Resource Committee — department of natural resourcesand officeof publiceengagement — 19 April 2016

2016-04-19

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PDF Version

April

19, 2016

RESOURCE

COMMITTEE

Pursuant

to Standing Order 68, Keith Hutchings, MHA for Ferryland, substitutes for Kevin

Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 68, Steve Kent, MHA for Mount Pearl North, substitutes for

David Brazil, MHA for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

The

Committee met at 6:04 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Warr):

I call the meeting to order.

I just want to take the opportunity to welcome everybody this evening. Our first

order of business will be the Office of Public Engagement.

Before

we get underway, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce myself. My name

is Brian Warr. I'm the MHA for Baie Verte Green Bay. I will be your Chair. I

ask for Members on this side to introduce themselves.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keith

Hutchings, MHA, District of Ferryland.

MS. DRODGE:

Megan Drodge, Researcher, Official Opposition caucus.

MR. KENT:

Steve Kent, MHA, Mount Pearl

North.

MS. HAYDEN:

Veronica Hayden, Executive Assistant to Paul Davis.

MS. MICHAEL:

Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP

caucus.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Pam Parsons, MHA, Harbour

Grace Port de Grave.

MR. FINN:

John Finn, MHA, Stephenville

Port au Port.

MR. DEAN:

Jerry Dean, MHA, Exploits.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo

Island Cape Freels.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I'll

pass it over to Minister Coady.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

Hello,

everybody. My name is Siobhan Coady, MHA, St. John's West and Minister for the

Office of Public Engagement as well as the Minister of Natural Resources.

To my

left

MS. HEARN:

Good evening. My name is Judith Hearn. I'm the Deputy Minister of the Office of

Public Engagement.

MR. GILBERT: Bruce

Gilbert, Assistant Deputy Minister in the Office of Public Engagement.

MR. BONNELL: Kip

Bonnell, Communications Manager, Office of Public Engagement.

MS. TRICKETT:

Wanda Trickett, Departmental Controller.

MR. BUTT: Jeff

Butt, Director of Policy and Planning.

MS. QUINTON:

Diana Quinton, Director of Communications.

MS. SHEPPARD:

Megan Sheppard, Executive Assistant to Minister Coady.

CHAIR: Thank

you.

Will the Clerk please call the first subhead?

CLERK (Ms.

Proudfoot): Subhead 2.8.01.

CHAIR: Shall

subhead 2.8.01 carry?

MR. KENT: Mr.

Chair, I was just wondering,

did the minister want to say anything before we get started?

CHAIR:

Actually, she's going to have

that opportunity now.

MR. KENT:

Oh, okay, you started calling

heads, so

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. KENT:

All right.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

certainly want to thank everyone for being here this evening. My name is Siobhan

Coady, as I said, and this is for transcription, Minister Responsible for the

Office of Public Engagement.

As you

know, the Office of Public Engagement is responsible for supporting and

delivering meaningful public engagement opportunities to better connect the

people of the province to their government. OPE also supports the administration

of the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act by working to streamline and enhance processes

under ATIPPA and providing support and training to ATIPP coordinators throughout

government and the broader public sector.

Just to

give you an idea, we've had 58 public engagement projects over the last year,

140 in-person sessions involving nearly 4,000 participants, and we also have had

a tremendous uptake in ATIPPA with about a 90 per cent increase over the

previous year. So as you can see, that is a tremendous growing area.

I do

want to point out, the Estimates point to a budget in 2015-16 of $7,089,800. We

were able to decrease the budget this year, and in the Estimates we've taken

that down to $6,545,100. We've made some changes in line by line, as well as

made some changes with regard to some of the programming. I look forward to your

questions and answering them as you deem necessary.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister Coady,

and now we'll open up the Committee for questions.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will

get the hang of this; it just might take a while, so thank you.

I have a

number of questions. They're somewhat general and, obviously, it will depend on

how comfortable the minister is. I don't anticipate needing a lot of time. I

know what I want to ask related to the OPE budget overall. I have great respect

for the work of the Office of Public Engagement. I've been intimately involved

in the work of the Office of Public Engagement, and I really believe in the work

of the Office of Public Engagement.

So for

that reason, my questions won't necessarily focus on why is the Employee

Benefits line $800 less. I'd rather ask a few general questions, which I

actually suspect you'll be pretty comfortable answering, and then maybe we can

move on, recognizing we need to move through the different subheads, and I

appreciate that.

So under

2.8.01, Executive Support, not any major changes to the budget I recognize

throughout the budget there have been cuts to Purchased Services and

Professional Services, which is to be expected given the nature of the budget.

I guess

my broader question, if the minister is comfortable with it, the minister just

described basically what the impact on the overall budget has been from last

fiscal to this fiscal. I was just wondering if she could maybe give a quick

overview of what does that mean. From her perspective, what has been reduced or

eliminated and what is the impact going to be on the office in terms of being

able to deliver its mandate?

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

Thank

you for your question and for the general nature of what you're asking. I

appreciate the fact that you want context around this. We did have to make some

cuts in the department. As you can see, there are line-by-line cuts and we can

get into those if you so wish. But I think the most fundamental cuts are around

the Collaboration Incentive Fund that the former government implemented. It's

only about a year old.

We're

going to continue to advance collaboration but due to the fiscal restraint

within the province, we had to make some modifications to the program. It being

only, what I am going to call, a short-term program, there were 15 projects, we

spent about $184,000 in those projects, we got some great results from them;

however, we are going to have to ensure that we continue to advance

collaboration through the department versus these projects.

The

other two big areas I'm going to name them we had to cut the Grants to Youth

Organizations. These are project based, not core-funding based, so I want people

to understand that. They are very criteria-driven, professionally chosen. So we

have criteria and we make sure that they are chosen appropriately. We had to

make some pretty significant cuts. We will make sure that we look to those

projects and spread it as best we can amongst the groups.

It's

application-driven, not core funding again application-driven. And we also

made a $100,000 transfer of the School Lunch Program so that's gone to SWSD. So

it's not cut; it's just moved because it is better served in that particular

department.

I'll say

the only other change we kept complete funding for the Community Youth

Networks because that is core funding. The only other change is the business

labour grants. There was $20,000 budgeted. It was unused in '15-'16 because, of

course, there have been some changes to the way that sector has organized

itself; therefore, we thought it was appropriate to eliminate the $20,000

funding. So if you're looking for what I'm going to call the substantive changes

to OPE, those are it.

I don't

know, Deputy, do you have

MS. HEARN:

We did

MS. COADY:

There was one other thing

that might be significant, if I could, and that is we are going to be doing our

outreach and engagement differently. The regional councils, because they were

not being utilized fully, we felt and in discussions with some of the people

involved that we would do engagement on a broader scale rather than through

the councils.

Thank

you.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to let the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi get in

on this subhead and I'll save my follow-up questions for the next one, if that's

okay.

MS. MICHAEL:

I just want clarification,

Chair. It's a question of clarification. Is the minister speaking about 2.8.02?

Where is this money coming from? I think we need to know exactly where it's

coming from, please.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

MHA Kent

asked kind of for a broader overview and as we go through the appropriations

we'll be able to discuss that line by line, but he did ask for an overview of

where the general changes are and that's what I was giving. So as we go through

each appropriation, we'll be able to deal with them at that time.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Thank

you.

MR. KENT:

Based on that, I appreciate the minister's overall explanation, and I don't have

further questions about 2.8.01 at this point.

CHAIR:

Do you have anything else,

Ms. Michael?

MS. MICHAEL:

No.

Well,

yes, under Purchased Services. This may be a good way to do it, Chair, to come

in at this point.

Under

2.8.01, Purchased Services, $50,900 was what was budgeted last year. What's the

impact of bringing it all the way down to $9,600? That's quite a jump.

MS. COADY:

Yes, it is quite a change.

There was money allocated in that Purchased Services for a particular program

under Open Government Initiative that was not utilized.

I'll

turn to my deputy to answer the question further.

MS. HEARN:

I can address that as well, by saying OPE was created by a number of different

organizations coming together. And, really, this is our second full year of

being fully together.

We were

able to, after two years running, to see where we could make the right-sized

cuts in Purchased Services, as the minister refers. For initiatives like Open

Government, we would see Purchased Services being utilized in the branches more

than the Executive Branch, and we would work hard to reduce as much as possible

in the executive Purchased Services expenditure.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

ahead.

MR. KENT:

I'm fine on 2.8.01.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Will the

Clerk please call the next subhead?

CLERK:

2.8.02.

CHAIR:

2.8.02.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

appreciate the minister's opening comments, and that's helpful and will probably

make this process go a little more efficient this evening from my perspective

anyway. So thank you for that.

You

mentioned the reduction in the Grants to Youth Organizations, and I believe all

of the OPE Grants and Subsidies are covered within this subhead, right?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. KENT:

I realize a good chunk of

that is for Community Youth Networks, and pleased to hear that funding is being

maintained for the CYNs.

In terms

of the Grants to Youth Organizations, I recognize a chunk of that is application

based or project based, as you suggest, but I would also highlight that for some

of those youth organizations that is, in fact, their core funding. So I'm just

curious, how it's being differentiated. I know we can't go application by

application, but I'm just trying to understand for those organizations I'll

use an example that I'm familiar with personally. Big Brothers Big Sisters

receives over $100,000 a year under Grants to Youth Organizations. That is their

only funding from government; that is their core funding.

I'm just

curious, those organizations that typically receive the same amount year after

year after year, can they anticipate receiving that core funding this year, or

is all of that being reviewed? I hope I'm being clear. I'm just wondering how

there definitely are two types of grants to youth organizations. There are those

that are very annual, and then there are those that are project based. So if the

minister could clarify, I would really appreciate that.

MS. COADY:

Thank you for the question.

It is

difficult any time you have to make these cuts. We understand that, and we would

love to be able to have more grants to youth organizations. These are all

project-specific grants. They have to bring in an application. They're not

year-to-year funding. They're application based. They have to submit an

application annually for these types of and determine and advise what kinds of

projects they would undertake for this kind of money.

So these

are project, not core funding like the CYN is. I understand this will cause some

hardships for some of these organizations. We don't minimize that at all;

however, we also felt that because it's not core funding and because it is

project based and because we can spread around, as best we can, from those

organizations, based on if they meet the criteria of the program and they make

sure we understand that it is project based, we'll be able to manage that as

best we can.

