season, and

I certainly look forward to the roadwork being done.

B. PETTEN:

Have there been any

cancellations of tenders yet? Have they come in high? I'm anticipating they will

be.

E. LOVELESS:

We've had some that have

come in higher than we wanted it to be, but then some came in more normal. So

hopefully there'll be a balance – hopefully. Obviously, I can use every cent I

can get in terms of the road infrastructure.

I go

back to because we need more of those agreements. I agree; we all agree. We had

meetings with the federal minister, with other transportation ministers and, I

mean, the pictures show it for themselves. Out west, they had terrible rain

disaster out there and they need help. They can't do it on their provincial

budget. We can't do it on our provincial budget and I said the same thing.

We have

the Trans-Canada Highway. I told the minister I look forward to further

discussions on that, but we need them to come to the table and we need it now.

That's part of it as well, so I look forward to those discussions and hopefully

being able to say, listen, I got lots of money over here.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, there was an extra $10

million in the budget this year, too, of course for roadwork.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

Is that just anticipated to

catch up on tenders? It's not earmarked for anything in particular; it's just

added to the – it needed to be increased anyway, obviously, I would think.

E. LOVELESS:

No, fair question. Certainly

the Finance Minister recognized that, but we can all appreciate are even $10

million, for what it will give us in terms of results is – put it this way, you

think you would be happy to get $10 million, unless I win it in the lottery, but

in the department, it doesn't touch a lot.

B. PETTEN:

No.

E. LOVELESS:

And this year we even – we

all know it; I've got lots of requests from the other side as well in terms of

signage. I don't know if it's because I'm Transportation Minister but I notice

we have put a real focus on a sign plan that we need to get done this year. But,

moving forward, we've talked about that there needs to be more consistency in

terms of the plans around signs. If I'm there, then there's going to be a focus

on it.

B. PETTEN:

Minister, is that something

that the department has given any consideration to contracting out? I come from

a union background so I appreciate how our unions stand, but right now it looks

to be almost an issue with the manpower. The actual physical people –

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

– boots on the ground. I

guess I'll tie all that to a summer maintenance question in general to put it

together. Is that the issue? How do you get ahead of this stuff?

E. LOVELESS:

Again, I have had the

conversation because many people have made a suggestion: That's what you should

be doing. I remind people that it's easier said than done, because you have

union considerations. But we're having everybody coming back to the table and

say we're not getting enough work done

during summer maintenance. So why aren't we?

I have had conversations with TI workers and I have asked them directly: Would

you be offended if outside work was coming in to do work that you guys can't get

done? Why would we? It's only making their roles and their life and their

responsibilities much easier. So why shouldn't we take a look at it is my

response and, yes, we are taking a serious look at it.

Again, it's something that I want to focus on and drive as a part of – because I

believe if we have a better maintenance program, we won't have to worry about –

and even in my own district and I know you have got in your own districts – good

summer maintenance program, the same as him. I visited the province and

Labrador, but I believe, and everybody is saying the same thing, even the

workers down there, that a good summer maintenance program, you won't have to

invest in a lot of kilometres of new pavement and all of that stuff. Overall

people don't like potholes but I think a proper summer enhanced, upgraded,

whatever word you want to use, I think we can help us all out right across the

province.

So it will be a focus. It takes some work. We all work in partnership to get

where we need to go.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

J. BROWN:

I'm good with this

section here.

CHAIR:

Clerk, can you recall the grouping?

CLERK:

For the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Operations, 2.1.01 to

2.4.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 to 2.4.03 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'aye.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.4.03 carried

CLERK:

For the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Infrastructure, 3.1.01

to 3.5.02 inclusive.

CHAIR:

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'm going to ask you a question now from my good friend behind me from

Ferryland. It's probably a valid question too. He was talking about signs, metal

signs as opposed to wooden signs. Is that something that probably cost –?

E. LOVELESS:

I mean that's a good question. We have talked about it. For me, we are exploring

last couple of weeks. I can't give you an answer of what it will be ,

but we do have a road sign plan in place. So we'll see how it goes.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, it's a pet peeve of

mine. I think a lot of people feel the same way, too. I've been at that for a

long time.

E. LOVELESS:

In saying that, and I don't

mind saying it, down in my own district, not because I'm Transportation

Minister, but all signs down there – and I give credit and it should be, it

should be to the superintendent that's there, Murray Drake. I had a conversation

with him the other day. He said, no complaints about our signs, and they're not.

But he's done the proper assessment year after year after year on what we need

and getting it done.

It's

not reflective on any other depots; they all face different challenges, but I

just want to give a shout-out in my own district that he's done a good job.

Again, it goes back to the consistency on a people level, on a departmental

level.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

3.1.01,

Administration and Support Services: There's an increase in Salaries, a little

less than $300,000 from last year's number.

E. LOVELESS:

Salaries?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

Variance reflects salary

plan changes including filled vacancies for both chief, bridge and highway

design engineers, accompanied by general salary step progressions. That was the

increase; they're all increases there.

There

was an increase – hopefully I can get you to follow it through. There was a

salary overrun due to unfunded severance payments. That was $60,800, that was

the revised of '21-'22, less the budget of '21-'22, and the 2022 budget, less

2021-22 revised of $217,100, reflects the anticipated time management on road

construction projects for 2022-23.

B. PETTEN:

3.2.01, Salaries are there.

There is an extra $251,000.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, and that's increased

salary requirements, overseeing road construction projects and response to the

Southwest Coast flood event in November. Also there was unfunded severance

payments made during the year.

