PDF Version

April

18, 2016

SOCIAL

SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derek Bennett, MHA for Lewisporte Twillingate,

substitutes for Betty Parsley, MHA for Harbour Main, for a portion of the

meeting.

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

substitutes for Tracey Perry, MHA for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lorraine Michael, MHA for St. John's East Quidi

Vidi, substitutes for Gerry Rogers, MHA for St. John's Centre.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis,

substitutes for Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail Paradise.

The

Committee met at 6:05 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CLERK (Ms. Barnes):

Good evening, everyone. This is the first meeting of the Social Services

Committee. The first order of business will be the election of a Chair.

I call

for nominations for the Chair.

MR. REID:

I nominate the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

CLERK:

Any further nominations?

declare the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair elected by acclamation.

CHAIR (Dempster):

Okay, now we're going to

call for nominations for the Vice-Chair.

Are

there any nominations for Vice-Chair?

MR. KENT:

I nominate Kevin Parsons,

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

CHAIR:

Okay, we have a nomination

for Cape St. Francis. Are there any more nominations for Vice-Chair?

Hearing

none, the Member for Cape St. Francis is the Vice-Chair.

Before

we get started, I'll just ask people on each side to introduce themselves. The

minister can introduce his staff or have them introduce themselves.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm the MHA for the District

of Cape St. Francis, Kevin Parsons.

MS. DRODGE:

Megan Drodge, Researcher

with the Official Opposition caucus.

MR. KENT:

Steve Kent, MHA for 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.

MR. REID:

Scott Reid, Member for St.

George's Humber.

MR. LANE:

Paul Lane, MHA for the

District of Mount Pearl Southlands.

MS. HALEY:

Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin

Grand Bank.

MS. PARSLEY:

Betty Parsley, MHA, District

of Harbour Main.

MR. D. BENNETT:

Derek Bennett, MHA,

Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR. WARR:

Brian Warr, the Member for

Baie Verte Green Bay.

MR. DUTTON:

Sean Dutton, Chief Executive

Officer, Fire and Emergency Services.

MR. JOYCE:

Eddie Joyce, Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Fire and Emergency Services.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Jamie Chippett, Deputy

Minister, Municipal Affairs.

MS. SPURRELL:

Dana Spurrell, Assistant

Deputy Minister, Corporate Services Policy, Municipal Affairs.

MS. TIZZARD:

Heather Tizzard, Assistant

Deputy Minister, Municipal Support.

MR. MERCER:

Cluney Mercer, Assistant

Deputy Minister, Municipal Infrastructure and Engineering Services.

MR. HOWE:

Peter Howe, Assistant Deputy

Minister, Lands.

MS. WALSH:

Susan Walsh, Assistant

Deputy Minister, Fire and Emergency Services.

MS. HAYES:

Robyn Hayes, Departmental

Controller.

MS. MAY:

Heather May, Director of

Communications, Municipal Affairs.

MR. LETTO:

Graham Letto, Parliamentary

Secretary, Municipal Affairs.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

When

you're speaking, say your name at the beginning but did I understand clearly

from this morning if staff are speaking and they haven't being speaking

regularly, say their name first, but the minister and the person asking

questions back and forth, they don't need to say their name every time?

CLERK:

That's correct.

CHAIR:

Okay.

We'll

start with 15 minutes

MR. K. PARSONS:

Are we staring with Fire and

Emergency Services first?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, I guess you can do

an opening statement.

MR. JOYCE:

I'll just have a very brief

statement about Fire and Emergency Services and, as we know, the role that they

play across the province with the emergencies that arise throughout the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. We also know with the fire protection across the

province in the last few months, a number of emergencies that the staff helped

out. So I just want to recognize that, the work that the staff has done. I won't

go into any long spiel on it, so we can just go through the Estimates.

Any

questions?

CHAIR:

Okay, before we move in, I

understand that the Clerk has to call the subhead each time.

CLERK:

1.1.01.

MR. KENT:

Good evening, once again.

Thank you all for being here. It's not like any of us had much choice in that, I

guess, but thank you all for being here nonetheless. It's great to see some

familiar faces across the way.

As a

former minister for Fire and Emergency Services, I've got first-hand knowledge

of the great work that the department does on behalf of communities, families

and residents throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I know there's an exemplary

team in place. I know there have been a few changes as well, since my day. I

know there's still a strong team in place and look forward to working with you

in my new role.

I don't

actually have a ton of questions about Fire and Emergency Services. I suspect my

colleague will have more questions when you get to the Municipal Affairs portion

of the evening. But, nonetheless, here we go.

1.1.01, the estimated Salaries for 2015 was close to $700,000, the actual

expenditure was in excess of $800,000, so there's obviously a difference of over

100 grand. I'm just curious why there was such a cost overrun. I suspect it has

to do with 911, but I would certainly appreciate the information.

MR. JOYCE:

The increase of the $109,700

between 2015-2016 and the revised is a severance payout of the retirement of the

assistant deputy minister.

MR. KENT:

That makes sense, thank you.

From

the 2015 Estimates to the 2016 Estimates, there's a decrease of almost $11,000

in one of the lines; it's under Purchased Services. I'm just curious what that

relates to.

MR. JOYCE:

That was when we went

through the line-by-line savings. There's a decrease there of $10,000 achieved

by when we went through the line by line. So that was what was found in the line

items that we could save.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

Would

it be possible for us to get a breakdown on what's included in the Salaries

number for this year, what positions would be included in that?

MR. JOYCE:

Sure.

MR. KENT:

And, recognizing that

temporary positions aren't always in Estimates, are there any temporary

positions throughout, not just under Executive Support but throughout I can

ask the question each time, but are there any temporary positions throughout

Fire and Emergency Services that aren't reflected in the Estimates numbers?

MR. DUTTON:

The staff complement is laid

out in the Salary Details. There are 22 positions, including temporary. They're

all reflected in the Salary Details book. It's in a slightly different format

this year. There is another position that's currently vacant, but all of those

are accounted for in that area. We have eight positions in Executive Support;

there are nine in Fire Services; four currently in Emergency Services, with one

vacant; and one under Disaster Financial Assistance.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

Still

under 1.1.01, under Professional Services there was a budget in the previous

fiscal year of $150,000. It looks like it wasn't used. So I'm just curious what

that was intended for and why there's no requirement to budget anything for

2016-2017?

MR. JOYCE:

The decrease of the $150,000

reflects the transfer of $100,000 to Emergency Services, Transportation and

Communications for helicopter support for ground service and rescue activities,

which are demand driven; $23,000 to Fire Services, Allowances and Assistance for

increased workplace NL fees for voluntary firefighters; and, $27,000 to Fire and

Emergency Services capital, Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Before that,

the feds never had a capital line in the budget.

MR. KENT:

Okay, but nothing was spent

in 2015-2016. So it was transferred to other areas of the department or ?

MR. JOYCE:

Correct.

MR. KENT:

Yes, okay. So we'll see that

elsewhere as we go through.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. KENT:

This is a very minor point

but in keeping with Estimates tradition, I'll ask the question anyway. There was

a small amount of money for Property, Furnishings and Equipment budgeted in the

previous fiscal. Only a portion of it was used. There are funds back in the

budget for 2016-2017. Just recognizing the times we find ourselves in, is there

any specific purpose for those funds for Property, Furnishings and Equipment?

MR. JOYCE:

It is just when we went

through it we decreased it by $1,000 when we went through line by line. There

was $2,000 there and we just decreased it by $1,000 in case there's something

may come up, a photocopier or any other small piece of equipment needed for the

division.

MR. KENT:

That's all the questions I

have at this point on 1.1.01, Madam Chair.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) questions. They

were the ones that I had asked, so I'm fine for now.

CHAIR:

Okay. So if there are no

further questions for 1.1.01 we can call for a vote.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

1.1.02.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

We can start with Ms.

Michael.

MR. KENT:

Oh, okay. We'll go back and

forth, will we?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. KENT:

Okay, sorry.

MS. MICHAEL:

I actually do not have any

questions for 1.1.02. So you can go ahead, Steve.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MR. KENT:

On 1.1.02, there was an

increase in the salary budget once again over budget under Salaries. I'm just

curious what that cost overrun relates to?