Please

note, the $100,000 that was given to the School Lunch Program, we did allocate

and separate. So I don't want anyone to think that's been taken out of this. It

has not. It's very important program funding and we've given it to the

department to administer. This is really supposed to be a different project

they're going to do. They meet the criteria or they don't meet the criteria,

we'll be giving it to them.

I don't

know, Deputy Minister, if there's anything further you want to add to that.

MS. HEARN:

I would just add that the core funding for the CYNs and for the School Lunch was

maintained this year, as it was last year, in terms of core funding groups. All

other applications are application-driven.

So it

would be difficult to answer the Member's question until we actually see the

application from the group and what they're asking the money for. It would be

impossible to determine which groups would get the funding, who would apply, as

it does change from year to year.

It's

entirely possible, depending on the amount asked for and the number of groups

that come in, you could have the same list as last year or the year before. It's

also clear that you add to the number of people who would apply every year, and

the pot hasn't increased in some time. So it's a challenge, regardless of the

year, of who gets the money and how much money they get.

MR. KENT:

Thank you for the answer.

I won't

belabour the point. The only thing I would offer as you go through that process

have applications gone out or applications all in at this point? No. So on

that basis, as you approach the process, the only thing I'd respectfully suggest

is that while it is application-driven and they have to apply annually, there is

a group on that list that receives roughly the same amount of money every year

for the last 10 years.

So while

it may not be defined in the eyes of government as core funding, I assure you to

the Boys and Girls Club or the Girl Guides or to cadets or to Big Brothers Big

Sisters or the others that are on that list, there are a group of those, because

it has been the same year over year over year, they would consider it core

funding. I just ask you to keep that in mind as you make your decisions, and I

respect that those won't be easy decisions to make.

I also

recognize some of those groups it is truly project based, as opposed to

funding, that they count on annually. Hopefully it will all work out, but a 30

per cent cut to that fund is going to be challenging. So I just need to

highlight that concern before we continue.

believe under Public Engagement it would be an appropriate time to ask questions

about the provincial Regional Councils. Would that be okay?

MS. COADY:

Absolutely.

MR. KENT:

Okay, great.

understand the decision to eliminate the Provincial Council and the Regional

Councils, but it appears from the budget that there won't be major staff

implications. We have 10 regional planner positions. I suspect a couple of them

are vacant. Last time I checked they were.

MS. COADY:

And the two vacant positions

you're referring to are not filled.

MR. KENT:

They're not.

MS. COADY:

The vacant positions will not

be filled.

MR. KENT:

Will not be filled. So the

two vacant planner positions will not be filled. Will the other eight positions

be maintained?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

So the

intention, obviously, is to refocus those eight roles to do different engagement

work?

MS. COADY:

Absolutely. We absolutely are

committed to regular engagement, and you've heard the amount we did last year.

You will know that we did a significant piece of work around the budget. We want

to have that kind of, what I'm going to call meaningful engagement. The planner

positions will be there to assist in those areas and we wanted to make sure they

are available and working hard, as we know they do.

The

other thing I want to point out, the Youth Council will remain intact. We think

that would be a good voice for youth, and we've maintained that.

MR. KENT:

Is it likely that those

remaining eight planners will be beyond their duties geographically, will

there be redistribution? I recognize some of those employees are long term and

they're in various regions of the province, but now for instance, as a result

of two vacancies you have two former regions that won't have some presence. Is

it the intention to have them continue to operate from where they're operating

from or will there be some restructuring of that as well?

MS. COADY:

MR. KENT:

Right. Okay.

MS. COADY:

If I may, you'll see under

Transportation and Communications that reduction.

MR. KENT:

Okay, great. Well, not great,

but it is what it is.

MS. COADY:

I think the deputy would also

like to have a word.

MS. HEARN:

I just wanted to clarify that

there's one vacant regional planner position that is a truly vacant position.

Correct.

MR. KENT:

There's another policy

planning program-related position that came to an end as of March 31?

MS. HEARN:

Correct, and has been eliminated from the structure.

MS. COADY:

Just for clarity, because I

did make the error. The other position that we have in Corner Brook is under

long-term sick leave. We're not going to fill that while she's off on sick

leave.

MR. KENT:

Okay. I understand.

I know

my time is running out. I'll ask a very quick question related to that. Can the

minister say if there are any other positions that are being impacted within the

Office of Public Engagement as a result of this budget?

MS. COADY:

Are there any other? No, just

those two positions that we're talking about; the temporary position that ended

the end of March that we did not continue on

MR. KENT:

Right.

MS. COADY:

and the position that we're

not filling. We're not going to add anybody to fulfill a long-term illness. So

no other positions are impacted.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

My time

is up, Mr. Chair, so I'll stop there.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Still

under 2.8.02, I assume. Just clarification really, Minister, because I think I

have the answers to my other questions with regard to the Transportation and

Communications, for example, but a clarification. So the Grants and Subsidies,

are both the project money and the core funding included in that line?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. I was just wondering

because it wasn't clear to me.

When you

say the $100,000 for the School Lunch Program is moved, where exactly has it

moved to? You said department, but which department would that be because this

is under the Executive Council, right?

MS. HEARN:

It's to Seniors, Wellness and Social Development and it joins, I believe, the

School Lunch Program funding that exists in that department right now.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, yes.

This is

just a request that actually both parties be made of the minister to date, and

it has happened and then this way you don't have to worry about listing out

different groups and stuff to us. Would we be able to have a copy of your

booklet?

MS. COADY:

Absolutely.

MS. MICHAEL:

Great. Then that saves us

asking who is the list of groups, et cetera. We'd be able to see it all instead

of wasting time doing it.

MS. COADY:

I'm happy to do so.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

That's

all I have for that section.

CHAIR:

Okay.

We'll

just go back to Mr. Kent for a quick question.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a

couple of more questions now that the clock has resumed. That is a good point

that Ms. Michael just raised. We appreciate receiving the famous Estimates

binder.

I will

let the minister know that last night, to my shock, Minister Joyce actually

handed it to us, which was very surprising, I guess is the only way I can

categorize it. So I just throw that out there, knowing you're the Minister

Responsible for Public Engagement.

Minister, of the two positions that are being eliminated, one wasn't filled, one

is being eliminated. How do they factor in I'm assuming one is in the 650 and

one is not. The one that wasn't filled as of March 31 would not be in the 650

positions being impacted by budget, the one that's being eliminated would be. Is

that a fair assumption? If it was gone before budget, would it be counted in the

650 or is one or both being counted, I guess, is my question.

MS. COADY:

I would have to take that

under advisement, only because I don't know how they accumulated their list and

I would take that under advisement. I'll certainly look to the Human Resource

Secretariat to make sure where they stand. We'll make sure of that.

MR. KENT:

That would be great. If you

can get clarification on that point, that would be great.

MS. COADY:

I'll have someone take a note

and get back to you.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

Related

to the positions, I know there are lots of people within government that have

been extended to September 30, they are contractual or temporary. I'm just

curious, for the Office of Public Engagement because I honestly don't recall.

How many people within the Office of Public Engagement will be in that category,

they've been extended to September 30?

MS. COADY:

Do you have that?

MS. HEARN:

I'm trying to remember the exact number. I think there are five, but I will

certainly check that number.

MR. KENT:

Okay. Yes, if you'll let us

know, that's fine.

Mr.

Chair, in this section, I don't have any further questions at this time.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. COADY:

Oh sorry, go ahead. I was

just going to point your attention to something. You'll note because you are

probably going to come to this Purchased Services is a lot decreased.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

I just want to point that

out. What we have done and we've done it very effectively, I think, in the

last number of months instead of going out there and renting hotels to do our

public engagement and things of that nature, we're using school gyms. We're

partnering with organizations. That's why we've take a significant drop as well.

But we also do not have this is not a year for the URock Awards.

It's not

that we just cut that substantively, there's no URock Awards; therefore, it was

more last year. The URock Awards is every two years. We are really trying to

partner to save costs on the engagement that we're doing.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Minister.

This is

a broader question. It's something that has come to me, actually, many times

since I've been in the House of Assembly. I've never thought of asking it but it

seems appropriate tonight.

I'm not

picking on this; it's sort of a general question. It has to do with my own

experience when I worked in the not-for-profit sector and did receive provincial

government money and also federal government money for the organization I was

working with.

I was

quite surprised the first year that I got provincial government money was

community partnership money. At the end of the year I contacted the director,

not naming names or anything of that nature, and said what is the mechanism for

my reporting and I was told no report was expected.

OFFICIAL:

Oh really?

MS. MICHAEL:

So because I was executive

director and I knew I had to report to the federal government, I did up my own

reporting. Nobody ever told me they read my reports, but every year I did a

report.

I'd like

to ask: Is there a mechanism for regular reporting of the spending of the money?

MS. COADY:

There absolutely is, as part

of the criteria of any program that we would have. I can assure you we do read

the reports. Also, not just the reports on how the money is spent but what the

results are. So when you look at some of the collaboration funding that we

administered last year, some of the projects that are happening, we actually did

go back and review it because we want to learn from that collaboration or learn

from that engagement.

I think

it's critically important. I've asked my team to make sure they take the

valuable pieces from that, so thank you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, that's good to know.

I mean

I'm talking 10 years ago. That's not that long ago though.

MS. COADY:

Yes. It's very important to

be accountable for the money that organizations receive and we make sure they

are.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

That's

all, Chair.

CHAIR:

Will the Clerk please call

the next subhead.

CLERK:

Subhead 2.8.03.

CHAIR:

2.8.03.

Mr.

Kent.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

This is

perhaps a more broad policy planning research question. Again, because of my

background, I don't feel the need to go line by line by line here.

I was

pleased to see in your mandate letter, Minister, the concept of creating a

global network of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I think it's a good idea.

The devil is always in the details but the concept is exciting. I think it is a

good idea. So I'm just curious, have any initial steps been taken? Where do you

anticipate going with that over the next year in this difficult fiscal?

MS. COADY:

I'm happy to report that yes,

some initial steps have been taken. We're certainly putting an emphasis on this

area, especially during the coming summer season. We want to start digging into

this and we're putting some policy people on that very topic.