B. PETTEN:

Seems to be the theme with

the unfunded severance as well.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

And the road projects, staff are assigned to every project, charged off – I

remember this, but I'm just wondering if it's still the same. Engineers are

assigned to an Outer Ring Road job and the salary is assigned to that job, as

opposed to in the – it doesn't show up as much in the salary line, it would go

to that job, correct? It is something to that nature. Is that still done that

way? I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly.

C. GRANDY:

It is charged to the project. Now, you'll still see it in the salary line. There

are six activities here that make up the project for the Roads Plan projects. So

they're still reflected in all the salary lines, but you'll see it spread across

six activities. It's not all in the headquarters group; it's spread across those

six (inaudible).

B. PETTEN:

It's not duplicated,

obviously.

C. GRANDY:

It's not, no.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Supplies in that same section, it went from $100,000, then it was $1.5 million,

now it's back down to $40,000. What would that be?

E. LOVELESS:

Again, overall, the increase

of $1.4 million, that was a response to the Southwest Coast rainfall in

November. As a result of several road washouts, culverts and other supplies were

required.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

I would

be assuming Professional Services, that bump was the same thing as well?

E. LOVELESS:

Professional Services, there

was an increase there and that's the increase in consulting services in 2021 due

to a rehab of the CN Viaduct on Pitts Memorial Drive.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

3.2.02, Purchased Services, again, gone up to $8 million this year from

$800,000.

E. LOVELESS:

Are you referencing the

increase?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, big increase.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, so the increase there,

that's the 2022-23 budget, less the 2021 revised, $7.8 million. Projects are

allocated to current and capital activities based on the nature and scope of the

roads project, in accordance with public sector accounting standards. This

represents an increase in the current allocation for cost-shared projects.

B. PETTEN:

So what cost-shared projects

would they have been, under ICIP?

E. LOVELESS:

They're around road

maintenance projects, but I don't have any specific ones. I don't know if …

C. GRANDY:

So part of that is up under the ICIP agreement, specifically under the rural and

northern sub-stream. And then also there's an older federal funding program, the

New Building Canada, that's also included in this section.

B. PETTEN:

The Salaries piece there is

$250,000 allotted for Salaries for this year. Is that where you're tying the

salary to a project? That's what we were just talking about just now.

C. GRANDY:

That's correct.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Revenue - Federal, it's gone from $72,000 to $6 million. Is that the federal

share of that program? I've answered my own question.

E. LOVELESS:

The increase from $72,000 to

$6 million?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

That's $5.9 million, and

that's cash flow changes based on the scope of the program.

B. PETTEN:

So that's federal money for

a federally sponsored program, right?

E. LOVELESS:

Yes.

B. PETTEN:

Under ICIP again?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, this is federal

revenue from the federal government for cost-shared programs, and they're 100

per cent federal.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

3.2.03,

under Salaries, it went from $4.2 million down to $1.2 million, and it was

$700,000 actually spent less than the original budget from last year.

E. LOVELESS:

The $4.2 million down to

$3.5 million –

B. PETTEN:

And now that's down to $1.2

million this year, right?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, that decrease was

contractor productivity levels were reduced and less time required managing

projects. The $2.3 million, which is $3.5 million down to $1.2 million, that's

the cash flow changes based on, again, the scope of the program.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. So is that the

finishing up of a project that Salaries are no longer required there? Is that

the simplified explanation for that?

C. GRANDY:

Can you just ask that question again, just to make sure I understand you?

B. PETTEN:

This is a drop of $3 million

from last year's budget. So is that $3 million less salaries required this year

as a result of projects wrapping up? Do you know what I'm saying?

C. GRANDY:

Yeah. So our salary levels this year is our best forecast as to what effort will

be required for that particular list of projects. It will go up and down year

over year.

B. PETTEN:

Based on what you're

assigning to the project.

C. GRANDY:

Exactly.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Professional Services, $675,000 and it was only $100,000 budget. So I guess the

increase of $575,000.

E. LOVELESS:

So the increase going from

$100,000 to $675,000 is your question, correct?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

And that's professional

engineering and consulting services for Team Gushue Highway and Galway

interchange.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

I have

one final before the clock runs out on me now. Purchased Services, it's $11

million less, $70 million to $59 million.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, that variance reflects

pandemic and reduced industry productivity levels.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. I'll just let you go

to my colleague, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

MHA Brown.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Chair.

Before

I start, I just have a general question.

Now

with the new Roads Plan – you're working on that – is the department looking at

studying or developing any climate resiliency in your Roads Plan coming up? Are

you looking at bigger culverts, wider sides and stuff like that because of

obviously what we see on the South Coast and other climate incidents over the

last couple of years?

E. LOVELESS:

That's already being done.

With culverts, I believe there's a requirement of 30 per cent. It depends on

where a culvert is, but due to climate considerations and concerns, there are

culverts that are put back, they're larger. But I can't tell you that there is a

consistent, because it depends on the engineering of it and what they determine

what size would go in there based on the surroundings and everything else.

Also, I

think it's important to mention it here at this point that I've had

conversations with the federal minister, Minister Hutchings, around the

concerns. I drove this man's district last fall and the coastal roads that we

have in this province are a concern. I said to the minister that we need to

address it and need to address it now. So there is a, I believe if I refer to

it, DMAF? Well, it's a mitigation fund that projects will fall under and there

are different times that they accept applications for this that we want to be

proactive so that it doesn't happen.