MR. JOYCE:

The increase of $59,000,

compared to 2015, was the reallocation of funds for Emergency Services to

reflect the Administrative Officer I was paid out with adjustment to the JES. So

it was brought forward to JES.

MR. KENT:

So there was a position

adjusted, which is why the budget for this year is different.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. KENT:

What's the reason for the

cost overrun last fiscal, because it's less than that amount.

MR. JOYCE:

The Salaries in the

2015-2016 Estimates were $543,000; $26,000 was added to the JES adjustments,

bringing the budget amount to $570,000. The increase of $80,000 between the

2015-2016 budget amount and the 2015-2016 revised, reflect higher salary costs

due to student salaries, $19,000, and the salary cost of an administrative

officer, $51,000, which was an expense under Fire Services and budgeted under

Emergency Services.

MR. KENT:

With regard to Employee

Benefits, there was a significant overrun as well from the $7,000 budgeted to

$12,800. I'm just curious why there'd be such a significant increase in Employee

Benefits, given that this is a relatively small budget.

MR. JOYCE:

Well, the second one first.

The increase of $5,800 between 2015-2016 and the 2015-2016 revised, that just

reflects the higher expenditures related to the conference fees and

registrations. In the Employee Benefits of $650, the decrease of $500, we went

through it line by line, savings.

MR. KENT:

Madam Chair, I'm not sure if

the minister is referring to the right numbers, the right

section or not. We're

in 1.1.02. The numbers you're quoting are different than the numbers I'm

reading.

MR. JOYCE:

Oh, I thought you asked

about Employee Benefits.

MR. KENT:

Yes, Employee Benefits under

Salaries, Operating Accounts: Employee Benefits. Are we talking about the same

thing? We are?

MR. JOYCE:

We are.

MR. KENT:

Okay. All right, I'm just

making sure, sorry.

Again,

this is minor stuff I realize in the grand scheme of things, but the budgeted

and revised were the same. There's a reduction in that budget for next fiscal.

I'm just curious, what plans the department has to achieve those savings?

MR. JOYCE:

It was a savings of about

$12,300. What we did again, when we went through the line by-line-item we found

ways that we could save that funding as we went through the line by line and

tighten our belt a bit.

MR. KENT:

Okay. So what are you not

going to spend money on in 2016-2017 that you spent money? I appreciate the

line-by-line answer, but what does that mean? What did you identify? If you are

going to cut the budget by $12,300 in a relatively small operation, when you

went line by line what is it that you are not going to do in 2016-2017?

MR. JOYCE:

What it is, as you can see,

is supplies brought in for the office that we would either find efficiencies of

what's already in the office. There are some we say we can do without. If you

want me to get down to which pen and paper we couldn't buy or whatever, I can

definitely try to supply that to you but that's what we did for supplies that we

had.

I don't

know if Sean

MR. DUTTON:

As I understand, Finance

looked at the numbers over a three-year period. So it wouldn't all be reflected

in the book here, but this would be an amount that would go up and down over

time. So they looked at the historic trend and came up with this number as a

target, as a result.

Certainly, this would be an area where we would buy some equipment for Fire and

Emergency Services school which we have each spring, and we'll continue to do

that and other miscellaneous office supplies. So we're just looking for some

ways to try to reduce that consumption.

One of

the ideas the staff came up with was we get a lot of faxes of weather reports

that we're also getting electronically. So we've asked Environment Canada to

stop sending that to cut down on the use of paper in the office, and looking for

other opportunities like that to just be a little more efficient.

MR. KENT:

Thank you for that answer.

Under

Allowances and Assistance there was an overrun in expenditure. There's a

proposed increase to the new budget as well. I'm just curious if the minister

could explain that as well.

MR. JOYCE:

That was increased in 2016,

up $23,000. It reflects the transfer of funds from Executive Support,

Professional Services due to increased costs associated with benefits for the

5,900 volunteer firefighters, workers' compensation premiums of $188,000 and

accidental and dismemberment insurance premiums of about $20,000 actually

$19,800.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

And

what grants and subsidies are covered under line 10 there? What would that

include? The $241,500 or $241,000 going forward.

MR. JOYCE:

This is for the operating

expense of Newfoundland and Labrador firefighting services, $40,000. For the

Learn not to Burn campaign there is $61,000. The balance of the funds: response

outside municipal boundaries, regional training, haz-mat response and haz-mat

training.

MR. KENT:

Okay, thank you.

That's

all my questions on 1.1.02.

CHAIR:

Does Ms. Michael have

questions on 1.1.02.

MS. MICHAEL:

Madam Chair, it's not a big

item, just that wherever there is a list of grants and subsidies would we be

able to receive a copy? Usually we've asked for that in the past from the

different departments.

MR. JOYCE:

When we give them out?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

And

again, just to clarify we sort of always do this in the beginning whenever

one party asks for something, everybody on the Committee receives it.

Thank

you very much.

CHAIR:

Okay, if there are no

further questions

MR. K. PARSONS:

A question, Minister .

Minister, when you talked about the training and education, is that for the

volunteer firefighters? Is that where the money comes for training for

volunteers? There's a lot of training done under Fire and Emergency Services. It

offers a lot of training for the volunteer fire departments in the province. Is

that where we'd see some of this funding?

MR. JOYCE:

Well, regional training

initiatives. And there are some funds there for training: Learn Not to Burn,

response outside municipalities. It is part of the training. It's part of the

haz-mat response and haz-mat training.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, but it's not the

actual training that you see volunteer firefighters having. In my area, I know

they place a lot of emphasis on training. I was just wondering where that was

to. I didn't know if it was here or not.

MR. DUTTON:

The cost associated with the

fire school we mentioned supplies, some of the equipment that's required.

Obviously, staff time is another related expense. We have staff from the agency

that deliver the training at the fire school each year. We also engage some of

the regional trainers in that and also in other training, and cover their travel

costs associated with going to the fire school.

For

participation of volunteer firefighters in training opportunities I believe

there's funding that the Department of Municipal Affairs has provided in the

past to support that cost. They don't fund it directly but they provide it to I

think the PMA or an association thereof. They submit their claims to them to

help support the training. So it's from a number of different line items across

both FES-NL and Municipal Affairs.

MR. KENT:

Madam Chair, just a question

related to my colleague's question and to build on what Mr. Dutton just said. I

understand that there's Fire and Emergency Services Training School scheduled

for late May, early June in Grand Falls-Windsor. We've also been advised that's

the only date being offered this year. That would imply a cut to the program. Is

that in fact the case?

MR. DUTTON:

No. We normally have an

annual school in the spring. Other years we've had it in Gander, Clarenville and

other sites. This year we'll be having it in Grand Falls-Windsor.

MR. KENT:

So there have been no cuts

to training for firefighters across the province?

MR. DUTTON:

No, there have not.

MR. KENT:

Okay, that's good to hear.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

If there are no further

questions for 1.1.02, we'll call for a vote.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.02 carried.

CLERK:

1.1.03

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Just

one question actually; it has to do with the revenue. It's an obvious question

because the provincial revenue was $1,500 was the budget and then revised up

to $2,255,500.

I'd

like an explanation of what that was about. Then, for this year, the Estimate is

still well above what the Estimate was, or the budget was last year. If we could

just have an explanation right across the line of the provincial revenue,

Minister, please.

MR. JOYCE:

02?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

It's 02

1.1.03, 02.

MR. JOYCE:

The increase in that was the

repayment of the 911, the provincial money that was put up for a number of years

to start up a 911 program. So this year they've paid it all back, most of it all

back in one year. That was the increase in revenue for that amount.

MS. MICHAEL:

And then would the $105,400

estimated for this year be money going towards the 911 as well?

MR. JOYCE:

No. That's the increase for

the budget. It reflects the revenue expected from the province and the

Territories for the CCEMO position for operating costs. That's the money that

will come in. It's money that's coming in new.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. DUTTON:

The Canadian Council of Emergency Measures Organizations involves all the

provinces and Territories through their emergency management departments or

agencies. We have a secretariat that supports their work throughout the year.

The

secretariat moved from Saskatchewan to Newfoundland and Labrador for 2016-17 and

the following year. Historically, we've contributed $6,100 annually towards that

cost, so now the other jurisdictions will be invoiced by the provincial

government. We'll have the $110,000 available for supporting the secretariat

which would include salaries, transportation, supplies and purchased services

that's spread throughout the emergency services boat.