There

have been other jurisdictions and I'll use New Zealand, for example. They have a

great I think they call it the Kiwi website, where they reach out to expats

and to ensure they utilize the people that come from New Zealand, in terms of

understanding what's happening in their home country in terms of keeping that

network active and utilizing any of the expertise that expats have.

We're

using that as kind of the model, if I can use that. We're going to do some of

our own research, look at the outcomes. A number of jurisdictions around the

world have that.

So in

some of our budget if you look at our budget we do have some money in there; for

example, under Professional Services. We're looking at the website design for

the global network. We're going to use existing monies to develop the global

network.

Thank you.

Ms.

Michael?

MS. MICHAEL:

No, I think that covers what

I'd be interested in. The minister answered my question about Professional

Services.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please call

the next subhead?

CLERK:

Subhead 2.8.04.

CHAIR:

2.8.04.

Mr.

Kent.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Only a

couple of questions, I think. The first just relates to staffing. You've already

answered the broad staffing question. I just can't recall how that impacted

budget. We had budgeted $692,000 last year, the revised budget was considerably

less. Given the changes that were made to ATIPP legislation, there were

additional resources required in this office. Now the budgeted amount is back to

the original 2015-2016 budget. I was just wondering if you could explain how

that all works.

MS. COADY:

Happy to do so.

As you

heard when I initially spoke, we've had, to date, what, about 1,400 access to

information requests this year. It's an incredible amount. People in that office

are answering about 1,500 calls. We've done in-person training sessions. We've

had to do a tremendous, what I'm going to call, insurance within government so

that people understand how the new ATIPP works and what the requirements are.

We noted

that last year you appropriated for some new additional hires that were not

done. We wanted to make sure that we did add to that office because, of course,

the volumes, the requirements are increasing. So we have allocated to ensure

that we put those people there.

Maybe

the deputy minister can give more details. Those hirings to support ATIPP are

required.

MR. KENT:

That makes sense. So those

positions that we thought we might need weren't filled by March 31, but you

anticipate the need for them in 2016-2017.

MS. COADY:

Yes, and we've allocated for

them.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

training, which is critically important.

MR. KENT:

So related to ATIPP, I'm just

curious how we're doing with meeting time frames. For instance, to get requests

online, are requests always getting online within the required time frame? Have

there been any exceptions so far or are we consistently meeting those

requirements?

MS. COADY:

In a general sense, we're

meeting them. I'll turn to my deputy to see if there are any inconsistencies in

that.

MS. HEARN:

The ATIPP stats are very

good. We're looking at certainly high 90s in terms of response times. The

policy, of course, is to put online the request, once the appropriate timeline

has been undertaken, for the applicant to receive it, and we follow that policy.

MS. COADY:

So, in a general sense, no

abnormalities. We're working very hard to make sure that they are met, but we do

need those additional staff to make sure we maintain that level of competence,

especially with the increased numbers of ATIPP requests.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

One more

specific question related to the budget for the ATIPP office. Purchased Services

is way up. I'm sure there's a purpose; I just can't think of what it would be,

so I'm hoping you can help me out.

MS. COADY:

You will remember the

training of municipalities and public bodies.

MR. KENT:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

So we have to go out there

and do an enormous piece of work training the municipalities, training public

bodies, to meet with the new legislation. That's where the requirements are and

that's where you're seeing that amount of money allocated.

MR. KENT:

I'm just confused as to why

that would be under Purchased Services because we're going to deploy ATIPP staff

to do that, so are we engaging others to be involved in that work as well?

MS. HEARN:

The reason, MHA Kent, is

because last year the money was parked in one place. This year it was

redistributed to the appropriate account centres where we are actually spending

the money. In Purchased Services we do privacy training with an international

privacy training standard so that we can get our ATIPP coordinators certified.

So it's certification of ATIPP coordinators on privacy matters and that is an

outside purchased service because that qualification is done by an independent

firm.

MR. KENT:

Now because there are more of

them, there's a greater requirement for that training? I'm still a little unsure

why that

MS. HEARN:

No, the numbers stayed the

same. There's no increase; it's just it moved to Purchased Services where it had

been in Transportation and Works or had been in Professional Services before. So

the numbers stayed the same but got reallocated to the appropriate account

centre

MR. KENT:

Okay.

MS. HEARN:

so that we're spending

money out of the right account centre.

MR. KENT:

Would that cover all the

ATIPP coordinators throughout government?

MS. HEARN:

No, the amount allocated in

the previous budget only covers incremental training year over year. So you

can't do broad-brush training. You do what you can with the monies you have and

you move that along the training track.

So,

certainly, it does look at training costs and transportation costs to get our

folks out to municipalities. It also covers privacy training and certification

for the numbers that we have to fill but those are done we've done some last

year, we'll do more next year. We'll do more the next year so that we build on

our success.

MS. COADY:

I just note for you, if you

look in G05, the Professional Services, the allocation has actually been moved

to Purchased Services because that's where the spend is.

MR. KENT:

Right, okay.

I won't

prolong it; there's just clearly something I'm not quite getting. So if

employees were travelling to deliver training, I would have thought that would

be under Transportation and Communications.

MS. COADY:

It is.

MR. KENT:

I'm just confused as to why

that Purchased Services number is so high.

Getting

our ATIPP people certified by the international privacy standard, whatever it's

called, I get that, but that wouldn't be $86,000. So I'm just curious why those

folks moving around the province to provide training would be under Purchased

Absolutely.

MR. KENT:

Because in Question Period we

only get 45 seconds to have a go at each other, so this will be more productive,

hopefully.

I am

just curious, given the budget situation, you have identified that the

Collaboration Incentive Fund is going away; that was something coming out

related to the Open Government Initiative. I'm just curious what your intentions

are in this fiscal.

recognize that you've said publicly that it's all being reviewed and reassessed.

I'm just curious where you intend to take it from here, given there was a lot of

work done and I still believe there are a lot of good initiatives that were

proposed. So I'm just curious where you intend to go and what we might see

happen in this fiscal year.

MS. COADY:

I appreciate the question.

You know, it is priority I consider it a priority; I truly believe in Open

Government and I believe in the initiatives under Open Government. We're

currently reviewing that. I would suspect by the end of May, we'll have

implemented a number of key initiatives under the Open Government.

There

are a number of things the collaboration is one thing and we're going to take

it in a broader context of collaboration. But there are a lot of other things

under Open Government, as you well know, that we can implement. It was just a

matter of timing to make sure that we could implement them in the right fashion

and in the right way.

We have

to also consider and I think you'd appreciate this if there are any impacts,

some of the initiatives there are 43 may cause data challenges and we are

reviewing how we mitigate those concerns around the data. So that's the work

that we're doing, but I would anticipate we'll have some aspects of Open

Government done by the end of May.

MR. KENT:

So, Minister, is it the

intention of government to finalize and release an open government action plan?

We had released a draft plan and we had obtained comments and feedback, which I

know your officials are intimately familiar with. So I'm just curious: Is it the

intention at some point then in 2016 to release something called an open

government action plan?

MS. COADY:

You're looking for a

document? Is that what you're looking for?

MR. KENT:

Yes, there were 43 in the

draft plan. Are you going to release a document that says these are the 39 we're

going to do or these are the 50 we're going to do, or will it just never become

a finalized plan or at least not in the foreseeable future?

MS. COADY:

Well, I think we're reviewing

the that's a very good point as whether or not we re-release or release a full

plan or we just start to implement the initiatives under the Open Government.

And, as you know, the federal government is also doing a huge piece of work in

this as well. There were 43 whether it's 39 implemented, whether it's 50

because of some of the work the federal government has done, Open Government is

evolving.

whether or not we release an action plan is something that we're looking at;

more importantly, we're actioning what has been done. Whether it's a plan that

we put in front of you or we start to action the segments of the plan is where

we're going.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

Well, I

will leave it there. Thank you for your participation and willingness to have a

good discussion, and I look forward to receiving your Estimates notes when

you're ready to make them available to us.

MS. COADY:

Absolutely, right away.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Just to go a little bit

further on the Open Government, Minister. In the booklet do you have any of the

initiatives that you're looking at, at the moment? Or is this still evolving so

much?

MS. COADY:

The initiatives under Open?

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm shocked.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm sure you are.

MS. COADY:

Improve searchable access to

information that is proactively disclosed on the Open Government webpage.

That's really looking at developing and launching a search engine, for example.

Launch

a digital library of government publications to provide access to information.

So you take a whole library of annual reports, government commission reports and

ATIPP documents.

Develop

tools, resources and initiatives to help the public access, use and understand

digital information and technologies.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, I understand.

MS. COADY:

So those are the things that

we're the intent is to try and put everything out there in a manner and a way

that people can actually access and use.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, got it.

MS. COADY:

That's what we're trying to

achieve. We're very cautious in terms of the data and in terms of the costs of

having that data available. But there are ways to mitigate those costs and work

towards having that kind of Open Government Initiative. We think it's very I

personally think it's very important. I think everybody in this room would think

it's very important to allow people to have access to the information.

A lot of

it is on websites, but it's the way they actually can search and use it. You'll

see a lot of this the federal government has just launched. Internationally,

this is a huge movement as a well, so making sure that we're there.

MS. MICHAEL:

I have a general memory of

this, but not the details. Just to put Mr. Kent's mind at rest.

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, I'll sleep tonight

now.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'd also like just this is

sort of a casual comment, but believe me, knowing the researcher that's to my

right knows exactly when something's supposed to be online when it comes to

ATIPPs, if you ever start failing, he'll be knocking on the door. He knows

exactly when it should be there.

MS. COADY:

And I think you'll appreciate

that's why we wanted to make sure we had extra resources to the people of the

province.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. It's important.

MS. COADY:

But more importantly, to

ensuring that the information is made available as quickly as possible.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you. And thank you for

tonight.

CHAIR:

Would the Clerk please call

all subheads

CLERK:

Subhead 2.8.01 to subhead

2.8.04.

CHAIR:

2.8.01 to 2.8.04.

Shall

the total carry?

All in

favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subheads 2.8.01 through 2.8.04 carried.

motion, the Office of Public Engagement, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Office of Public Engagement carried without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Office of Public Engagement carried without amendment.