To be

honest with you, I love having the conversation, because we are being proactive

and we don't lose communities. And again, I travelled quite a bit, but his

district was kind of like – even though I knew where he was, I'm close to the

ocean in my district, but I don't have coastal water levels to the road

infrastructure like he does in a lot of his district.

J. BROWN:

Yeah, absolutely, I've been

down his way, I understand.

Another

consideration too, I'm just wondering has the department been keeping track of

the cost of environmental damage like storms and stuff, the damage that's being

done to infrastructure in this province? Are we keeping track of how much it's

costing us?

E. LOVELESS:

When there are disasters or

washouts and stuff, there is a process where we document it all, and it goes to

the federal government in terms of an application. I don't know, Greg, if there

is anything you want to add to it.

It's

well documented. We go through the process to the feds, in terms of our ask, of

what damage was done in the province. We go ahead and do the work because we

have to get the work done.

J. BROWN:

Yeah, absolutely.

E. LOVELESS:

But, certainly, it's an

important piece of us. Again, it's the feds being a partner. We need them at the

table on a lot of levels and that's another example.

J. BROWN:

Oh, absolutely.

Another

question, too, is regarding probably more on the physical building side of

things. Right now, what LEED level is the minimum that – LEED standard. Are we

doing all our buildings in our province to any particular LEED standard right

now, when we're doing for – how much carbon it costs to build the building but

also the carbon footprint, also how much lower energy costs that we're currently

using. Are we building all our buildings to a LEED standard right now, like

gold, silver or platinum?

E. LOVELESS:

Listen, I'm going to let the

officials address it. I would say that, yes, we are, but in terms of how it all

works, I'll let the staff answer that one.

C. GRANDY:

We strive to meet the LEED Silver rating under the LEED program.

J. BROWN:

Okay, so that's what you

strive for right now.

C. GRANDY:

Yeah.

J. BROWN:

Are there any projects or

anything that you're considering, anything above Silver right now?

C. GRANDY:

No, there is nothing that right now we're aiming for higher than LEED Silver.

J. BROWN:

Okay. Perfect.

3.2.04,

the Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Framework: We budgeted $2

million to get from the feds but it never showed up. What was the reasoning for

that?

E. LOVELESS:

That's 3.2.04 you said?

J. BROWN:

That's correct, Minister.

E. LOVELESS:

Okay, I think I'm at the right one. So the department did not receive the final

revenue payment from the federal government due to the project not being fully

completed. However, the department is working with the federal government to

receive the final holdback funding in 2023 in relation to the Team Gushue

Highway.

J. BROWN:

So this is for the remainder

of the Team Gushue.

E. LOVELESS:

Right.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

3.2.05,

Trans-Labrador Highway, standard question there: Will it be done on time this

year?

E. LOVELESS:

I hate to say, yes, it's

going to be done on time. We're going to strive to have it done on time.

J. BROWN:

Strive to have it done.

That's (inaudible).

E. LOVELESS:

There are other forces in play in terms of the work being done, because who

knows what can happen, whatever. But as far as we are concerned, it's on time

and we are anxious to cut the ribbon.

J. BROWN:

Okay. I'll make sure –

E. LOVELESS:

And it is going to be a photo op.

J. BROWN:

Okay, I'll remember this. Just remember where you have to cut the ribbon is not

far from my cabin.

E. LOVELESS:

That's right. I'm having a shovel

and everything.

J. BROWN:

It's not far from my cabin.

Last spike, there you go. Absolutely.

Under the project, obviously, all the reduction from last year's budget to the

current budget is to indicate this is the last

section that is currently not

(inaudible).

E. LOVELESS:

Right.

J. BROWN:

So that makes sense. This is obviously the tail down on the project.

3.2.06, Federal - Provincial Cost-Shared Agreements: We noticed it was budgeted

$4 million, but only $2.4 million was spent in Salaries and we're spending $2.7

million. What is the reasoning for such a steep decrease there on this program

from budgeted to revised?

E. LOVELESS:

So the budgeted to revised – let me get my numbers here correct now. Budget of

2022 less – that's $1.7 million – no, $2.1 million. That's a result of reduced

productivity levels from contractors. Less time was required for staff to manage

projects.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Then we go from $2.4 million under the revised and the Estimate for '22-'23 is

$2.7 million. Is this because the project was dragged out longer?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, it is cash flow changes based on the scope of the programs for the '22-'23

season.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

What project would have been under this federal - provincial cost-shared

agreement?

E. LOVELESS :

In the notes here and, certainly, the agreements included in the activity: We

have the NBC projects, the Rural and Northern – so it's the cost-shared programs

that fall under this category – Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, and we

have green infrastructure and trade and transportation.

J. BROWN:

So this is all kind of

shared with the federal government and so it's those projects – what was I

saying. I know that Purchased Services is going up significantly under 3.2.06. I

notice that there's an $11-million increase in Purchased Services. Is this just

because the scope of the project is changing? Or is this another project coming

in to this?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, that reflects the

anticipated contract costs for the province's cost-shared roads projects.

J. BROWN:

Okay, thank you.

3.3.01,

Building Design, Administration and Support Services: Under this subhead here,

is this where you look at for the new federal correction facility?

E. LOVELESS:

Is there a certain

section

you're asking about or just a general question?

J. BROWN:

Yeah, 3.3.01 –

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

J. BROWN:

– under Building Design,

Administration and Support Services. For Building Design there, would this be

the

section there now where you'd see the design and implementation of the

federal correction facility – or the new provincial correction facility?

C. GRANDY:

The staff that are involved in that project would be – some of the management

staff would be under this activity. But further on, in 3.3.05, is where you

would actually see the project funds.