MS. MICHAEL:

Well, if I can, Minister,

since the money in 2015-16 was for the NL 911, where is the line that shows the

money to keep that going? Because it is under your mandate to make sure that the

911 operates.

MR. JOYCE:

It is a separate entity. It

is its own corporation, 911 Bureau.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

The funds from 911 are

separate from anything in the (inaudible).

MS. MICHAEL:

Do you know where the money

comes from then? They must receive provincial money.

MR. JOYCE:

No, they get the 75 cents

per call.

MS. MICHAEL:

Pardon.

MR. JOYCE:

For a cellphone. It's 75

cents per cellphone.

What

the provincial funds were they were given so much to start up the program. So

once they started up the program, then the 75 cents was paid back to the

province, the money that was borrowed upfront.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

I'm

having a little bit of trouble hearing my this is not working.

MR. JOYCE:

I'll try to speak up.

MS. MICHAEL:

That will be better.

No, I

can hear now. When you speak up I can hear.

CHAIR:

We'll get you a new headset.

MR. JOYCE:

I'm usually pretty quiet but

I'll try to speak up.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh yes, right.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

It's going to be against my

nature but I will raise my voice.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, that's fine.

They're

all the questions I have for that section.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Mr. Kent.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

For

1.1.03, the Salaries number overall is down slightly, admittedly, but with

salary increases and so on, I'm just curious what positions are being eliminated

that would result in a smaller salary for the upcoming fiscal?

MR. DUTTON:

There are no positions being eliminated. Earlier we talked about the position of

Administrative Officer I that had been budgeted in Emergency Services but was

being charged to Fire. For the new fiscal year that funding is voted in Fire. So

that accounts for part of the differential.

There

are also attrition management targets from 2015 that phase in over a five-year

period. So they're impacting available salary dollars each year. That's partly

offset by the contributions for the Canadian Council of Emergency Management

Organizations. Because we have that funding for this year and next, it helps to

offset some of the impact from attrition targets. So there are no other

positions being impacted here.

As I

mentioned, there are four positions being funded at the present time, and

there's a vacancy of a regional emergency management and planning officer. It

hasn't been abolished, but hasn't been filled at this point either. So as staff

come and go throughout the year, we may look at whether that might be the higher

priority to fill once other vacancies occur naturally.

MR. KENT:

I was wondering if the

minister, or Mr. Dutton, could indicate what region has the vacancy for that

emergency management officer at this point.

MR. DUTTON:

Yes, it's in our Deer Lake office.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

Moving

on to Employee Benefits, a small number budgeted, a small number budgeted again

this year. The revised budget for 2015-2016 was in excess of $17,000. I'm just

wondering if we could get some explanation as to why that would be.

MR. JOYCE:

First of all, the decrease

of $100 between 2016-2017 once again, you go through line by line, which was

done, and also the Employee Benefits, the increase was $16,900 between 2015-2016

budget and the revised 2015-2016 is due to an error. The amount should have been

charged to Transportation and Communications for helicopter time for ground

search and rescue. So it was put in there in error. It should have gone to

ground transportation.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

you've probably just answered my next question then. In the next line,

Transportation and Communications, is the bulk of that $154,800 related to

helicopter transportation?

MR. JOYCE:

The increase there from

2015-2016, $27,000 and the budget of 2015 reflects the $100,000 transferred from

Executive Support, Professional Services, plus the $10,000 from the CCEMO

program, offset by the budget decrease of $82,500 which reflects savings

achieved in government line by line again, due to an hourly rate in a new

helicopter contract.

The

Transportation and Communications part, the increase of $52,000 between

2015-2016 and 2015-16 revised is a higher search and rescue cost of $135,000

expended. Initially, the amount was $80,000. The $16,900 incorrectly charged to

Employee Benefits above is helicopter time in GSAR. So, once again, it wasn't

put in properly and is put down to the helicopter.

MR. KENT:

So what portion of the

$154,800 under Transportation and Communications is for helicopter time?

MR. DUTTON:

I think it's $97,500, if I'm not mistaken.

MR. KENT:

Did you say $107,000?

MR. DUTTON:

$97,500.

MR. KENT :

Okay, so approximately two-thirds of it. What would the other third of that

budget be used for? Is it cellphones? What other transportation and

communications

MR. DUTTON:

It would include travel around the province by the regional emergency management

staff and, as you mentioned, cellphones and other communications costs. There's

also a component for the CCEMO secretary, a small portion of that.

MR. KENT:

Okay. Thank you.

With

regard to Purchased Services, what would the $32,900 include?

MR. DUTTON:

Okay, we're talking about Purchased Services?

MR. KENT:

Yes, under Emergency

Services, so Salaries, under Operating Accounts, Purchased Services.

MR. DUTTON:

This would include repair and maintenance of equipment, vehicle repairs and

maintenance, equipment rental, rental of pagers, photocopier, AV equipment,

radio licence fees, printing, advertising, promotion there's a lot of that

and general purchased services. There's a $2,500 element of that for the new

year that's part of the CCEMO secretariat.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

Because

of Mr. Dutton's comprehensive responses, I'm not going to ask about the $400

under Property, Furnishings and Equipment. So we can move on.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Under

1.1.04, Disaster Assistance, the big question of course

CHAIR:

Before we move on to the

next one

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm sorry; you have to vote

on that.

CHAIR:

we'll just call for a vote

on 1.1.03.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.03 carried.

CLERK:

1.1.04.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

The

Revenue line, obviously, is the one I'm going to ask a question on. The budget

for last year dropped significantly in the revision with regard to the federal

revenue and this year it's down another $6 million. If you could give us an

explanation, please, Minister, of what's happening with the federal revenue.

MR. DUTTON:

We had anticipated the close

out of both the 2008 Northeast flood claim for Gambo and the 2010 Hurricane Igor

claim this fiscal year. Both of those claims had been submitted in a final form

to the federal government some time ago.

found out in March that the Hurricane Igor claim, they hadn't completed their

audit work in the federal system of Public Safety Canada. So we received an

interim payment related to Igor of $20 million. In past years we received three

other payments totalling $51 million. So there's a little over $14 million

outstanding to be determined.

The

Northeast flood Gambo claim, which was about $645,000, was paid out finally this

year in March. So the only claim outstanding is the Hurricane Igor claim. We

would anticipate receiving the balance payment this fiscal year, and all claims

will be closed at that point in time in this province.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

That's

the only one I have on that.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Kent.

MR. KENT:

Under 1.1.04 no, I think

I'm okay.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

further questions on 1.1.04, we'll call for a vote.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.04 carried.

CLERK:

1.1.05.

CHAIR:

Mr. Kent can start.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

Obviously, a significant reduction in budget which relates to primarily fire

trucks, I would assume. So I'm just curious, while given our fiscal situation

and the significant investments that have been made in recent years in this

area, I understand the reduction. I'm just curious how the minister plans to use

the $1.88 million that remains for vehicles and equipment. I'm just trying to

get a sense of what the impact on communities is going to be of the reduced

expenditure and what the process is going to be for determining how those funds

will be allocated in this fiscal.

MR. JOYCE:

Well, to be totally honest

with you, two years ago when you increased up to $5 million there were a fair

number of trucks given out last year. Again, I'm not saying they're not all

needed, but I think how they were selected were very much in debate how they

were selected. What happened is we agreed that sometimes there are trucks we

need, but you need a selection process on priority.

what's happening with the $1.8 million? As you know, the extra funding for the

trucks was put in for one year. You increased it again for the last year, for

some reason, and this year now it's back to the normal $1.88 million. So the

plan is once again receive the applications, get an evaluation done by the fire

commissioner's office and then we would review it from there.

MR. KENT:

I'd like to ask the minister

or perhaps his deputy then to identify which of the trucks in the last couple of

years that were given out weren't needed?

MR. JOYCE:

I didn't say they weren't

needed. I'm just saying the selection process through the priority level. Then

the same thing, I guess, for the other things you asked how they're going to

be done this year. The fire commissioner's office will do an evaluation.

MR. KENT:

So were there any trucks

given out that didn't meet the established criteria of the department, in terms

of priority level?