This

part is adjourned.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

Thank

you for the insightful questions. I appreciate it.

CHAIR:

So we'll just do a quick

switchover.

Okay, I

call the meeting to order and welcome everybody back for the Estimates Committee

meeting on Natural Resources. I'd ask for the minister to have her staff

introduce themselves as we did prior to.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

Siobhan

Coady, Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. BOWN:

Charles Bown, Deputy Minister.

MR. LIVERMAN:

David Liverman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Mines.

MS. QUINTON:

Diana Quinton, Director of Communications.

MS. NOSEWORTHY:

Tanya Noseworthy, Executive Director of Strategic Planning and Policy

Coordination.

MS. SHEPPARD:

Megan Sheppard, Executive Assistant to Minister Coady.

MR. IVIMEY:

Philip Ivimey, Departmental

Controller.

CHAIR:

Thank you very much.

Will the

Clerk please call the first subhead?

CLERK:

Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Minister

Coady.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

Thank

you for the opportunity.

Just to

let you know, the mandate of Natural Resources is to be responsible for the

management, promotion and development of the mines and energy sector. And, of

course, we all know that these sectors contribute to the continuous economic and

social well-being of the citizens of the province and the enforcement of laws

and regulations pertaining to them.

We have,

I'm going to call it, two main areas: the mineral resource management and energy

resources and benefits management. We also have energy management under our

requirement as well.

The

budget for 2016-17 is 13.1 per cent lower. We're pretty thin in what we've been

able to achieve and make sure that we're doing it. The budget in 2015-16 was

$25.708 million, and the budget for 2016-17 is $22.352 million.

If you

look back 10 years, by comparison the department's budget in 2003-04 was $24.435

million. So we're a very fiscally responsible organization and department. We

have some tremendously skilled and dedicated employees and they are doing a

great work for the province. So I'm thrilled to be working for them.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

Minister, first I'll just go to some line-by-line items; 1.1.01 the heading

Minister's Office. In Salaries we see budgeted in 2015-2016, $267,800. The

revised was $331,000, and back down to $194,000. Were there salaries expected to

decrease in the current year? Is that a loss of positions? What exactly would

that be?

MS. COADY:

The difference between the

budget and the revised, just for clarification, is termination costs for

severance, annual and paid leave. That was for political support staff.

The

change in Salaries for this year is the removal of funding for the parliamentary

secretary and the constituency assistant position that was in that Estimate. So

no loss in employees except that we are no longer responsible for the

parliamentary secretary. There is not one for the department or the constituency

assistant position.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

In terms

of I guess I'll give this question right off the bat. In terms of staff

reduction, when you look at the 650 that were announced as part of the budget,

what positions will be terminated within your department related to that budget

initiative?

MS. COADY:

Under this appropriation or

in general?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just in general. I'll just

get it out of the way so I don't have to go through it in each heading.

MS. COADY:

Absolutely. Perhaps my deputy

minister would like to answer that.

MR. BOWN:

From an overall perspective,

there will be no layoffs within the Department of Natural Resources.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, just to be clear. The

announced budget initiative of 650 full-time equivalents, there's no reduction

in the Department of Natural Resources?

MR. BOWN:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

I do want to specifically

say, because it was a question asked of my other department, I do not know the

650 that the Human Resource Secretariat I would like to confirm that they did

not. We are not laying off anyone in the department.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

There are some positions

we're not filling; therefore, I just want to make sure what that Human Resource

Secretariat 650 is comprised of.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I guess

my second question, too

MS. COADY:

My deputy minister would like

MR. BOWN:

I'll just confirm that as part of attrition management, we will be reducing by

some reason, and that will give you their account of three actual positions?

MR. BOWN:

That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thanks very much.

MS. COADY:

And that's what I want to

confirm, whether or not they're in that 650.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, sure. Yes, I understand.

MS. COADY:

I just want to make sure.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

Again,

sticking with 1.1.01, Minister's Office; if you come down under Salaries, under

Transportation and Communications there's a change there from the original

budget Estimate last year and what the Estimate is for this year. Just give me

some idea of what that is related to.

MS. COADY:

Certainly. We're very frugal,

and we did take a $25,000 reduction from the budget of 2015-16 to the Estimate

in this year. Last year we anticipated less travel because of some of the

savings of discretionary travel; and, of course, the minister was not available

for quite some time to do some of the travel that is normally done during the

year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. So most of the savings

would be discretionary?

MS. COADY:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And then reflective of a

go-forward budget once you get through this year.

MS. COADY:

We're very thin on our

go-forward budget.

As you

can appreciate, the former minister had to go to Houston for the international

conferences. He also travelled outside of the province for a number of

international conferences related to offshore oil and gas and to mining. This

year we'll be trying to manage that and appropriate that a little thinner than

we've had in previous times.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you very much.

If we

come down to the next heading, 1.2.01, Executive Support; again, if I could just

get a little commentary on the Salaries of what was budgeted last year, the

That's okay. I'm happy to do

that. I just want to make sure I was

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, I'll go to somebody else.

MS. COADY:

Okay.

MS. MICHAEL:

No, I don't have any other

questions besides the ones that have been asked for 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Will the Clerk please call

the next subhead?

CLERK:

Subhead 1.2.01.

CHAIR:

1.2.01.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, sorry about that.

actually don't have a lot to ask here. It's pretty straightforward, maybe just

the Salaries line. Has there been a position there that is not being filled or

was not filled?

MS. COADY:

Thank you for the question.

There

was a secondment to Executive Council. That is what you're seeing there. The

executive director of Iron Ore was on secondment to Executive Council. That was

the change. So we had a savings in there.

Under

the government reduction measures, we also are re-profiling a salary fund within

the department to meet the salary plans for 2016-17. It's a small amount, and we

also have a reduction measure. A vacant secretary to the assistant deputy

minister is not being filled, it's vacant.

MS. MICHAEL:

It won't be filled?

MS. COADY:

Pardon me?

MS. MICHAEL:

It's just vacant at the

moment or it won't be filled?

MS. COADY:

It won't be filled.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So that's one of the

ones that will be gone.

MS. COADY:

It's one of the ones the

deputy minister referred to.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you very much.

Under

Transportation and Works, last year there was a fair bit of the money not used

but you're back up to $104,800 this year. So what happened last year and why

we're back up?

MS. COADY:

Again, less-than-anticipated

travel because of the discretionary travel requirements. We have increased it to

$104,800. There are a number of travel requirements this year that executive

needs to participate in negotiations, some intergovernmental meetings, technical

promotion activities. So we're seeing some of the requirements of the positions

we have to put back in for the $104,000.

It's

gone down from $145,000 last year, that's what we anticipated we would use under

that appropriation, but we're just going to put it down to $104, 000, because we

want to find the savings. So it went down to $85,000 because we had to stop some

of the travel under the discretionary travel.

MS. MICHAEL:

Was there a negative impact

of the imposition of the cutting down on the discretionary travel?

MR. BOWN:

No, in most cases, we reduced the numbers who were attending specific events and

we became more discerning about particular events that we want to attend as well

those events where we got the best value.

MS. COADY:

And we will continue to do

that. We've taken $40,000 off of the budget requirements from last year, so

we're really being thin in terms of how many people we're sending when we have

to do conferences. When we go to conferences it's not to participate in the

conference, it's actually to have the booth at the Oil and Gas Show, for

example.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, I understand that, yes.

MS. COADY:

So we're trying to ensure

that we're as fiscally responsible around this as possible, but we do need to

attend because of course we want to continue to diversify our economy. We want

to try and continue to encourage people to come to Newfoundland and Labrador for

offshore and mining.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. You know you have the

support for that. We understand that's absolutely essential to the department's

work and to many departments' work.

Thank

you. I have no more points under 1.2.01.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Michael.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Chair, could I just ask

one follow-up question, please?

CHAIR:

Absolutely.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Minister, I'm not sure if I

heard it correctly, just in regard to there's an ADM position or a DM position

that's been vacant and won't be replaced?

MS. COADY:

No, a secretary's position to

the deputy minister.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Oh, I'm sorry.

MS. COADY:

Sorry, to the assistant

deputy minister.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, sorry, thank you.

MS. COADY:

It's $39,600.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Will the Clerk please call

the next subheads?

CLERK:

Subheads 1.2.02 and 1.2.03.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, 1.2.02, Administrative Support, if I could just get some information

in regard to the Salaries line, 01, in what was budgeted last year, $958,000,

$915,000 was the revised and it's come down to $863,000?

MS. COADY:

Certainly. Savings are a

result of a vacant Clerk III position in the Information Management Division. So

that's the difference between the budget and the revised. Coming to the

Estimates for 2016-2017, we have a vacant accountant position for about $40,000

and we will not be filling that position. We are re-profiling salary funds

within the department to meet some of the salary plans. There are adjustments

there for JES as well.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

The

accountant position, you're not filling but you're not removing it?

MR. BOWN:

No, we're not removing it.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So why would you keep it in

your complement of human resource at this time; I'm just curious.

MR. BOWN:

By keeping it vacant for this

year, it allows us to meet our salary reduction target.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, you meet the salary but

the position stays?

MR. BOWN:

Correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

Just

come down, if I could, under that same heading, Transportation and

Communications, we've seen a reduction there. You indicated earlier in some

lines it's about less travel, reducing, that type of thing. Is that what we see

again?

MS. COADY:

That is exactly what it is.

The budget is revised downward from about $30,000 to $9,000 to do less

discretionary travel and travel budgeted for the organizational development

initiatives through the HRS of the Departments of Natural Resources, Fisheries

and Forestry. So we're really trying to reduce the amount of transportation that

we're doing there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Instead

of going through them all, Minister, in each of these down below with Supplies,

Purchased Services, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, it's pretty well the

same thing?

MS. COADY:

Yeah, if I may say so, we

have tightened budgets exactly where we can. We've looked at rightsizing where

we have to and making sure that we are as frugal as we can be, quite frankly.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I would

like to ask under that same heading 02, Revenue Provincial and some of those

numbers there, could you explain to me what those are and where they are

generated from?

MS. COADY:

I'm going to turn to my

deputy for that.

MR. BOWN:

I'll just refer to our

controller.