3.3.05

is Justice Infrastructure. That's where you would see the …

J. BROWN:

Okay, so that would be the

actual (inaudible).

CHAIR:

Thank you, MHA Brown.

MHA

Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you.

Let's

go back to 3.2.05, Salaries. Minister, there's a noticeable drop there. Is that,

again, from projects wrapping down? Trans-Labrador Highway, 3.2.05, drop in

Salaries.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, the 2022-'23 budget

less the 2020-'21 budget. That reflects salary requirements. That's the decrease

for the Trans-Labrador Highway project. Reduction from the 2021 budget, as the

project is due, as we just discussed, to be completed this fiscal year.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

3.3.01,

Purchased Services: There was an increase from $3 million to $4.3 million.

E. LOVELESS:

So the increase was – you're

asking about the increase, correct?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

The overrun is due to

increased premiums and property claims.

B. PETTEN:

Premiums and property

claims, what is that?

E. LOVELESS:

Let's see if I can explain

here. The funding for property insurance and to pay deductibles on insurance

claims – anyone want to go further with that?

C. GRANDY:

This activity is where we also fund the insurance premiums for government-owned

property, so the increase that the minister noted was an increase in those

insurance premiums.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. So that's basically

from mostly insurance premiums, most of that increase?

C. GRANDY:

Yes, all the insurance premiums are under this activity for all government

facilities.

B. PETTEN:

Needs to cap insurance.

E. LOVELESS:

The bulk is premiums.

B. PETTEN:

3.3.02, Health Care Infrastructure, under Purchased Services, what's included in

that one there? What are those costs? $2.9 million, went down and still $3.3

million. What's included in that line item?

E. LOVELESS:

I'll try to see if I can

follow that through for you. The 2021 revised, less the 2021-22 budget, the

decrease is due to service payments withheld as a result of unavailability of

Central Health LTC facilities in accordance with the project agreement, and that

was $683,300.

There's

an increase of the 2022-23 budget, less the 2021-22 revised, and payments

expected on the Central Health long-term care, as well as the NAMHAF parking

garage, plus the annual CPI increase on project payments in accordance with the

project agreements. Does that help you?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, I understood it as

much as you did.

E. LOVELESS:

But there's also the '22-'23

budget less the 2021 budget. The increase is in part due to a full year of

service payments being required on the – someone want to tell me, NAM, what all

that stands for, so they can appreciate it?

B. PETTEN:

Acronyms, yeah.

OFFICIAL:

The mental health facility currently.

E. LOVELESS:

There you go. The mental

health parking garage in 2022. As opposed to only five months in 2021, it opened

in November of 2021. As well as the annual CPP increase in the monthly service

payments on all P3 projects in accordance with the project agreements.

B. PETTEN:

So they're kind of like

service progress payments?

C. GRANDY:

That is the operating period of the P3 projects.

B. PETTEN:

Got you.

So are

you expecting those to increase in the out-years now with all the new

facilities? The mental health and addictions, Corner Brook hospital – the

projections, will that increase now? That should increase I am assuming.

C. GRANDY:

As those projects come online, this particular activity is where you will see a

portion of the service payments that relate to the 30-year contract agreement.

B. PETTEN:

What we call a mortgage

payment, so to speak.

C. GRANDY:

Exactly.

B. PETTEN:

That will be in that

section

there, okay. Lots of good acronyms in government, isn't it?

Under

3.3.03, School Facilities, Professional Services, there are only $350,000 – it

was $2.8 million budgeted and –

E. LOVELESS:

3.3.03?

B. PETTEN:

Yes.

There

is only $354,000 actually spent and now it is down to $150,000 this year.

E. LOVELESS:

That decrease – the budget

for 2022-23 is now rightsized to reflect anticipated expenditures. Also, less

consulting will be required as multiple projects were substantially completed in

last year's season.

So that

explains the decrease from $2.8 million to $354,000. Was that your only

question?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, I guess that is fine

for that one.

Under

Revenue - Provincial, there is no funding there this year. Can you explain why

that is?

E. LOVELESS:

That is no variance, as

insurance proceeds for Bay d'Espoir was received in 2021-22.

B. PETTEN:

So most of that fund is the

result of the new school down in your district.

E. LOVELESS:

Yes.

B. PETTEN:

The one that was replaced.

E. LOVELESS:

Opened and I am going there

next week.

B. PETTEN:

Is that opened now?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

B. PETTEN:

Oh, good. Ribbon cutting?

E. LOVELESS:

No.

B. PETTEN:

I asked that seriously,

actually, that time.

E. LOVELESS:

No, I think the ribbon has

already been cut.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

E. LOVELESS:

It is just that with COVID

we had challenges going down there and stuff. But I think I said it in my notes

that they're holding the provincial badminton tournament down there; 105

athletes from the province going down there.

B. PETTEN:

Perfect.

E. LOVELESS:

I'm going down for the

opening ceremonies and we'll see if I can take a ribbon down there with me.

B. PETTEN:

I would take a ribbon down

there if I were you, too. Ribbons are not all bad.

E. LOVELESS:

No, absolutely.

B. PETTEN:

Minister, the new schools

that were announced in the budget: Kenmount Terrace location and Portugal

Cove-St. Philip's. So is the land purchased for those? What is the plan for

those constructions?

E. LOVELESS:

I am going to have to hand that over.

C. GRANDY:

So the funding that was this year's is planning funding. There is no land

purchase or no specific site selection for those properties.