MR. JOYCE:

I didn't check, because I

don't even know if there was a priority level set-up.

MR. KENT:

Well, I do know there was a

priority level set-up, because I was the minister. Granted, I haven't been the

minister in a couple of years, but what you're suggesting

MR. JOYCE:

I didn't suggest anything,

I'm just saying how

MR. KENT:

Let me finish

MR. JOYCE:

there was none there.

MR. KENT:

We're not

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

I'd remind the minister,

we're not in Question Period now; he could let me finish and not interject.

implied political interference in the awarding of fire trucks in recent years;

that the selection of communities and fire departments to receive the trucks was

questionable. So I'm asking the minister to explain in further detail what he

meant by that.

There

is an assessment done by Fire and Emergency Services staff. There are lots of

communities that are in need of fire trucks and also necessary life-saving

equipment. Now he's saying he doesn't know. I'm just curious in which instances

he bases his comments on that there was something improper done in the past.

MR. JOYCE:

Well, I'm

MR. KENT:

It's a fairly serious

accusation.

MR. JOYCE:

Once again, don't go putting

words in my mouth, as usual. I didn't say there was anything improper. What I'm

saying it's coincidental, very coincidental, and if you go back and evaluate it,

there were 20 trucks last year that were given out and 19 happened to be in the

government districts. So, in other words, in the 16 other districts, obviously,

there was no need or no priority put in the other 15-16 districts, and it's just

coincidental.

So you

ask me how it was done you should answer that or you should ask your minister

how it was done last year, because they're the ones who made the decisions last

year. You asked me how it was being done this year, and I'm saying that we'll

wait for the evaluations to be done and the applications to come in for

equipment. So if you want to know how it was done last year, you should ask the

former minister how it was done.

MR. KENT:

All right, I'll note that

response and probably quote it at some point soon.

The

Transportation and Works Minister has referenced taking the politics out of

pavement, but the new process does involve having the list being approved by the

Premier's office. I'm just curious, when it comes to $1.88 million for vehicles

and equipment, is it much the same, will there be a list that is sent up to the

Premier's office for approval?

MR. JOYCE:

I think you should ask the

Minister of Transportation and Works on what he does with his department. Once

there's a list evaluated by our department, as usual, it will be done and it

will be passed on to Cabinet. Will it be changed? I doubt it very much.

As you

were saying, you wanted to talk to the Minister of Transportation and Works

about the procedures that he has in his department may I add, now that you've

brought up Transportation and Works, unlike the $500,000 that was taken from the

Bay of Islands two days before the tender closed; I can assure you that will not

happen with us.

MR. KENT:

So while we're talking about

the Bay of Islands then, Madam Chair, the minister is suggesting that trucks, in

the past, were primarily gone to government districts. Can he confirm whether

his district received any fire trucks or equipment over the last four years?

MR. JOYCE:

Last year you did, yes.

MR. KENT:

Okay, interesting.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

No further questions?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, how many

applications were in last year?

MR. JOYCE:

I think it was 72.

MR. DUTTON:

I believe it was 71 or 74. It was in that range, yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

And how many trucks did we

put out?

MR. JOYCE:

Twenty?

MR. DUTTON:

Twenty.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Twenty.

So,

Minister, as an experience from my days as being a mayor of a town and the time

that we applied for a truck was when the 50-50 funding was on the go, it made it

very difficult for towns to be able to purchase trucks. I think over the last

number of years you saw a large number of people applying because of the 90-10,

80-20 and 70-30 ratios. I think that was the reason why there was a big need

because a lot of small towns just couldn't afford to go pay

MR. JOYCE:

I'm not saying there is no

need. I agree with you. I agree with you on that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, but I think that's the

reason for the increase in applications. When the Town of Flatrock applied for

it, there were only 12 vehicles that year that were applied for because of the

cost. So I think the last couple of years the reason why the need I'm not

saying you said the need, but the applications increased because municipalities

could afford to apply for them.

There

were a lot of times I know in one of the communities that I'm involved in they

would never have looked at a fire vehicle because they couldn't afford it. And

when it went to 90-10, a $200,000 vehicle was $20,000 which made it affordable

for a lot of municipalities. So I think that reflects on the change in the cost

of the amount of money that was there.

we're going to reduce it down to $1.8 million, that's basically around one-third

of what we had. That will mean that this year there will probably be six

vehicles that will be

MR. JOYCE:

Five or six, yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Six or seven vehicles, okay.

The

reason why the big change in the applications because I know myself when we

did apply as a town, there were only seven applications there and you said there

were 72 last year.

MR. JOYCE:

I'll just clarify something.

I said the truck was received last year in York Harbour-Lark Harbour, but it was

approved the year before when their fire truck blew out when a house burned down

and their pump was destroyed. There was no fire protection for York Harbour-Lark

Harbour. The nearest one is about 30 kilometres away, so the truck was approved

not last year, the year before, 2014. So it wasn't last year, as I just said.

They received the truck last year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That is probably the same

thing I'm talking about, towns and municipalities in the province could afford

to apply for emergency vehicles

MR. JOYCE:

I agree.

MR. K. PARSONS:

because of the ratios that

were cut down. They couldn't afford when it was 50-50.

CHAIR:

In the interest of time, we

have to keep moving along. We have a lot to cover in another

section yet.

Mr.

Reid has a comment or a question?

MR. REID:

Yes, I'm sort of interested

in the way fire trucks are allocated as well. My district received a truck; it

was just before the by-election was called a few years ago. So it might be

insightful if the minister could provide the number of trucks in the previous

five years, the number of trucks that were allocated for each year and the

community or the districts which received the trucks, if that's possible.

MR. JOYCE:

I haven't got it here, but

I'm sure we can get that information.

CHAIR:

Okay, are there any further

questions on 1.1.05?

further questions, we'll call for a vote.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.05 carried.

CLERK:

1.1.06.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

The

obvious question: What is the $27,000 for? Obviously, it is something specific

under Property, Furnishings and Equipment?

MR. DUTTON:

Yes, that's for a

replacement of a vehicle in the Fire and Emergency Services fleet. We have 10

staff in field positions that utilize emergency service vehicles. There are nine

currently in service, so this is to replace them as they're reaching the end of

their useful life.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

I have

a general question that I'm not really sure where to ask, Madam Chair, so I'll

ask it here. It does have to do with the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre. Minister, I

know that you have been mandated by the Premier to work with your colleagues

provincially and federally on this. Could you give us an update on what the plan

is with regard to getting the sub-centre set up again?

MR. JOYCE:

Well, we're still in

conversations with the federal government. It is a priority of the government.

There are meetings taking place. It is a priority that we will be working in the

mandate to ensure the sub-centre and the services are put back in.

MS. MICHAEL:

Is it from our perspective

as the province that this sub-centre would be under your department?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. DUTTON:

No, it would be federal, under the Coast Guard.

MR. JOYCE:

The federal government, yes,

but under our mandate to push for it. Federal, but it's our mandate to put

pressure on the federal government to bring it. It's under the mandate letter

for FES-NL to help with the federal government.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Do you have any sense

from the federal government yet as to where they stand on this?

MR. JOYCE:

Sean had a recent

conversation.

MR. DUTTON:

Sure, yes. I understand that Minister Tootoo's mandate letter also stated his

requirement to reopen the Maritime Rescue Sub-Center. I recall there was some

discussion about the fact the federal budget this year was silent on that

specific commitment.

Minister Foote made some public comments about the fact that they still intended

to do so. Also, last year the Coast Guard announced they were building a new

building on the south side of the harbour here in St. John's. It's my

understanding from federal officials that their intent would be to incorporate

the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre into that new building once that was ready, which

I don't believe will be completed until 2018, I think, was the last thing I'd

heard about that.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

They're

all my questions, Chair.

CHAIR:

Mr. Kent?

MR. KENT:

Just a number of quick,

final questions.

We've

been hearing rumblings that Fire and Emergency Services-NL may be rolled into

another department of government as a result of structural changes that are

upcoming. I'm just wondering if the minister has anything to say about that at

this point in time.

MR. JOYCE:

I have nothing to say. I'm

not sure if it's in the line item. Is it in the line item?

MR. KENT:

So the minister is saying

you'll only answer questions that are specific to

MR. JOYCE: The

line item, yes.