MR. IVIMEY:

That Revenue line item is

more or less for miscellaneous revenue that comes within the department. So it's

kind of a catch-all; that's why it's at the $10,000 area there. But that can

encompass anything from supplier credits or miscellaneous repayments from

employees for personal expenses that they needed to pay back, those kinds of

particular type items. So it's just kind of a blanket account there to catch any

miscellaneous of those types of revenue in the department.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, great. Thank you.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

I don't have any other

questions under that heading. I think Mr. Hutchings has asked what I wanted to

ask.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Will the

Clerk please call the next subhead?

CLERK:

Subhead 2.1.01.

CHAIR:

2.1.01.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

So this is the Geological

Survey. Again, if we could just have an explanation of the Salaries line,

please.

MS. COADY:

2.1.01 sorry, I'm just

looking it up.

We had

vacancies within the division during the year. That's why the revised budget is

lower than the budget of 2015-16.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

They were mostly temporary

and seasonal employees.

This

year we have a vacant Geologist III position. We also had some previous

attrition management reductions approved. We also have some adjustments for JES

in there as well.

So it's

really attrition management. We have some temporary people moving to permanent

and some retirements. When temporary moves to permanent, we don't refill the

in transportation under the Geological Survey but there's a significant drop in

that line. What would the implications of that be? It's quite significant

actually, $120,000.

MS. COADY:

That is mostly around using

less helicopters. Last year, we did three different sections in Labrador. This

year we're doing two. We're just changing where we're doing some of the

geological work this year. Because the helicopter is not being used, it does

give us a significant savings. The rest of it is appropriations required for the

travel around the Geological Survey.

MS. MICHAEL:

Was the decision to go from

three areas down to two based on economics or it matches the work that's being

done?

MS. COADY:

A little bit of both. We had

asked those who are responsible for the Geological Survey to do an analysis of

what they needed, what was required to do. They felt that their field programs

would be sufficient this year to meet their requirements and still save money

from the helicopter usage.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

probably should know the answer to this one, but I'll ask it anyway. The

geological maps that are put together, these are not just for the use of the

department obviously; this is also for prospectors and companies who are

interested.

MS. COADY:

Absolutely. We actually do

publish information for our geologists, for our prospectors around the province.

And not just for the province external. We have a great deal of information

and tremendous work being done in this area. It's very important to the province

for future opportunity.

MS. MICHAEL:

If we didn't have the

economic scrunch, would you prefer to be able to do broader mapping than you're

allowing for this year?

MR. BOWN:

I'd just like to note, add

on, that for each of these field programs, the geoscientists return and they

catalogue all their work. They write the report and they release a report each

year as well. So it's not only do they go out and do the work and it's just

available in-house, a document is published each year, a research document. And

that work is available for people who want to go out, prospectors and junior

exploration companies who want to go out and do exploration. Also, maps are

updated that are available online as well to provide to prospectors and juniors

as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

MS. COADY:

I could also add that we are

doing two programs in Labrador; bedrock mapping in west of the Labrador Trough.

We're doing six in the Island portion, bedrock mapping in Southern Newfoundland.

We're doing some work on the Great Northern Peninsula. We're doing some work in

Central Newfoundland. There is a tremendous amount of work being done this

summer.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

I was

going to ask a question but I think I'll hold off I think I will. It sort of

fits here. It has to do with the submission that's been made, the bid to Cliffs

Natural Resources by ERP Compliant Fuels. I'm just wondering; a company like

that, that's put in a bid, would they want to see the stuff ahead of time? Or is

it something that's quite different for a company that's coming into a mine

that's already been in operation?

MS. COADY:

I'm going to turn to my

assistant deputy minister to answer that because he will be more fulsome than I

can be. I will say that we are hopeful for what's happening in Labrador. We

can't tell you today. It's between two companies. We are working closely with

the proponent to ensure they meet all the requirements under the act, and to

assist where we can in ensuring they have everything they need to make the final

decision, but we are hopeful.

I'll

just ask my assistant deputy minister.

MR. LIVERMAN:

Most of the work, the survey

done, is to attract mineral exploration. So it tends to be of interest to

companies who are at an earlier stage when they're actually going out and

looking for a mineral deposit.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. LIVERMAN:

Once it comes to a known

mine, most of the geoscience is done by the company itself.

So in

the case of the example you gave, the company would be evaluating the geological

data provided to them by the vendor, rather than coming to the Geological

Survey.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

So then,

one more line item and that's the Purchased Services. Last year, the budget was

underestimated. You spent $535,000 instead of $398,000. I'd just like to know

what that anomaly was because it looks like it may have been an anomaly since

it's back down this year to $369,000.

MS. COADY:

Yes, it was an anomaly. I

will turn to the assistant deputy minister because it has to do with some

changes in staffing, as well as some enhancements to the survey. So I'll just

turn it over to the assistant deputy minister and ask him if he could be fulsome

in that response.

MR. LIVERMAN:

The budget, when originally presented, we were anticipating we would be doing a

project in Southern Newfoundland, the Bay d'Espoir area, which would involve

helicopter work which falls under Transportation and Communications. The

geologist who was responsible for that went on maternity leave. So to ensure

that we got some effective data in that area we expanded our geophysical survey,

which is basically an airborne survey which we contract to.

So the

money was moved. You can see there's a drop in Transportation and Communications

in the projected revised. It was moved into Purchased Services to expand that

survey. That survey was completed and the results were released last month and

resulted in some exploration activity.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So the Transportation

and Communications line, you did do a line move of expenditure?

MR. LIVERMAN:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Great.

Thank you very much. That's all I have for that section.

MS. COADY:

I just want to point

something out because you did ask about the geological maps. If you note down

under Revenue there used to be about $4,000 in revenue. It was there prior to.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

But now all the maps are

available online at no cost.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, so you're not selling

them anymore?

MS. COADY:

Yes. So that's a good thing.

You asked earlier about it and I just noted it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Michael.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I

could, I just wanted to follow up on a question from Ms. Michael in regard to

the geologist position that was to be left vacant, and you mentioned before an

accounting position.

Do you

have a number of how many positions will be left vacant in this fiscal year but

won't be budgeted?

MR. BOWN:

experience the last few years we've tried or government has tried through

various departments to consolidate the use of helicopters, because each

department seemed to be off doing their own thing in regard to that. So on a

go-forward basis is Natural Resources involved I think maybe TW leads it. Are

That's correct.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Rather than everybody doing

it themselves.

MS. COADY:

Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

I think

that's good for me.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Hutchings.

Will the

Clerk please call the next subhead?

CLERK:

Subhead 2.1.02.

CHAIR:

2.1.02.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, if I could just

reference 2.1.02, the Salaries line.

MS. COADY:

Certainly.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We have some changes there in

regard to that Salaries line. I'm just wondering if you could

MS. COADY:

So let me tell you what

happened between budget to revised, and then I'll go to the Estimate.

We had

retirement costs in here. We had to pay severance and annual leave for the

director of Mineral Lands who retired during the year, as well as for the

overlap of his replacement for about a month. So that's the difference.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

In 2016 we've just had some

re-profiling of salary funds in the department to meet the salary plans,

adjustments for JES as well.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Just on

the JES, in your department how many appeals would you have had for JES, any

idea?

MS. COADY:

We'll have to get that

Okay, great.

Thank

you.

Okay,

that's good for me right now.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Hutchings.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Under the federal revenue,

what was the $610,000 you had last year?

MS. COADY:

It was a one-off, actually.

Correct.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, okay.

Thank

you very much.

So now

we're into 2.1.03?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

Again,

although I'm sure when we get the briefing book we'll see it, but for the

record, just an explanation of the Salaries line, please.

MS. COADY:

Certainly.

You'll

see a small savings from budget to revised. That was as a result of vacant

positions within the division during the year and that was offset by retirement

costs as well. We had three retirements during the year.

Under

the Estimates, we have a re-profiling of salary funds within the department.

We've had some adjustments for JES, as well as some government reduction

measures, about $13,700 in that. So we have one position, I believe, that we're

losing because of attrition.

I'm

looking to my deputy minister to confirm that.

MR. BOWN:

Not in that group, no.

MS. COADY:

Not in this group? I'm sorry;

I thought I had a note here, handwritten mind you.

MR. BOWN:

Sorry, I apologize. Dave nods yes.

MS. COADY:

Yes, I had handwritten in my

margin that there was one position we're losing because of attrition in that

particular one as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

It looks like a position, the

amount of money, yes.

MR. BOWN:

I'm sorry (inaudible).

MS. COADY:

That's okay.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, very good.

that's one position gone there. Has that happened yet or is it going to be

happening during the year?

MS. COADY:

I turn to my assistant deputy

minister.

MR. LIVERMAN:

This was a position which was vacated through retirement. So it just will not be

filled and the salary removed from the books. It's a mineral industry analyst

position.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

So we

come down to Transportation and Communications, last year $118,000 budgeted but

only $45,000 spent and back up to $104,000 this year. If we could have an

explanation, please.

MS. COADY:

Absolutely.

You may

recall, in a different appropriation I advised that we have one of our executive

team seconded to Executive Council. He's responsible for the iron ore industry.

He does a number of requirements under travel for that position. We had to

reallocate that back in because, of course, we're anticipating him returning.

We also

have some monies under there we have to travel to mine sites. The mineral

engineer has to do that, so we've had to put that in there.

Most

importantly, I think this is something that's important, orphaned and abandoned

mines; we're doing a tremendous amount of work there. We wanted to make sure we

have the allocations required and site visits for evaluating prospectors and

making sure we're doing the work appropriately; therefore, that appropriation is

required.

The big

change last year was also because we were doing a lot of the iron ore position

and the director wasn't available to us.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Having

said that, then I think there's a question I would like to put. You would have

one aspect to the management of orphaned and abandoned mine properties,

obviously, in your department. Would there also be responsibilities in a part of

Environment and would you work together on any of that?

MS. COADY:

I want to just show you an

appropriation first and then I'll come back to that.

We were

asking for an appropriation under 2016-17 under Professional Services for about

$250,000 to ensure that we have work done on orphaned and abandoned mines. We

are going to be seeking a four-year allocation to ensure we have the engineering

done for the dam repair. Next year, we're actually going to get to some of these

dam repairs. We think it's critical to ensure for safety, security, for all

kinds of reasons why we have to get to those orphaned and abandoned mines.