B. PETTEN:

So there is no actual site selected for those. It is just a matter –

C. GRANDY:

It is the very beginning of the planning process.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

3.3.04, Facilities Development: Purchased Services, again, $2.8 million to $7.2

million.

E. LOVELESS:

Let me see. That's the $4.3 million increase, correct?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

The increase is as a result of additional funding for priority planning – Bay

St. George public building construction and CNA Film and Media Production Centre

renovations.

B. PETTEN:

Purchased Services appear to be mostly where the funding goes for projects

within the department. It seems to be most of the money is there.

E. LOVELESS:

Yes. To the contractors and the associated costs.

B. PETTEN:

Under Professional Services, 3.3.04, I guess it is gone up triple the amount. It

was only $64,000 spent. What are the details on that one?

E. LOVELESS:

Why are we moving to $729,800?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

That is an increase in '22-'23 as a result of additional funding for priority

planning – Bay St. George public building construction and CNA Film and Media

Production Campus renovations.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under 3.3.05, Justice Infrastructure, there is Purchased Services there of $9.4

million but there was only $275,000 that was spent last year.

E. LOVELESS:

Purchased, right?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

You were asking from the $7.5 million down to the $275,000 or the $275,000 –?

B. PETTEN:

Well, the fluctuation was $7.5 million, went down to $275,000 and now it is back

up to $9.4 million. Can you explain that variation?

E. LOVELESS:

Okay.

The 2022-23 budget, less your 2021 budget, which was $1.9 million, reflects

anticipated contracts for '22-'23 for the Labrador

correctional facilities and

the adult corrections facility. The '21-'22 revised less the 2021-'22 budget,

that was a decrease. That was the Labrador corrections facility expansion in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Your 2022-'23 budget less your '21-'22 revised, $9.1

million, that was an increase and that reflects cash flow requirements for

'22-'23.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay, MHA Brown.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Chair.

3.3.06,

Health Care Infrastructure – now this one, along with 3.3.02, was just carried

over from Health and Community Services new to this year, correct?

E. LOVELESS:

3.3.06?

J. BROWN:

Yeah, 3.3.02 and 3.3.06,

they were in – these are new to the TI this coming budget, correct? Those

subsections?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, they came to TI last

year, actually.

J. BROWN:

Okay. They just weren't

corrected in the book from last year, I guess.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, that's correct.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

3.3.06

Health Care Infrastructure: This is where the new mental health facility, along

with the addition to the Labrador Health care facility – this is for this

project here, correct?

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, I can give you the

list of –

J. BROWN:

Perfect. That would be

appreciated.

E. LOVELESS:

You want me to provide it to

you now? I can read them out or we can provide them to you.

J. BROWN:

Just provide them to me.

That will be absolutely fine.

E. LOVELESS:

Okay. No problem.

J. BROWN:

Last year, it was budgeted

$500,000, then it was increased to $634,000 and we're only going to budget

$544,500 in the following year. What was the reason for the increase but, also,

why are we not carrying over the same amount?

E. LOVELESS:

So you're on Salaries,

correct?

J. BROWN:

That's correct. Yes, sorry.

E. LOVELESS:

Okay.

The

$44,500 increase, that's increased project management requirements. That's

construction advances on certain projects; i.e., the Corner Brook Acute. The

increase of $134,000 was an increased project management requirement anticipated

as construction advances on projects. The decrease of $89,500 was decreased

project management requirements as certain projects conclude.

J. BROWN:

Okay, so it's just as we

carry on.

Under

Purchased Services it was $3 million budgeted, it was revised to $4.5 million

and it's going to stay at $4.5 million in the Estimates. What's the reasoning

for that?

E. LOVELESS:

Purchased or Professional?

J. BROWN:

Sorry, Professional. My

apologies.

E. LOVELESS:

The increase was due to

higher professional engineering requirements specifically for Corner Brook Acute

as the project advanced to the next stage; example: operational readiness,

transition consultants, et cetera. The 2021 revised less the budget of '21-'22:

That was higher than anticipated professional engineering and architectural

consulting costs for various projects, including Central long-term care, Corner

Brook Acute Care and the new adult mental health and addictions facility.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you,

Minister.

Under

Purchased Services, we budgeted $64 million. We only spent $47 million, but

we're budgeting $79 million in the coming year. What's the transition there?

E. LOVELESS:

What we're estimating to

spend in '22-'23 is what you're asking?

J. BROWN:

Yeah, and why we under spent

in '21-'22, but we're going to overspend in '22-'23.

E. LOVELESS:

Right.

Well,

there was a decrease and that was cash flow savings on various infrastructure

projects. That's attributed to construction design work delays, including the

mental health facility, Central Health care and Corner Brook Acute Care. The

increase we're seeing in budget '22-'23 reflects planned expenditure for health

care infrastructure.

J. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you,

Minister.

Moving

on to 3.4.01, Ferry Terminals: Under Salaries we had budgeted $40,000, but we

ended up spending $90,000 in '21-'22. And then we're going to plan on spending

$120,000 in '22-'23.

E. LOVELESS:

That increase of $50,000 was

the salary variance due to the higher number of small projects under ferry

terminal maintenance service contracts, which require increased staff and,

obviously, time, including coordination and management. The increase of $29,200,

the original budget did not reflect an appropriate salary allocation for the

chargeback of project management time.

J. BROWN:

Okay. Thank you, Minister.

Under

Transportation and Communications, it was budgeted a thousand dollars, then we

spent $14,000 and now we're budgeting $25,000. What are the planned increases

there?

E. LOVELESS:

The increase to the $25,000?