MR. KENT:

this line-by-line process?

MR. JOYCE: Yes,

I can't speak on hypothetical questions.

MR. KENT: Okay,

so the minister won't confirm that's not actively being considered.

MR. JOYCE:

Madam Chair, I know the Member is used to putting words in their mouth, but I'm

not saying that I'm not. I'm saying this is a budget item if you wanted to go

through, and this is the Estimates. As you did yourself.

MR. KENT: I

answered every question, Minister.

MR. JOYCE: As

you did yourself. I can name many of your colleagues if you go through the

the opportunity to do it. This is you go through the budget and you go through

line by line with the budget.

MR. KENT: Okay,

so that

CHAIR: Does the

Member have any further questions?

MR. KENT: I do,

Madam Chair, yes. I'd like the record to show as well that I previously

answered every question,

whether it was policy or not, related to Fire and Emergency Services or

Municipal Affairs or Health. I answered every question, unlike the current

minister, who's refusing to answer my question tonight.

Would

it be possible to get a list of the requests for vehicles and equipment that are

presently in the possession of Fire and Emergency Services?

MR. JOYCE:

Sure.

MR. KENT:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

I'm assuming it's no problem

to release that.

MR. KENT:

Great. That's good news.

Thank you.

would also be helpful to get some explanation as to how they're going to be

ranked, what the selection process is going to be for this year, given the

minister has implied it will be a different process. We'd be very interested in

knowing what process is being used this year as well.

MR. JOYCE:

Once again, Madam Chair,

I've got to have it on the record. I didn't imply they had a different process.

What I implied was that it was just by coincidence, I would assume, that out of

20 trucks, 19 happened to go to PC districts and no one could find the criteria

they had for the selection of trucks.

I'm not

sitting here and letting the Member make statements that I'm making these

accusations, I'm just stating the facts. If the facts don't jibe with what he

did know when he was in government, that's his problem, but I'm just stating the

facts. The facts are that there were 20 trucks, 19 happened to be in the PC-held

districts, Madam Chair. How they were selected, as I said before you should

check with your former minister. You were in Cabinet; you should have known how

they were selected.

MR. KENT:

I'm well aware of how they

were selected and I take exception to the minister's comments.

recall the York Harbour-Lark Harbour truck. But was there not a truck for Cox's

Cove at some point as well in the last number of years?

MR. JOYCE:

Madam Chair, is this in the

line item? I'm just going through the line items here.

MR. KENT:

Madam Chair, I'll ask again:

Was there a truck for Cox's Cove in the last number of years as well, perhaps in

the last four or five years?

CHAIR:

The Member has 10 minutes

from my understanding, as I am a new Chairperson. He has 10 minutes to ask

questions and it is up to the minister's discretion whether he answers or sticks

to the line by line.

MR. JOYCE:

Madam Chair, this is

Estimates.

CHAIR:

Estimates.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KENT:

So I guess I have my

answers. That would be at least two trucks in one particular district, Madam

Chair, that were received. It just happens to be the minister's.

The 911

Bureau Inc. numbers, obviously as the minister points out, are separate from

Fire and Emergency Services. It is an independent entity. I'm just curious, what

is the process for their financial information to come to this House? Will those

numbers be tabled in the House of Assembly at any point in time, similar to how

a Crown corporation would be treated?

MR. DUTTON:

As a government entity, while they're not a Crown agent, they would be covered

by the Transparency and Accountability

Act . They would be required to prepare a three-year strategic business or

activity plan depending on how they're classified, and publish annual reports

which would be tabled in the House.

As to

the

schedule of where they are and when those would be available, I'm not sure.

They would be working with the Policy Innovation and Accountability Office on

that process.

MR. KENT:

Thank you for answering my

question.

Would

it be possible for both Opposition parties to obtain a copy of the minister's

Estimates briefing binder? I suspect, at least for Fire and Emergency Services,

it's readily available as we've seen tonight. Can we obtain a copy of that?

MR. JOYCE:

You could have it right

here.

MR. KENT:

Okay, great.

Thank

you.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) another copy of

it?

MR. KENT:

We'll make you a copy.

MR. JOYCE:

Just for the record, you can

have the copy, no problem open, accountable. You should try it sometime,

especially when it comes to the hospital in Corner Brook.

CHAIR:

Any further questions on

1.1.06?

further questions. We'll call for a vote.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.06 carried.

CHAIR:

That concludes the

CLERK:

The total.

CHAIR:

Sorry, I now call for a vote

on the total for Fire and Emergency Services altogether.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

motion, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report this

section

back to the House carried without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Estimates of Fire and Emergency Services carried without amendment.

CHAIR:

I think we will take maybe a five-minute

break now before we move into Municipal Affairs.

Recess

CHAIR:

Mr. Bennett is sitting in

now as a voting Member for Ms. Parsley, who's gone.

Executive and Support Services subheading, Municipal Affairs. What we're going

to do is the whole with the minister. We'll run down through it and do that

whole

section and then we'll call for a vote at the end, okay?

I don't

know if the minister has any opening remarks.

MR. JOYCE:

I just have a few remarks.

As we

know, in the budget that was just passed there were a few issues that came up. I

know the Member opposite was asking questions privately about it and now that

there is no change to the cost-shared ratio, there's no change to the

sustainable partnership plan. Also, we have an increase in requests for funding.

What

we're doing as a department, we're looking at funding and trying to make water

as a priority for the province help with water. Of course, in partnership with

some funds here, we're in partnership with Environment and Conservation to try

to get people off the boil order and increase water quality in the province. It

is a tough task. There are a lot of municipalities seeking a lot of funding, and

there are a lot of worthwhile projects there and there's only a certain amount

of money.

Also, I

just want to recognize that the federal government did come in with the Building

Canada Fund. It definitely will help the province in municipal infrastructure

and help the province as a whole with water infrastructure.

I just

say to the Member, you can have the binder; you can have it now and save

ourselves a lot of questions. You can have it. There's absolutely nothing here

to hide, Madam Chair. I'm not inferring the Member is saying there is, but I

know if you want the binder after you're more than welcome to have the binder.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CLERK:

1.1.01.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Before

I start right at 1.1.01, Minister, I indicated I have some questions that I'd

like to ask upfront, basically about the department and different views of where

you're going with things in the department and the little issues that are on the

go.

recognize the Department of Municipal Affairs and this budget, talking to

municipal leaders in my district, are very pleased they didn't see a lot of

changes because there was a lot of concern from municipal leaders that there was

going to be a download of services to municipalities. They were very nervous,

but they're very pleased this wasn't done.

couple of little things I'd like to ask you questions about. As we mentioned

earlier when we were doing Fire and Emergency Services, the ratios, just to make

sure the ratios will stay the same for the next number of years.

MR. JOYCE:

Just for this year. I can

only speak for a year at a time, of course, because everything is a budgetary

process. But this year, yes, the ratios will remain the same.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. It's very important to

rural Newfoundland and to municipalities with declining populations with a lot

of seniors and stuff like that in their districts. They don't have the funds, so

it's important. I think it's a great program.

I want

to ask you questions about as you know, there are a few communities, like the

Bay of Islands, had relocation. I know you were involved with that and I know

there were talks of something being put in the budget for a new plan. As we saw

out there, the vote went, I think it was 89-or-something percent, and in another

area the criteria for the money that was allotted wasn't met. So I'd just like

to ask a general question of what's being done when it comes to your policy on

relocation of communities.

MR. JOYCE:

I thank the Member for the

question. It's never a problem answering a policy question to the hon.

gentleman. I thank you for that question.

The

first thing, it is the Little Bay Islands not the Bay of Islands.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Little Bay Islands, I'm

sorry Little Bay Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

There are other ones there.

There are no funds in the budget itself, and it's partly because you never know

if it's going to happen. You go through the process, and I said that before. My

understanding, there were never any funds put through in most all the budgets

prior.

What

you do is if the relocation process goes ahead, you would ask for a special

warrant or try to find funds within your own department. That's normal practice,

because if you fund $18 million, $20 million for one location and it didn't go

ahead, it's always just a carry-over. So that's why there was no we're just

following normal practices for that. I know there's one in Labrador that's

fairly close. There will be funds. There's already a commitment.