Last

year, there were some safety inspections but the work wasn't actually done on

the dam themselves and we feel quite strongly that we have to do that.

So just

back to your question, I'm going to turn to my deputy to answer that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. BOWN:

We have a very long-standing, positive relationship with the Department of

Environment. Not only on orphaned and abandoned mines but also on active mines

as well. We share a lot of the site visits together, but if we're on a site and

they see something that would impact us they would advise us, and if we were on

a site and they weren't available then we would advise them as well. So we have

a very positive relationship with them.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

I'm

sorry I don't know the answer to this. I didn't think of getting it ahead of

time but it doesn't matter, you probably do have it.

I can't

remember what the status is with Voisey's Bay and the underground. Is that still

under environmental assessment? That's finished, environmental assessment, isn't

it?

MS. COADY:

Yes. They're actually

starting the work.

MS. MICHAEL:

They're starting the work,

that's what I thought.

MS. COADY:

It's actually a positive

impact for our province because even in a difficult environment they're starting

to go underground. They've allocated money to do that this year. One of the few

things globally that Vale is actually doing. So it's a positive.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's right.

This is

not to show-off, but to say that having been a member of the environmental

assessment panel, one of the things we always believed was that going

underground was what was going to make it worthwhile. That was one of our

recommendations. We hoped it would happen. So just checking, I thought that's

where it was but I can't remember everything, I have to say.

The

extra money then you've answered the question under Professional Services

has to do with the orphaned and abandoned mine, the extra work that didn't get

done.

MS. COADY:

Correct. Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Will your notes have a list

of the mines you're concentrating on right now? If not, could we

MS. COADY:

I don't think so, but we can

certainly get that for you. It's not in my book, I don't think, but we'll

certainly provide that for you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, I'm just curious as to

what

MS. COADY:

There's a priority list.

MS. MICHAEL:

If you had them at the top of

your head, Mr. Bown.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Bown may. Oh, Mr. Bown

does.

MS. MICHAEL:

He probably does. I have a

feeling he does.

MR. BOWN:

The focus for the program for

this year is going to be Rambler, Whales Back familiar names St. Lawrence,

Minworth and Gullbridge. Then we're going to also do some dam inspections at

Hope Brook as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Coming

down to Grants and Subsidies, what does that cover, please?

MS. COADY:

The Mineral Incentives

Program, the Junior Exploration Assistance and you'll see that we've increased

that. The mining industry has been asking us to increase that, and we certainly

increased that by $100,000 this year. This is very important for the continuing

development of our opportunities within the province. So therefore there's a

small allocation increase to that particular program.

MS. MICHAEL:

Does your book have a list of

the companies who are getting some of this money? When we get your notes, will

Okay, fine. Well, we can do

that. You don't need to worry. If it's on the website, we can find it. He can

definitely find it.

I think

that's all I have.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Michael.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

have a follow-up question in regard to Professional Services. You mentioned the

$250,000 increase, that's some inspection work, I think, in regard to orphaned

and abandoned mines.

MS. COADY:

It's for engineering work for

the dam repairs.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Is there

any money in the budget this year for any dam repairs?

MS. COADY:

That is for the engineering

for dam repairs.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That's for the engineering,

to start it?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

Last year, the former

government did safety inspections. This year, we're moving towards the

engineering part.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, I was trying to remember

what that was. Okay, that's what it is. Thank you.

Professional Services, would that all be consultants that would be hired to do

that work?

MR. BOWN:

Yes, we would hire engineering firms to do that work for us.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Has

there been any reduction in the number of consultants that you used, not only

here but in your department? Or I guess my question

MS. COADY:

Do you mean in general?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, in general, is the

allocation for consultants pretty well consistent from last year to this year

overall, or has it increased or has it decreased?

MS. COADY:

In a general sense

(inaudible)

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, I know that there has

been some work, the Minister of Finance has indicated, in regard to reducing the

amount of consultants.

MS. COADY:

We have reduced the number of

consultants including I'm just trying to remember the program

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

We'll come to it in the book;

there is a particular allocation. I just can't remember, off the top of my head,

the allocation, but we have cut consultants as well. We were using some for our

energy and we were using some for some of our mining as well that we will not

require this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. Obviously, some of your

activities require consultants. There is no way you can operate without them

(inaudible).

MS. COADY:

Right. But where at all

possible, we've eliminated or reduced the usage.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I just

want to ask a general question in regard to Wabush Mines. There's been some

discussion about some possibilities. I'm just wondering if you can give an

update on where that might be.

MS. COADY:

Certainly. There have been

discussions going on between a company ERP and Cliffs for, I would say, a number

of months now. They've been having, what I'm going to call, pretty intense

discussions about taking over the asset and running the asset. They have been in

touch. ERP has been in touch with the department. We've been working with them

to ensure that they have all the requirements they need under the

Mining Act .

Any

information they require, we've been happy to be helpful to them. The ADM of

Mines has been very well engaged with them. At this point it is between two

companies, but we're hopeful that things will continue to move as smoothly as

they have been. We won't know for they've just changed the timelines. We were

hopeful

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

Pardon me?

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

Yes, Cliffs has made a

petition to change the timeline requirements. That's being petitioned tomorrow,

so we'll know then when the deadline is to conclude their discussions. We're

hopeful; we're working with the company and seeing how we can be of assistance

to them, but making sure that people of the province are protected in terms the

requirements under the Mining Act .

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you very much.

The

other one I want to ask about is the Julienne Lake development. I know there was

a lot of hope for that and due to the downturn and what's transpired Altius

had some discussions. I don't suspect, but I'll ask for an update, is there

anything happening there?

MS. COADY:

Not specifically. With the

downturn in the iron ore industry that hasn't been under active discussion, I'll

say, at this point. We're hopeful with the increasing dollar value of iron ore

that might still come forward, but there's nothing incredibly active at this

point in time, just because of the downturn in the industry.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure, thank you.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) I ask one more

question on this section, please?

CHAIR:

Yes, Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

It's a follow-up question.

Mr. Bown made reference to the remediation in St. Lawrence. Could we have an

update on what's happening in St. Lawrence, please?

MS. COADY:

You might be a reference to

that, I think.

MR. BOWN:

Sure. At St. Lawrence, the company has completed their environmental assessments

and they've been going through the permitting process. So we're all very hopeful

that something will turn positive in St. Lawrence this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So it's in the

company's hands at this point, is it?

MR. BOWN:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Because I know there were

some conditions that were required in the approval that was done after the

assessment. But right now it's in their hands.

MR. BOWN:

It's in their hands.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

(Inaudible) just on that note

of St. Lawrence mines, I know we were involved with it for a number of years to

try and get it started, has any construction started in St. Lawrence? I know

there was an issue in regard to some infrastructure needed to be part of that

development.

MS. COADY:

Nothing yet.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Nothing, okay.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MS. COADY:

We're hopeful, though.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, sure.

MS. MICHAEL:

There was a $17 million

offer. Is that still on the table for them from government? It was a point at

which

MS. COADY:

The BTCRD had an offer out

for the company. I don't have any active information on that at this point in

time, but it was through BTCRD and I think that had been approved, had it not?

OFFICIAL:

Correct.

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. And you don't know if

that's still on the table or you have no idea?

MS. COADY:

I would have to take it under

advisement only because I don't know the current status from that department.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Will the Clerk please call

the next subhead.

CLERK:

Subhead 3.1.01.

CHAIR:

Subhead 3.1.01.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you very much.

If I

could just start with a line item, again with Salaries under 3.1.01, there

appears to be a savings from what was budgeted last year and this year. I wonder

what that savings was. Was it a position not filled or ?

MS. COADY:

Exactly; it's now filled.

Vacancies within the division during the year including a manager of policy,

planning and research analyst, that is now filled, and the program and policy

development specialist which I believe is not filled at this point.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Will that be filled or ?

MS. COADY:

That was the change and then

we'll come to the Estimate side of things. There were some vacant positions,

some re-profiling and some JES. I'll turn to my deputies to anticipate your

question.

MR. BOWN:

Yes, under there, of our

seven positions that we're going to keep vacant to meet our reduction target,

there are two positions in this subhead.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

So we

come down to Professional Services, we've seen a significant reduction there in

regard to what was budgeted. I guess the actuals in the fiscal year were much

less than what was budgeted and this year it's estimated to be up a little bit

more. Can you give me a comment on what's involved there and how you came to

that number?

MS. COADY:

Yes. There was some

additional budget allocated for 2015-16 that had to do with work related to the

Muskrat Falls interconnection that is now done and does not have to be redone.

We're also doing some work under FORRI which is I always get this wrong; I

want to say federal the frontier and offshore regulations that are being done.

There's an allocation for Newfoundland's contribution towards a technical expert

in that area. There are also some allocations for electricity advice. We need

that as we move forward. We also have some monies allocated for the Power

Advisory independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador electricity system.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. You mentioned offshore

regulation. What would that be exactly?

MS. COADY:

You may recall there was a

group that was put together, federal-provincial, as well as Nova Scotia

involved in a group that was on the frontier offshore regulations. They're doing

a piece of work around a number of issues related to the offshore regulations

including land tenure. They are meeting on a regular basis.

This has

been going on for 10 years. At least 10 years.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So that would be within 200

miles. It wouldn't be outside, would it?

MS. COADY:

Correct, but now it would be,

depending on how much is inside or outside. It's all under the purview of what

the C-NLOPB is doing.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

This is the regulatory

framework and some of the updating of regulations that are required, as well as

some of the regulations around land tenure that are being reviewed.

It's an

active, ongoing group that gets together between the feds, the province, as well

as Nova Scotia, because, of course, they have a similar Accord to Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. The other one you

mentioned was related to hydro. What was that again in terms of I think there

was some hydro work you referenced or some expertise?

MS. COADY:

Oh, yes.

Related

to the independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador electricity system,

there's a small allocation, actually it's $57,000 for Power Advisory.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Energy Policy, just a general question on the generic royalty regime. We just

had a call for new land tenure. The previous administration adopted a generic

royalty regime. Is that being used now on the new land tenure or is it being

reviewed?