J. BROWN:

Yeah, from budgeting in

2021-22 we only budgeted a thousand dollars, but now for '22-'23 we're going to

budget $15,000.

E. LOVELESS:

The first increase that you

reference is the minor increase on travel requirements for ferry terminal

projects. Examples: Ramea, Makkovik, Farewell, McCallum and other remote sites

which will require additional travel and higher cost.

The

$10,900 travel costs are contingent on location and upcoming work in remote

areas. So that's the increase of $10,900.

J. BROWN:

All right.

Under

Professional Services, we budgeted $50,000 but we spent $90,000. What was the

increase there?

E. LOVELESS:

Consultant costs for wharf

assessment and design work in 2021-22.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Then

under Purchased Services, we budgeted $1.3 million but we only spent $1.2

million, and now we are only going to budget again $1.2 million. What was the

reasoning – what didn't get done, I should say.

E. LOVELESS:

The '21-'22 revised less

your '20-'21 budget, which was $103,000, that was a decrease. That is cash flow

savings attributed to the Ramea wharf project.

J. BROWN:

Okay. And then we're just

going to rightsize that.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah. Then, while we're seeing a decrease of $100, that's a minor variance.

J. BROWN:

Yeah, minor variance. Okay.

3.4.02,

Ferry Terminals, Capital, Salaries there: We budgeted $200,000 but we didn't

even spend close to that. What was the reasoning for that?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, the $181,400 was a

decrease. That was less than anticipated TI project management as the Nain wharf

rehab work was moved to '22-'23.

J. BROWN:

Okay. That's the reason for

the increases –

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, the increase would be:

Cash flow savings due to the Nain wharf rehab work was moved to that year, which

was self-explanatory.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Under

Professional Services, $250,000 was allocated but we only spent $70,000 and

we're only planning on spending $50,000 in the upcoming year. What's the

reasoning for that?

E. LOVELESS:

To only spending $50,000

this year?

J. BROWN:

Yeah.

E. LOVELESS:

There's been a decrease of

$20,000. The budget was just rightsized to reflect anticipated engineering

consulting requirements for the upcoming season.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Purchased Services, we budgeted $2 million but we only spent $95,000 and now we

are budgeting $5 million.

E. LOVELESS:

That increase is increased expenditure due to carry-over of Nain rehab wharf

project.

J. BROWN:

3.5.01, Municipal Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah.

J. BROWN:

Under Salaries in '21-'22 the budget was $2.7 million. In the revised it was

$2.5 million, but in the upcoming '22-'23 it is $2.8 million. What are the

variances there?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, we had a decrease. That variance was due to vacancies and extended

recruitment. The increase is delayed recruitment and vacancies in '21-'22.

Positions are being filled and some at a higher step.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Under Transportation and Communications, $146,000 was budgeted and only $50,000

was spent. What was the rationale for that?

E. LOVELESS:

We had a decrease and reduced travel communications due to the COVID-19.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

Professional Services, $136,000 was budgeted. We only spent $39,000 on the

revised and then we are expecting to spend $136,000 again this coming year. What

didn't get purchased I should say in that?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, the decrease was fewer applications requiring climate consultations.

J. BROWN:

Okay.

E. LOVELESS:

The increase of the same amount – a one-time savings in 2021 as we anticipate

full budget to be spent in 2022 for Climate Lens consultation.

J. BROWN:

Perfect.

Thank you, Minister.

E. LOVELESS:

You are welcome.

CHAIR:

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

I am going to go back to a few of my questions again, Minister.

E. LOVELESS:

Sure.

B. PETTEN:

Change it up.

The fixed link, any discussion with the federal government since that has been,

I guess, announced or discussed? What is the status of that?

E. LOVELESS:

We have had some conversations around it, but I can't say at a specific level

that we have had. The Canada Infrastructure Bank – and again, I don't have

anything to report here in terms of what I have had in the last several months.

It is a conversation that I had with – well maybe it is the last couple of

months with the federal ministers, O'Regan and Hutchings, and also the MP for

Labrador and other

MPs as well, because it's a topic that's important to all of us, but at this

point we don't know where it's all going.

So it is a conversation that

I have on my list the next time that I certainly meet with the federal minister

as well responsible for transportation and infrastructure.

B. PETTEN:

Minister, you announced or

you spoke a while back about ferry market soundings. There's not much spoken of

it since, so is that still ongoing?

E. LOVELESS:

It's completed. I haven't

had the opportunity yet to review all of it, but I certainly look forward to

that and to see what feedback we got, and trying to derive some of the common

denominators around the feedback and in helping us to assess where ferry

services are in the province and where we need to go.

B. PETTEN:

The new penitentiary

replacement – what's the status with the land ownership, and I guess the

progress of that outside – the procurement process is ongoing now, but the

planning in place. So with the land, White Hills, I guess, is all that in place?

E. LOVELESS:

Well, we're still proceeding

with that, but I'll ask if Cory wants to give a further update on that. I've

been questioned in the House. It's a valuable project, and I appreciate the

concerns. But as a department we have to do our due diligence, and we will,

considering the concerns that come from the opposite side, and we'll do that. We

believe it's a project that warrants proceeding and again we'll certainly do our

due diligence as a department.

Cory, I

don't know if you want to add something to it.

C. GRANDY:

No, we're still proceeding, as the minister said, with the procurement process,

and that process is very collaborative with the proponent team. We continue to

engage with the proponent team with what we require in the design. As the

minister said, we're doing our due diligence now that we're down to a single

proponent, which changes a little, but it's still proceeding and anticipate

concluding that process later this fall.