Even

Little Bay Islands, once the criteria is set and there's a vote, there will be

money found for it. We already agreed that, yes, we will go ahead with the

relocation process if all the policy is followed by the towns and the vote is 90

per cent.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Are we working on a

different like I said before, to me 90 per cent is really, really high. When

you're dealing with small communities with small numbers, that four or five or

seven, I think in this time, a family can affect what happens to the rest of the

community. Is there any change in the policy?

MR. JOYCE:

No, there's no change right

now, as you noticed, in the policy of the previous government, and this

government is 90 per cent. There has been no change. I haven't asked for any

change in Cabinet either to change that policy from 90 per cent. We just

inherited it and we just followed along with it. There has to be a certain

balance there about what level. There is no change and I can't anticipate any

change. I haven't consulted with any of the Cabinet on changing that policy.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. I think it's something

you should look at in the future, though, because as we've seen in a couple of

instances already, it's a major cost I understand to government. Some of these

communities with only one person in school and with no convenience stores and

stuff like this, it's difficult.

I just

want to ask you about the Special Assistance Grants. I know we're going to go

through it when we go to the line, is there any change in the amount of funding

for special assistance?

MR. JOYCE:

I think there's a decrease

in funding for special assistance. I think that was put in last year's budget,

from my understanding, because last year's budget not this year is when it

was decreased and we're just inheriting the decrease.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There was a previously

forecast drop in that budget of $238,000. But when we get to the line item,

government is doing payments to Wabush in lieu of the mine closure and they

decrease over time. So that's the other reason. I think the number this year is

$1.2 million. Last year it was $1.9 million, and I think in the third year it's

about $676,000. That's why you'll see the decrease in that line item when we get

to it.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Minister, in your opening statement you mentioned water systems. We understand

there is, and it's been there for a while, over 200 boil orders in the province.

It's a major cost, and the cost is very high.

What

agreement do you have in place with the federal government on this? You

mentioned the federal government. Are there any issues or are there any

cost-shared ratios that are coming with the federal government to pay for some

of these systems?

MR. JOYCE:

Just last week, we had

meetings with the three departments: Service NL, Municipal Affairs, Environment

and Conservation and Transportation and Works on boil orders. There are a number

of reasons why there are boil orders. Some just shut off their system. Some

don't like the taste of chlorine, some more aren't properly trained to use their

system and some it's just different problems with the water.

On a

positive note, there was one there, we found out last week, was on boil order

for 20 years. Now they're off. Environment and Conservation there is part of

the money from the federal government to help with this. Environment and

Conservation is doing every process to start highlighting which ones we can get

to try to help with the boil order, to come off it. Some may be training some

technicians to help keep their system running. One of the issues they had is

working a booster pump. That would help the chlorine run all throughout the

system instead of just by the time it gets to the end. The chlorination they

take samples along the way.

There

are a number of issues with the boil orders. There are a number of remedies

through Environment and Conservation are trying to remedy. There is federal

money there to help with that and to do water systems in the Capital Works

program.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I just know of one incident

in my district I speak all this time for my district. The cost of these water

systems, first when I looked at it about five years ago, you were talking a

million dollars. Now we're talking about $3 million or $4 million for most of

the systems that are in place. The strain that it's putting on municipalities is

huge, but again, I think it's somewhere where we really have to go to the

federal government to make sure they come onside and help as much they can.

Okay, I

just want to talk a little bit about waste water and you mentioned this. The

other day I asked you a question in the House of Assembly. I know in 2021 a lot

of communities have to be with the new regulations coming in under the federal

government and I just want to know. I know today, I think you said something

about 2021, 2030 and 2040 are when the regulations are set.

MR. JOYCE:

I can speak to it. But

Cluney, if there's anything I miss in there, you can jump in there.

The

regulations with Environment Canada are that you have to get testing over 18

months. Each month the data that you collect you send off. Then, after the 18

months you apply for what they call a temporary permit from Environment Canada.

After they evaluate the flow test and the rate that you presented, then they

will give you what you call a permit. On that permit it will say when you have

to be up to that standard.

So 2020

is the date for some, but it depends on the data and the flow rate that the

municipality has. It's an 18-month process up to an 18-month process that

you provide the data and then you apply for a permit. The federal government

will look at your data and then give you your permit. On the permit it says when

you need it.

There

are some in 2020; some will go to 2025, 2030 and 2040. So a municipality has to

apply for the permit officially after they supply the data. Then they would be

told what year they have to be up and running with this. Am I correct on that,

Cluney?

MR. MERCER:

The minister is correct. So it's they register their system, they supply data

and what Environment Canada will do is a risk assessment. They have a bunch of

criteria that they determine risk on. Whether they look at the receiving waters,

whether it's a freshwater body, whether it's a salt-water body, they look at the

volume of the effluent that's going out and the quality of that effluent.

Based

on the risk assessment your temporary authorization permit will say you need to

comply with the new regulations by 2020 for high risk, 2030 for medium risk and

2040 for low risk.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

On the

same program and I know Mr. Mercer will know this one too when we dealt with

one a few years ago, there was a call for six different solutions for the waste

water that was going out. Is that still in place? Do you have to come back, and

then you set up a committee and select the best three?

MR. MERCER:

The process; once a municipality decides they need to comply with a regulation

and needs to put a treatment solution in place, what the department has said to

them is that you should consider looking at any potential solution. Because

water, waste water solutions: most of them are proprietary solutions so they

don't really fit into the traditional design-bid-build approach.

What

we're suggesting to municipalities is take a look at your system. Do a desktop

exercise; look at a half a dozen potential solutions. Understand what the

capital construction cost is, understand what you're going to be in for in terms

of annual operating cost, because that's something a municipality will have to

deal with for the life of the asset. Understand what that is, then make

application to the department for cost-shared funding for the project. So you go

down the road of issuing an RFP for a design-build solution.

The

initial piece of identifying five or six, it's a desktop exercise so that

council understands, number one, what the capital cost is; and number two, what

the operational maintenance cost is going to be on a go-forward basis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Minister, I've just got a couple of more general questions now I'd like to ask,

one is on Crown lands. I know we did a review of Crown lands, reviewed the

Lands Act back in the summer. I know

in your mandate letter is also a review. What's going to be the difference

between the two reviews?

I know

on the Lands Act there were over 190

people that submitted to that review. I think the review was done the summer.

I'm just wondering where we're to and what's the difference between the new

review you're going to do?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, the review was

completed, as you said. That's correct. Yes, it is in our department and we are

looking at the full review. We're hoping to bring that into the House of

Assembly in the fall. There are a number of things we're looking at, and just

some possibilities we're sending out to different entities.

The

Lands Act review is under

consideration and I'm hoping to have it brought in the House of Assembly in the

fall. The majority of issues that are in it will be brought forth. That's in

review now and there may be some changes and modifications to it, but definitely

it will be brought forward. I'm hoping to have it done by next fall.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'd like to recognize Mr.

Howe here and thank him, because every time I contact or whatever, the

department is very quick in getting back to me. I'd like to say thank you for

that. I have a lot of issues with Crown lands as everybody does.

I look

at Crown lands and I understand that years ago land didn't seem like it was

worth anything to people. Today it's worth a lot of money. It's worth a lot.

Something new that I became aware of when I became MHA was how people determine

who owns a piece of land. I know we can go back and look at whether they worked

it or not. There was recently a court case with the Walsh's down in Torbay where

the judge ruled that the land was worked because they fished on it, they cut

wood on it and stuff like that. Is that part of the policy that is going to be

changed in this?

MR. JOYCE:

Part of the policy change

that we're going to have is criteria, how far you go back and the length of

time. That's all part of the review. I agree that goes back I think it's'57 it

goes back. I've appealed many on behalf of residents.

It is

cumbersome. People are getting older and trying to get the aerial photograph and

trying to get affidavits. All of that is taken into account. So part of the

Lands Act review is to look at how we

can move up that system, change that system or make improvements to that system.