MS. COADY:

We're certainly reviewing and

trying to take a holistic approach to the requirements of an offshore oil and

gas operator. So when you look at and I mentioned this in the House most

recently the ball of value, the entire blend of the monies we achieve from the

offshore, there are a number of pieces of that pie.

There's

the equity that we all know about that is held right now by Nalcor. There are

benefits and there is a cost to those benefits, obviously, under any kind of

ball of value. Then there is also the royalty. Royalty is one piece of that pie.

We are

considering what is the best value for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, what is the blend. Do we take more in royalty; do we take more in

benefits? We want to make sure we have the right blend and mix, and we are doing

a piece of work around that now to analyze what's the best mechanism as we move

forward.

One of

the things I think we all want to achieve is moving very quickly from

prospectivity to discovery to production. And right now, as we all know, that's

taking a tremendous amount of time. Making sure that we have the regulations,

the regimes to ensure that we can do that very quickly is very, very important.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

So just

to clarify, someone now that's bidding on the new land tenure and they're

looking to our industry, what would they view as the current royalty regime in

Yes,

As I

keep saying, you have to and we're putting in place a council to help us

consider the best move forward for the industry, what most successful outcomes

we want to have for the oil and gas industry. And in those discussions we're

putting together the mandate of the council as we speak. One of the things I'm

sure they'll help to advise is looking at the value of the offshore oil and gas

industry, looking at the royalty requirements, the benefit requirements, what is

best for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, yes,

if you're asking me what would somebody today look at in terms of if they were

going to bid on the offshore they would look at the generic royalty regime, if

that changes into the future that might be something that we're going to

consider. It's what is best for the overall offshore, not taking it separately.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

But

someone to bid today on a land tenure with the current royalty regime in place,

wouldn't they be bidding in good faith thinking that this is the royalty regime

I will operate under, and if it was to change afterwards it would cause some

consternation or difficulty?

MS. COADY:

We want stability in the

industry. Right now, that's what we've been told is very important for the

operators, is the stability, and we're trying to maintain stability. We're also

talking to the operators and to the offshore oil and gas industry as a whole in

terms of the best blend in terms of benefits, royalty, and including what you've

done in the past with equity. So we're trying to get the right blend and mix.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Thank

you very much.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'll just continue with a

couple of questions that are somewhat related. In the mandate letter of your

predecessor there was an instruction for him to successfully negotiate a deal by

the end of 2015 with Statoil with regard to Bay du Nord. Can we have an idea of

what's going on with that, please?

MS. COADY:

Certainly, happy to do so.

There

were discussions during 2015, but there was nowhere near any kind of successful

outcome to those negotiations or discussions. Since that time, we have met with

Statoil on a number of occasions. They are doing more, what I'm going to call,

exploration work. They're continuing on to do that. They're doing exploration

work as we speak in offshore oil and gas offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

While

they're still exploring, still working at discovery, we certainly aren't in any,

what I want to call, active discussions of moving forward. They are still doing

some discovery work.

When you

looked at 2015 they were nowhere near completion of any discussions, nowhere

near completion of any agreements at all, and we're picking up that piece of

work and talking to the potential operator. They're doing a lot of work around

exploration and discovery right now. Hopefully we'll have some if that

continues to be positive we'll have some better news going forward.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

I think

I'll just stick with a couple of more general questions. It gets boring,

sometimes, just doing all of the line items. Not totally related, but yes

because it does have to do with offshore and onshore the fracking report, when

are we going to see that?

MS. COADY:

We understand they're coming

close to being finished. We're hoping to have it by May. That was the latest I

had only asked that the other day, actually. I was hoping to have it by April,

but now I'm hearing that it will be May by the time we receive it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay then.

And do

you have any idea at this point how soon after you get it that you'll be able to

be public with it?

MS. COADY:

I would say within a very

short period of time, but I can't give you whether that's hours or days. I don't

anticipate us we're pretty good at tabling documents and then we'll make our

considerations.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Because basically it's

their report to the province, right.

MS. COADY:

Exactly.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

Where

are we? 3.1.02 is it, or are we still in 3.1.01?

CHAIR:

3.1.01.

MS. MICHAEL:

01. I can't remember

Keith, did you ask about the Grants and Subsidies?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, I didn't. You can go ahead.

MS. MICHAEL: I

think everything else that I wanted to ask I have.

The Grants and Subsidies, can we get an explanation of

those, please, Minister?

MS. COADY:

Absolutely.

MS. MICHAEL:

Because it's down significantly by about $600,000 this year.

MS. COADY: It

is. The budget had been

increased in 2014-15 to reflect increases in diesel prices, and diesel prices

have now come down substantively. So the cost of the subsidy was reduced as the

oil prices decreased.

This

subsidy was introduced under the Northern Strategic Plan and provides Labrador

isolated diesel and L'Anse-au-Loup mini-system residential customers with a

rebate that reduces electricity rates to Labrador interconnected rates on a

monthly basic customer charge, which is called the lifeline block, actually. It

was meant to cover the basic household use. It's not meant to cover anything

outside of that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, right, I am aware of

that.

Okay,

thank you. I forgot that's what that was for, actually.

MS. COADY:

There's also some money in

there for the continuation of the CF(L)Co trust case. It's the court case. So

there's a small allocation, because of course we're expecting some results of

that coming up fairly shortly within by the end of the month, or maybe even

into May.

MS. MICHAEL:

May, okay.

MS. COADY:

That's something that was

started what, seven, eight years ago by the former administration, and

there's a small appropriation there to continue that work.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I don't

have any other questions for 3.1.01.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a

follow-up in regard to the isolated diesel subsidy; the change in the amount

that's been requested doesn't equate to any change in what subsidy was provided

in the past. It's still consistent, right?

MS. COADY:

As I said earlier, it's a

reflection of the oil price.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sure.

Now, we

know there's going to be an increase in diesel, so that would be recognized as

well in the budget?

MS. COADY:

That's a very good point.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

Go ahead. Do you want to

answer that?

MR. BOWN:

Sorry for the conversation.

HST

doesn't apply to Crown corporations. So Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is

buying the fuel.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, but wasn't there an

increase proposed in actual diesel outside of HST?

MS. COADY:

You're correct. There is a

small increase.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Gas is going up 16 cents. I

think diesel is going up a couple of cents as well.

MS. COADY:

A couple of cents.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I'm just curious if that's

reflected in the numbers.

MS. COADY:

No, I don't think so.

No, the gas price increase wouldn't be applicable to diesel. These would be bulk

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah, it may not be an issue.

MS. COADY:

It may not be an issue but

that's what we'll take under advisement and make sure there's no other change

required.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

CLERK:

Subhead 3.1.02.

CHAIR:

3.1.02.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

Just a

couple of questions on this one; the first one would be the Grants and

Subsidies. There are no longer Grants and Subsidies in this line. Last year it

was budgeted $300,000 and upped to $450,000. So just an explanation of what's

going on there, please.

MS. COADY:

If I look at the Estimates

for this year, it's the removal of the one-time funding approved in budget

'15-'16 for the hydraulic factoring review.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

That's why there's nothing

under that this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

I figured it was a one-off.

Thank

you.

MS. COADY:

If you look at why the

revised figure, it's just there was additional unanticipated expenditures

associated with that particular review panel.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Under

the provincial revenue, you had $81,000 last year budgeted, $81,000 again this

year and then the revision last year was up to $106,000. Was that related to the

fracking as well?

MS. COADY:

No, the revenue is actually

slightly than higher anticipated revenue that's offset from the registration

fees at the OTC conference. During the '15-'16 years we actually had more people

using our booth space; therefore, we get a small stipend back. So that's what

that's reflecting.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

And we've just what I want

to say used the budget from last year because we were anticipating similar

amounts.

MS. MICHAEL:

Sure, and if we get more

good.

MS. COADY:

Great.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's all I have for there,

Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

Just a

general question, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask it. The seismic

work that's done, is that done through the department or done through Nalcor?

MS. COADY:

It's done through Nalcor and

will be maintained this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

Thank

you.

CLERK:

that point, in terms of I know last year we had some challenges with some

seismic vessels in regard to the change of regulations coming out of, I think it

was Labour Canada, and coming to provincial regulations with regard to

occupational health and safety in vessels coming that were, I think, under

contract to do work offshore. We had trouble with people in the port in St.

John's in getting permits and that sort of thing.

Are we

still experiencing or expecting to experience any trouble with that this year?

MS. COADY:

I have had that discussion

with C-NLOPB. They are working hard to ensure that we don't have as many

challenges as we did last summer, because we certainly did.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

It was challenging for the

oil and gas industry. I know that CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum

Producers, have worked very diligently to assist C-NLOPB in making sure that

these things are as best meliorated. FORRI is really doing a piece of work under

these regulations, but we will not have that work until after this summer, not

till the fall I think, there are some changes to temporary regulations

correct?

MR. BOWN:

Actually, that is a four-year

program (inaudible).

MS. COADY:

Yes, it's a four-year

program, according to the deputy minister. We're hopeful that there will be less

challenges this summer because of the work that C-NLOPB has done, because of the

experiences they've had and because of the work that the Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers have done as well.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, good. Thank you.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, just a couple of

questions that relate to the C-NLOPB but broader, in a way, except it would be

under their jurisdiction. We have a couple of things still on the books that

don't go away and they both relate to the recommendations from Judge Wells. One,

of course, is the issue of the independent offshore safety authority. I'm

wondering, Minister, under your leadership and with this new government, is this

an issue that you are willing to be speaking to the federal government about?

MS. COADY:

As you well know, all the

recommendations by Judge Wells, with the exception of the one that you are

referring to that he added separately, have been implemented, are underway. I

know C-NLOPB has put a tremendous focus on safety and ensuring safety and, of

course, we all do. I think the one thing I will say, we are all responsible for

safety, not just C-NLOPB, the government, as well as the operators; and I think

everybody takes that role very, very seriously and responsibly.

There

are a lot of issues that we are dealing with C-NLOPB and the federal government

around regulation. We'll certainly take it under advisement to see how much

further we need to go.