B. PETTEN:

Outside workers on these

capital projects – any idea how many are working on the new mental health and

addictions centre?

E. LOVELESS:

I don't have the numbers in

front of me, but I do think we have them. So I'm being told it's 100 per cent

Newfoundland and Labrador employment – 100 per cent, so you've got to repeat it.

B. PETTEN:

I won't do that much, but

that's good to hear. And that's being obviously monitored, tracked in the

department, okay.

Minister, the water bomber, I believe I asked about this last year, the fifth

water bomber that was damaged. Was that ever sold after?

E. LOVELESS:

It's not sold yet, but I'm

not going to say any more to that. I'll let the deputy minister give you an

update on that.

C. GRANDY:

So we will be proceeding with a process to dispose of the fifth water bomber

this fiscal, and it will be an open process.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

This is

another issue, too. I looked at minutes actually there recently preparing for

this, and I know me and your ADM, Baker, had a long back and forth on this last

year about the overtime costs on the ferries. The ADM actually made an issue of

it. So has that improved any? Is there any plan to address – I guess the status

of that issue, because you remember last year my argument was why don't we hire

more people if the cost were so exorbitant in overtime.

E. LOVELESS:

No, fair enough. I think

from a blanket look at ferry services and what it provides and the fact that

overtime is being paid in the areas that it is, it is concerning. But in terms

of your question around improvement and stuff, I'll ask John if you want to

comment on overtime for salaries in terms of ferry users. So he's asking has

there been any improvement this year in terms of overtime.

J. BAKER:

Yes, as a matter of fact, over the past four years, we've taken $1.4 million out

of overtime. And that's due to rightsizing and getting crew members back on

straight time rather than having the current member stay back at 1.5 or 2.2. And

we've done a considerable amount, and yes there is more to do and we will

continue to do it.

B. PETTEN:

So I look forward to there

being less on the sunshine list this year. There will be fewer of them on the

sunshine list. Thank you for that.

The

road to the North Coast, Minister, that study, was that ever done?

E. LOVELESS:

You're referring to the

prefeasibility study?

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, I guess.

E. LOVELESS:

Yeah, that's the $200,000.

The draft documents were sent to stakeholders. That was done several weeks ago

and we're just waiting for their feedback on that, where we go from here.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

Just an update – there are a lot of updates because things come and go all of

the time in this place. We move on to new (inaudible). The helicopter service

issue with the St. John's Regional Fire Department. What is the status of that

now? Has that worked itself out because there hasn't been much about it since?

There was a lot about it last year, I guess.

J. BAKER:

The helicopter contract that we have here, that one is equipped with medical

supplies for medical services and we have another helicopter in Central and also

two in Labrador.

B. PETTEN:

Okay.

New equipment – I know we talked about this in the amount, but are you cutting

back on the purchase of new equipment? The new equipment looks like you are

purchasing less this year. So is that moving over to renting equipment as

opposed to purchase of equipment, which the department always purchased

equipment? There was a drop in the line but I mean it is a separate question so

I left that for –

E. LOVELESS:

Again, it goes back to that conversation we had at the beginning in terms of the

challenges around what we have versus our needs versus what it costs and what

we, I guess, can't afford. And it is a big conversation. In terms of looking for

external resources to fill in our needs, it is always an ongoing discussion.

But, certainly, not looking at any reduction. Reduction is not on my mind with

regard to the need that we have in the province. If anything, going external,

whatever, we always have a cost-benefit analysis done in terms of is it better

to do that. As a minister, I wouldn't not do that, if it makes more sense. But

certainly no reductions at this point based on the need we have out there.

B. PETTEN:

Minister, I suppose, aside from the politics that me and you have been bantering

back and forth for quite some time, the long-term care facility in Gander, Grand

Falls, on a strictly serious note, is there any plan to review what – I know you

spoke yesterday to me in the House. If I am not mistaken, you weren't satisfied.

Is there any plan to do a review? I guess we don't want to see this happen,

obviously. Is that in the works? Is that something that is on your radar?

E. LOVELESS:

To be honest with you, I guess I challenge in what I should use. Should I use

the word “review” or

what should I do? Because we had a lengthy discussion on this and I don't mind

saying it, because I'm here with the staff, whatever, it's been frustrating –

beyond frustrating. I have staff that work very hard. I believe at this point –

and we all know the importance of what it is we're trying to get here; we're

trying to open up 120 beds for seniors in Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

process of getting there has been frustrating. So I've asked lots of questions,

to the point that I've even said that when this project is done, we need to sit

around the table to say, what went wrong here. I've stressed that. I've had a

good working relationship with the CEO of Central; her and I have had some

conversations that have been back and forth and stuff, trying to understand

what's going wrong here, because we have a contractor who's doing the service.

We're oversight; we're trying to connect the dots as well.

I mean,

you've got TI and you've got the contractor and you've got Central Health. The

deputy has said to me millions of times, you know, we had Corner Brook hospital

that was done, and it was done with not many problems at all. This one seems to

have more. So if we've had more, then we need to ask questions of why we have

more in this process. And the two deficiencies that were noted, they're being

worked on. Believe me, when I knew that they were not completed, blood pressure

goes up.

It's a

good question, I'm glad you asked it, because we had a conversation. When this

came to my desk over the last week or so, and I'm like, I'm definitely having a

– I don't know if review is the right word, but certainly questions are going to

be asked to those that were involved to see how we can do this better next time.

B. PETTEN:

Thanks.

CHAIR:

MHA Brown.