That's definitely a part of it. That was part of the recommendations also. We're

definitely looking at the recommendations and seeing what is the best way to go

forward.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm going to ask a last

question now. You mentioned about affidavits, for example. People will probably

come to me now and ask for an affidavit. But when you go back to the '50s and

'60s we don't have a lot of people around anymore so it's a job. I know that

affidavits are not part of the whole overall, but I think the courts do

recognize affidavits.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So it's important that it

does get changed, because I know people who are dealing with Crown lands in my

district that are having and all over the province a hard time with the

ownership and where to go.

MR. JOYCE:

I agree with you 100 per

cent that there needs to be a review of it, and there will be changes to it.

What they're going to be right now, we're still looking at it. But we're trying

to look at a way to bring it forth because the issues you just brought forward

are real and it's affecting a lot of people.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I thank the minister for

answering these questions.

Thank

you very much.

CHAIR:

Seeing the time on the

clock, we'll now move to Ms. Michael.

MR. JOYCE:

Just for the record, any

policy question, I have no problem answering. If the Member for Mount Pearl

North is going to ask me hypothetical questions, I refuse to answer; but any

policy question, I have no problem answering whatsoever.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

Just to

say to the minister this is interesting to me as well because it's not just

rural Newfoundland where this is an issue. I've had a number of conversations in

my own district where Crown land and who owns land is an issue. So it's

important urban-wise as well. We were all rural once upon a time.

I am

going to ask a question I only have one question in the Executive and Support

Services section, a line question with the understanding that I assume we will

have the Estimates briefing book and then that way, smaller questions really

don't need to be asked. So I'm going to ask sort of some that I'd really like to

have on the record.

MR. JOYCE:

Sure.

MS. MICHAEL:

In this one, Minister it's

your office the Minister's Office, last year $319,400 was the real money that

was spent on the Minister's Office and this year it's only $62,600. Are you

going to be all by yourself? Can you explain to us what's happening in the

office?

MR. JOYCE:

What it is we have combined

the two departments: Service NL and Municipal Affairs. The minister's salary and

executive assistant, which I haven't got one yet, is in Service NL. Instead of

having two executive assistants, there is only one. The minister's salary is in

with Service NL.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, really? Okay, thank you

very much.

MR. JOYCE:

There are not two executive

assistants, one for each department; it's just one executive assistant and one

minister for two departments.

MS. MICHAEL:

One minister for the two

departments, okay.

Basically, that's the only question I had for this section; everything else is

sort of pretty straightforward, so I don't have any more questions. Maybe Kevin

does, I don't know.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I have a question when you

go to the Executive Support. What I'm going to do, Minister, I'll just ask you

to explain the line rather than go into whatever, if that's okay with you.

MR. JOYCE:

Sure.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It will make it easier for

(inaudible)

MR. JOYCE:

Do whatever.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Just on Salaries, could you

explain what's happening there with the Salaries? Is there any added position?

Why is there a difference?

MR. JOYCE:

Jamie.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Are we

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm looking at Salaries

under Executive Support, 1.2.01. Last year, it was budgeted for $1,089,400 and

this year it is $1.1 million. I'm just wondering is there something that was

added or is it an increase in pay, why the difference? It was budgeted; there's

a little over $70,000 in the difference in the budget.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The difference in Salaries from last year was vacancies at an ADM position and

communications manager; and one ADM secretary was maternity leave actually, I

believe. The difference for '16-'17, the reason it is up reflects salary step

increases, so a full staff complement and step increases.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, that's what I figured.

We go

section 1.2.02, Administrative Support; again, if you can tell me what's

happening there with the Salaries.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So there were vacant positions the year previous and actually there was one

position there that as a part of our attrition management plan, we took out of

the complement for the department. So there's only one person associated with

that activity and when the position became vacant we eliminated it, abolished

it. And the only funding that's left there in the salary line for '16-'17 is for

students. We do both summer students and co-op students through that particular

line item in the budget.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

On the

Transportation and Communications line, last year there was $42,900, the revised

was $50,000 and this year it's down to $33,400.

MR. CHIPPETT:

That reflects, as the minister and CEO Dutton referred to earlier, our

line-by-line exercise, so a look at the historical spending. And in terms of the

$50,000 in projected revised, it was a result of higher postage and courier

costs. You don't exactly know what you're going to use in the run of year. So

that's the reason for the higher projected revised.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Can I

ask just a general question? What revenue would you have there? How do you come

up with revenue on that line: the $5,000, the $3,900 and the $5,000 there?

MR. JOYCE:

I'm not sure where

MR. K. PARSONS:

We're on

section 1.2.02 and

02 is the Revenue can you explain what that line means here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I'm going to defer to Robyn on that one.

MS. HAYES:

The revenue in this line

item is for travel advances and the petty cashes throughout the department.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MS. HAYES:

When we realize that would be when someone pays it back either they turn in

their petty cash or their travel imprest have come back. So that's what the

$3,900 reflects, those that were actually received.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you very much.

Again,

section 1.2.03, the Salaries line, this year is budgeted more than what it

was revised, yet it was budgeted for. Is there a vacancy there also?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In the projected revised, it was a vacancy in the associated recruitment period

to recruit somebody. In the following year, again this was a part of our

attrition management plan. So we lowered our salary complement through attrition

or reducing vacant positions.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Last

year, in this line here also under Supplies it could be just a photocopier, I

guess, or anything like that, but it was $11,500 and then only $1,700 and this

year $5,000. Is that just basically a reduction in supplies or copying services

or something like that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's really a result of the line item, line-by-line review and an exercise to

look at the expenditures across multiple fiscal years. Obviously, we didn't need

a lot in supplies that particular year, but the average over a number of years

brought us in at around the $5,000 figure. So that's the amount in this year's

budget.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

We'll look at

section 1.2.04. Why was last year's money not

spent?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Sorry, I didn't hear the question, actually.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. I'm just looking at

the budget for 1.2.04. The money wasn't spent last year. There was no money

spent there last year $8,700 there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

This is the only

section in our budget that allows for capital expenditures and

you'd look at, in particular in the Lands Branch, vehicles, whether it be ATVs

or snowmobiles, trucks or what have you. So we did not replace a vehicle.

Obviously, you're not going to replace a vehicle for $8,700. So usually we do a

specific budget request or we transfer in funds to purchase a vehicle. So this

just reflects the fact that we did not buy or replace a vehicle last year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, all right.

That's

it for that section, I do believe.

CHAIR:

Ms. Michael?

Okay,

so we'll now call for a vote for

section 1.1.01.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

1.2.01 through 1.2.04

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Now we're calling for a vote

for 1.2.01 to 1.2.04 inclusive.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 1.2.04 carried.

CHAIR:

We'll now move to

subheading, Services to Municipalities.

CLERK:

2.1.01.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

Again,

I have line items here, 2.1.02 under Salaries. Last year it was revised upward.

I guess that's where I would want the explanation is the revision upward last

year.

MR. CHIPPETT:

2.1.02?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Okay.

Last

year under our attrition management plan, as government had put in place at the

time, the funding was taken out of one area of the budget, not spread throughout

the department where the actual attrition would occur. Funding had to be

transferred back in to meet payroll in that area of the department.

MS. MICHAEL:

So there wasn't a new

position or anything?

MR. CHIPPETT:

No.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

That

maintains this year then?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Right. So there's a full

staff complement in that division now.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

2.1.03;

again, it's the Salaries line 01. This is the Local Governance. There was a

significant revision downward. So I'm assuming there must be some position loss

here. It was $523,600 and it revised down to $392,400.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So the $392,400 is the regular staff complement for that division. For the

fiscal year '15-'16, we had two additional contractual positions to roll out the

Community Sustainability Partnership. That was a part of

Budget 2015 . So those contractual

positions came to an end at the end of the fiscal year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I do

have a question under the community sustainability, but I'll wait until I get to

it just some update information.

Still

under 01, there was nothing budgeted for Professional Services but $53,300 was

spent; if you could explain that, please.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There were two items there that weren't originally budgeted for. One was for a

commissioner to review the appeals under the Little Bay Islands relocation

process. People appealed whether or not their designation by the department was

correct as being permanent residents or not.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

And, secondly, there were some professional services costs associated with

consultations and materials for the Community Sustainability Partnership, so it

kind of links into the $523,000 Salaries and the activity under that initiative.

MS. MICHAEL:

Great, thank you.

Just

backing up for a minute, Transportation and Communications has seen an increase.