MS. MICHAEL:

Just to make one point, I

don't want to push having a policy discussion but I agree with you; I do believe

everybody is concerned about safety. But in countries like Norway and Australia,

they came to a conclusion that in actual fact having a separate authority was

something they, too, all care about safety, but it still was important. Asking

for it, I don't think that Judge Wells was making a judgement on C-NLOPB. And

I'm not either; I think there is a basis for that. So I hope that you would

consider continuing trying to keep this discussion going.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

MS. MICHAEL:

The other one it's not

really quite resolved. Nobody talks about it anymore, but the prospect is still

there, and that's the return to night flights. Is that something that you have

been giving any thought to yet? I think the recommendation was solid and as a

Member of the House of Assembly I think you know where our party stands with

regard to that recommendation and where the workers stand too. I'm just

wondering where you are with this.

MS. COADY:

It is not something that I've

had a particular discussion with C-NLOPB. There have been a number of other

things that we've had pretty high on our list to deal with, with C-NLOPB. Some

of which we've just been discussing, but it is certainly something that I will

turn my attention to and ask for an update on what C-NLOPB is doing.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

That's

all I have for that section.

CLERK:

Subhead 3.1.04.

CHAIR:

3.1.04.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

I think

my only question here has to do with the Professional Services which has gone

from $2.5 million, almost $2.6 million, down to $670,000.

MS. COADY:

There was money removed I'm

just reading my note here a fair amount, a removal of one-time funding that

was approved in budget 2015-16 related to arbitrations. It was a $1.9 million

allocation last year that was put in there specifically for some arbitration

that the department was doing at the time. I also note, and this is something

that I'd bring to my colleague's attention, the strategic energy advisor, there

was $150,000 allocated for the strategic energy advisor that I don't think we're

no longer requiring.

There's

some more money in here for some other arbitration funding. The major change,

the $1.9 million change, is related to a change in arbitrations that were

happening because of the benefits programs in previous times.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Coming

down to the Grants and Subsidies, that was earmarked, I think.

MS. COADY:

Yes, I can explain it, if

you'd like.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, please.

MS. COADY:

We used to do a grant to the

Greater Corner Brook Board of Trade for the Western Oil and Gas Symposium.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, okay.

MS. COADY:

It was allocated for $30,000,

it had gone to $20,000, and this year we've actually removed that grant. We're

not even anticipating that show may go ahead, but we've certainly said that we

couldn't fund it this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, okay.

That's

all I have for there. I don't have any general questions for there either.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Michael.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the

line-by-line items I think Ms. Michael asked what I had there, but I'll just ask

a general question, Minister, if you could. I know Husky Energy and the project

in Argentia in regard to the wellhead platforms versus the FPSO were delayed.

I'm just wondering, maybe an update on that and how activities are going.

MS. COADY:

Certainly. There seems to be

I mean, Husky is quite keen on doing the project. There are some discussions

between Husky and its partners as to how they would proceed. Those discussions

are ongoing, and we're trying to encourage, facilitate, assist where we can. But

it is between the partners right now as to how to move forward.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Is there any preference to

one way or the other, wellhead versus

MS. COADY:

Okay, thank you.

CLERK:

Subhead 3.1.05.

CHAIR:

3.1.05.

Mr.

Hutchings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

3.1.05,

just a couple general questions to start. The Ernst & Young report in regard to

Nalcor in reviewing the governing structure, that has come back and they've

indicated I guess originally in their terms of reference there wasn't an

obligation to look at governance but when they came back they indicated that

they did. Based on that, I guess your decision was to have some more work up to

a level of $1.7 million or $1.6 million.

I guess

my question is: When the recommendations come back and I've asked this before

are they going to automatically adopt it for the governance of Nalcor as you

move forward?

MS. COADY:

Certainly. Under the EY

report I did table, as quickly as we got it, the interim report. I thought it

was very important to allow people to have it as soon as we had it.

They did

make recommendations, quite substantive recommendations, and I'll encapsulate

them in three main categories, I guess. One is improvements on how the cost and

schedule is revised, how the contingency is allocated, which I thought was very

important, and they also made observations around governance.

We've

taken the recommendations in the interim report, and taken them quite seriously,

and are actioning them. We know they have suggested expanding oversight to have

some independence. We'll be working toward that end. They've also suggested

strengthening the board governance. We will be doing that as well. We've said to

Nalcor to adopt the recommendations around how the cost and

schedule and

contingency are used.

What's

happening now is Nalcor is re-baselining the cost and schedule. That work is

occurring. As is indicated in the EY report, and as I've indicated publicly, I'm

going to break down the project in three components. I think that's the easiest

way to do it. There's the Muskrat Falls generation, there's the Labrador-Island

Link and the Labrador transmission asset. There are three main components. I

think that will be the easiest way to do it.

should have by May, mid to end May, the re-baselining of the Labrador-Island

Link and the Labrador transmission assets. There are discussions underway

you'll see this in the EY report, as well as the Oversight Committee's report.

There are discussions underway with one of the major contractors from the

Muskrat Falls generation of the powerhouse in particular. Once we have those

discussions underway to ensure we have some surety in terms of

schedule and

cost, we'll add that in.

We've

asked EY to go back because of the work they had done on September 2015, it

shouldn't be too onerous I think, because it informs the work they will do in

the new costing schedule. What we would like to have is surety in the number.

Whatever the number is and whatever the

schedule is, we don't want to keep

coming back to this. Let's know what our cost and

schedule is, please, so that

we have some surety. That's what's really important.

This is

a tremendously challenging project. I can tell you, and I'm sure the former

government will equally say, nobody wants these costs to continue to escalate

and no one wants the

schedule to continue to slip. It's concerning me. I take

the report from Ernst & Young quite seriously.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Minister, I

appreciate that.

The

other question I had too

MS. COADY:

Is there anything you need to

add?

OFFICIAL:

No.

MS. COADY:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The other question I had,

too, on the governance structure. I know the previous administration did some

work, I think it was Knightsbridge Robertson Surrette, on governance and the

matrix and looking at the board, the whole oversight in governance aspect. I

know that information is there. Is there consideration given to that in terms of

the importance of that and what that may lead to?

MS. COADY:

Absolutely. I'm an accredited

director; I take boards of directors quite seriously. I'm an Institute of

Corporate Directors, accredited director. So the work that Robertson Surrette

did in terms of board competencies and configurations informs, obviously, what

we'll do as we move forward.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

That's

good for now.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms.

Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Maybe moving a bit further on

your concern with regard to getting some surety around the final cost, I think

in this year's budget the $553 million extra that's going to Nalcor, that was

expected, is my understanding

MS. COADY:

Absolutely, it was.

MS. MICHAEL:

What else is expected or are

we now everything is up waiting for the surety that you're looking for?

MS. COADY:

I can tell you what was

projected from last year's budget, but I'll be honest enough to say that could

change based on this new re-baselining, and that's the surety we're looking for.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MS. COADY:

So the re-baselining will

take into account the discussions we're having on the Muskrat Falls generation,

as well as the re-baselining and information that we have on the other two

components. Together, with what EY suggested, or recommended in terms of how we

get to that re-baselining and the requirements of contingency, I think that will

inform us greatly as to what we can expect to have to budget in the next number

of years.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. So we all wait.

MS. COADY:

I beg your pardon?

MS. MICHAEL:

We all wait.

MS. COADY:

We're expecting it,

especially for the two components, by May. The other component, we're in

discussions and we have to firm that up. So, yes, we're all anxiously awaiting

to put some strength around what is occurring at Muskrat Falls.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Minister, with regard to the allocation, the appropriation to Nalcor, of the

$1.3 billion: How much of that is going towards Muskrat Falls?

MS. COADY:

The Lower Churchill Project is taking $1.08 billion. The remainder is going to

I'm going to call it oil co the oil industry, and I'll break that down. It's

$233 million, and of that we have the Hebron, Hibernia South Extension and White

Rose Extension. I can break them down further if you'd like.

MS. MICHAEL:

Please.

MS. COADY:

Hebron is $134.6 million, the majority of the requirement; Hibernia South

Extension is $72.5 million and White Rose Extension is $25.9 million.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MS. COADY:

It's mostly around some of

the capital expenditures required in the offshore.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

When it

comes to Hebron you may know the answer to this at this point, you may not

what revenue streams can we anticipate from the Hebron Project?

MS. COADY:

Well, we own a certain per

cent in that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MS. COADY:

I don't have those figures. I

don't know if my deputy minister has them off the top of his head.

MR. BOWN:

I don't have that available.

MS. COADY:

I'm just turning to see if

Phil has them available.

MS. MICHAEL:

I guess part of it will have

to do with what the price of oil is, so it's totally flexible

MS. COADY:

Absolutely. So we own a

portion of it and what we receive back will depend on the price of oil,

obviously.

MS. MICHAEL:

I know our proportion on

White Rose. What is the proportion for Hebron? I can't remember the investment

in Hebron.

MS. COADY:

I think it's 10 per cent, but

Mr. Hutchings, anything

further?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just a final question,

Minister, on IOC and the current operations there. I know there are some

challenges in regard to labour relations, things happening there and the whole

environment there. I know we had some discussions (inaudible), so I'm just

wondering what the operations of IOC are, how the operations have been going and

what the status is.

MS. COADY:

There has been a tremendous

piece of work done and that IOC has been doing to try and ensure the viability

of the mine, ensure things are working smoothly. And, of course, they're looking

at other perspective opportunities in the area as well, and working towards that

end.

With

regard to the labour relations climate, I would refer more to my colleague on

that particular issue, but I do know that IOC's intent is to try and ensure a

good working environment. In particular issues on labour relations, I would

defer to my colleague on that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. I appreciate it, thank

you.

MS. COADY:

I do know that they're

continuing to do a lot of work and putting a big commitment to Labrador City,

which is a positive thing.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

That's

it for me, Mr. Chair. I just want to take the opportunity to thank the minister

and thanks are you done? You go ahead.

MS. MICHAEL:

I have a couple of general

questions, please.

Basically, this all has to do with your mandate letter, Minister. I see some

real challenges in the mandate as we get into a number of points. And I would

like to get your take on what you have to do: one, for example, open the books

on Muskrat Falls to ensure that Nalc

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2016-04-19
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga48_2016-04-19rcdepartmentofnaturalresourcesandofficeofpubliceengagement.html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	771248119ee5297e3c027e1cc7d5558e2230242d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).