J. BROWN:

Just a quick question. Well,

more just general question on municipal infrastructure there. When going out for

grants or when municipalities apply for grants or anything like that, is any

consideration made into is the project going to meet any certain environmental

standards, or anything like that for longevity? Are we looking at reviewing on,

like, each project municipality is coming to – in a sense of is it going to meet

certain standards that we want or anything like that? Are we looking at that

from environmental standards, good stewardship, things like that? Are we looking

at anything like that when we go out for grants or anything like that? Or call

for grants, I should say.

E. LOVELESS:

In terms of an assessment

process?

J. BROWN:

Yes.

E. LOVELESS:

Is that where you are –?

J. BROWN:

Yes, for assessment, like

for project-wise.

E. LOVELESS:

I'm not sure if I am

following your question. If you meet targets, is that what you're saying?

J. BROWN:

Yeah, certain targets like

environmental targets or efficiency targets or if the project is going to meet

or exceed any kind of longevity targets for length or construction-wise or

anything like that. Are we trying to strive for anything like that for the

future?

E. LOVELESS:

I believe we always do.

Cory, I don't know if you want to add something to that or whomever.

C. GRANDY:

I might defer to Greg. Within ICIP there are certain substreams that have those

types of criteria that have to be met. It is not in all streams.

Greg,

can you elaborate on that? Just on the mitigation stream.

G. CLARKE:

So under the ICIP federal-provincial funding program, Mr. Brown, there are

substreams that have specific objectives that have to be met by the projects

that are funded under that substream. To take a portion of the green

infrastructure stream, the project might have to meet certain environmental

quality outcomes related to water and sewer, which is a project for which there

is a great deal of demand in the province.

By the

same token, in our provincial only municipal infrastructure funding, we would

prioritize projects that meet the condition of getting a community off

boil-water advisory, for example. Which is, I think, going partway to answering

your question you asked about how we review the proposal that is given from the

community to determine whether it meets environmental objectives and so on. I

think I have explained partially how we do that.

Our

division is made up of a variety of different engineering professionals who do

review the application with an eye to determining both the viability from an

engineering and environmental perspective because we engage Environment and

Climate Change and Municipal Affairs from different perspectives to make sure

that the efficiency, financial viability and environmental objectives of the

program are met at a high level.

don't necessarily vet the projects to an excruciating detail but they do have to

meet the federal-provincial program criteria, provincial program criteria and

our team assesses individual applications from a variety of internal

engineering, financial and environmental perspectives.

J. BROWN:

Just a follow-up to that –

myself and the minister discussed about impact with more extreme weather

patterns and stuff. When we go to municipal roadwork and everything like that,

are we also asking them to kind of check their damages done by weather, things

like that? If they rebuild something, rebuild it at more of a standard that

would probably hold up to more extreme weather? Are we asking the municipalities

to do that too in their project applications?

G. CLARKE:

By all means, yes.

J. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

That's

my last question for this section.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

MHA Petten.

B. PETTEN:

Yeah, a couple of questions.

I'll just go to Grants and Subsidies. I don't know if that was asked. I don't

think it was. I was having trouble with my earpiece. Under 3.5.01, it's $12

million less this year. I guess what's included there for such a fluctuation

there.

E. LOVELESS:

Hopefully I can answer. The

2022-23 budget, less the 2021-22 budget, is a little over $11 million, and

that's a decrease. That's anticipated spending on MCW and multi-year capital

works programs and small-scale community projects.

That's

that piece. There was a decrease from the 2021-22 revised, less the 2021-22

budget, and that's cash flow savings on MCW and multi-year capital works and

small-scale community projects. The $4.4 million increase reflects cash flow

requirements for municipal infrastructure projects for the upcoming season.

B. PETTEN:

Why were there savings on

those – what was the reason for that?

E. LOVELESS:

It's cash flow savings and

all relative to productivity levels.

B. PETTEN:

Under 3.5.02, Grants and

Subsidies once again, $90 million budgeted and $75 million spent.

E. LOVELESS:

Sorry, which one are you

asking?

B. PETTEN:

Grants and Subsidies,

3.5.02.

E. LOVELESS:

3.5.02. I don't have any

Grants and Subsidies.

B. PETTEN:

No?

E. LOVELESS:

No, I was thinking – I'm

trying to follow my notes. Grants and Subsidies was on the back like everything

else, but here it's –

B. PETTEN:

No problem.

E. LOVELESS:

So you referenced the

decreases or the increase?

B. PETTEN:

Well, it's $90 million down

to $75 million and now it's back to $82 million, so again, it's a fluctuation.

E. LOVELESS:

Again, I am trying to give

you a good explanation. The $15 million decrease, that was lower than

anticipated spending on infrastructure projects due to COVID-19 pandemic in

'21-'22. Including the provincial territory infrastructure committee projects,

you've got rural and northern projects, public transit and green infrastructure.

This is cash flow savings that is carried forward to future years. That's the

$15 million.

We see

there's an increase to $82 million; that's a little over $7 million. That's

lower than anticipated spending on infrastructure projects due to pandemic in

'21-'22, including the rural and northern projects, public transit, green

infrastructure, and again cash flow savings that is carried forward to future

years.

B. PETTEN:

Okay. I'm going to do a few

questions now before we're finishing this section, I guess.

E. LOVELESS:

Yes.

B. PETTEN:

The long-term care

conversation is an important conversation when you finished off – I've called

for this publicly, so I mean it's not a secret: project management. Because I

think one of the media outlets asked me, and I said, well if you're building a

house, you don