In terms of this small item line, it actually is a large increase of about

$20,000. So what is happening there, please?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That also reflects some of the ongoing work on the Community Sustainability

Partnership. You'll see a bit later on, we transferred in from municipal

Engineering and Infrastructure some funding because there are some consultations

that remain to be done under the Community Sustainability Partnership, like the

regional governance consultations in particular. So that's how we're allowing

for that activity.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I think

we'll probably see that when we get over to that section.

I think

I had one more question here; under the Grants and Subsidies, just a drop of

$1,500. Was that caused by the line-by-line analysis, because it seems to be a

very small amount of money? It's heading 10, Grants and Subsidies. It was

$119,500 and it's down to $118,500.

MR. CHIPPETT:

That Grants and Subsides line is usually used for feasibility studies for

communities that might consider amalgamation or regional co-operation

initiatives. So in some respects it's demand driven. We just didn't have the

municipalities coming forward to take up that money.

MS. MICHAEL:

Are you aware of any this

year, because you are still allowing for $118,500?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We do know of two or three that I think towards the end of the fiscal year were

considering, and the other thing is we do have allowance in our budget here to

hire a manager of community co-operation. So we think that we will see more

activity in this area. We really thought we wouldn't be well served if the

activity picks up to take funding out of that area.

MR. JOYCE:

This is part of MNL and

community co-operation and regionalization. So we just wanted to prepare in case

MS. MICHAEL:

Minister, could you speak up

a bit, please?

MR. JOYCE:

This is just if some towns want to come forward. So we want to ensure MNL is

supporting us in this community co-operation and partnership.

MS. MICHAEL:

So sort of be a liaison

between the department and

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, there would be someone

just to help to facilitate.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Okay, thank you.

2.3.01;

again, the Salaries line 01, $519,000 was budgeted last year and then $664,800

was spent. Now this may relate back to an explanation you gave earlier but it

may not. This year it's back down to $550,600, so maybe if you could just

explain that line.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The $664,000, or almost $665,000, reflects severance, annual leave, overtime

payout to a senior director in the department who retired. So that's why that is

up. And for the salary budget for '16-'17, it basically reflects a full staff

complement, salary step increases and so on for that division.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

Now

down to Professional Services, and maybe this is what you were referring to

earlier. You had the $450,800, and I'm assuming that's for the Community

Sustainability Partnership. Is it that money under Professional Services? Only

$59,700 was spent and now there's no money this year in that line.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This is probably the most

confusing answer

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, great.

MR. CHIPPETT:

so I'll prepare you for

it. There were two initiatives. The best way to start, I think, is the original

budget for 2015-16. You're right; they were under the Community Sustainability

Partnership. One was a boil-water advisory consultant that the minister referred

to earlier, actually. He was trying to pinpoint specific boil-water advisories

that communities may be able to come off of. The second piece was under the

Community Sustainability Partnership regional water and waste water operators.

So it's kind of piloting regional service delivery.

That

was put in the budget, but it ended up that the model we used for the operators

was to pay out grants to regional service boards. If you look down to the

$157,900, that's the grant and the $232,000 for a full fiscal year. That's the

grant paying the regional service boards to hire and provide operational support

for three regional operators.

The

amount that looks like it's missing was actually transferred to Environment and

Conservation in this year's budget. So anybody who's doing the Environment

Estimates will see that show up in their Professional Services in Environment.

That explains why we're down to nothing in Professional Services in 2016-17.

MS. MICHAEL:

Are those positions

specifically with regard to the boil orders?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The funding that moved to

Environment was professional services for a consultant to focus on boil-water

advisories. The funding that remained in our budget and was transferred to

Grants and Subsidies, it's more about the capacity within smaller municipalities

and hoping that a paid employee to service three separate groups of communities

would operate their facilities more in line with regulatory guidelines and

support from government. I think you would see some boil-water advisories

reduced from that initiative as well.

MR. JOYCE:

Just to note that this is a

pilot project in three years. I know the previous government came in with it.

It's a great project. We're hoping that it's going to help reduce the boil-order

advisories. They are doing great work with the smaller towns, helping them show

how to keep their system up and running, water testing. They're expanding not

just one; they're expanding as many as they can around. It is part of that and

it's a great initiative. We're hoping to get good results from it. Then, we can

probably further expand on it later because of these boil-order advisories.

MS. MICHAEL:

And then, does the Estimate

for this year, the $232,500, is that covering three positions?

OFFICIAL:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Thank

you very much.

I'll be

happy to pass it over.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Michael.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) if I don't watch

the time.

CHAIR:

No, I was letting you finish

up there. We haven't got to be too stringent in this time.

MR. JOYCE:

No, jeepers, we're all

(inaudible).

CHAIR:

So now we'll go back to Mr.

Parsons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Again,

the former Member asked a few questions so I'll just try to pick through what I

have here. Under Supplies there's a $2,000 difference, but okay, you know

where I'm to on that, 2.1.01.

MR. JOYCE:

2.1.01, yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. I just wanted to look

at Supplies. I know it's up. Most lines we've seen so far tonight have been

decreased but this one has increased. Is there any reason for that when it comes

to Supplies?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Basically, the same line-by-line process that the minister referenced earlier,

but the historical data showed that we spent more here. So we actually moved it

from another area of the department to here to match what we usually spend in

that area.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, perfect. That's good.

Also,

on the Revenue line, can you explain the Revenue line to me again?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We have a memorandum of understanding with the Nunatsiavut Government. We supply

project management and engineering services to them. They pay us for those

services.

The

$169,000 is an anomaly really in the budget. The MOU actually talks about

$160,000, so really we've just corrected that to line up with the MOU.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

On the

next line, Salaries have gone up on

section 2.1.02. Salaries have gone up to

$434,000, yet the benefits are only $100 and showing $300 revised from the year

before. How come the benefits are so low?

MR. CHIPPETT:

This is when the attrition management plan came in place, I think it was 2015.

All the required salary reductions in the department were taken from the same

place. So we had to transfer in funds to meet payroll.

There

was no actual increase in positions in that particular line. But when the money

had been taken out of the original budget, we wouldn't have been able to pay the

amount for all the employees in that division. So we transferred in funds and

that's why it's higher than the original $386,000.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

We can go to

section 2.1.03 and just a couple of questions. I know Ms. Michael

already asked most of the questions here that I did have, but I want to go to

the Grants and Subsidies again. These Grants and Subsidies, why was it $1,500

versus $118,500 that it is this year?

I know

that in a lot of municipalities they have people come down and do their town

plans and stuff like this and services like that. Don't most towns have a

certain period of time that you have to renew? Is this where you see this to

when you have a commissioner come down and do

MR. CHIPPETT:

No.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So this is not on this line

at all?

MR. JOYCE:

No, this is more if the town

comes in and asks to do feasibility for the town

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, a feasibility study.

MR. JOYCE:

Yeah, for the towns itself.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Also, you mentioned

about community co-operation and MNL's co-operation. I know that most

municipalities are doing a lot of co-operation now, especially in areas with the

fire protection, garbage collection and everything else.

What

are we doing to get communities to do more? It's a great save on a lot of

communities. An example is you have three communities in there that have dog

catchers. You know if you just got them to get together and do the one, it's

such a save on communities. That's just a very small item, I know.

Minister, what's your opinion on that? And where do you think we should be

going? Should we be forcing I don't mean you come down and force them, but

we're putting a lot of money into these programs. Is there some way that we can

force municipalities to co-operate?

MR. JOYCE:

I don't think you can force

them, but I think you give incentives.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah.

MR. JOYCE:

There's a way to give

incentives. Just as an example, we had meetings today with two towns who we're

thinking about trying to help out. The only thing separating them is a sign and

it's just not happening right now.

There

are a lot of municipalities in the province that do co-operate. A lot have

amalgamated, a lot have regional services, but there's a lot who won't. There's

no way to force them unless you want to force amalgamation which is not on the

agenda. But the way to do it is try to entice regionalization, entice sharing

your services.

Some of

the approaches we're looking at is any funding will help out with

regionalization or sharing of services. So it's not a hammer but it's definitely

a carrot to help with

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I believe it should be

something that should be priority for the department, that when municipalities

are showing regionalization and co-operation the priority should go up the

priority list, just to show that

MR. JOYCE:

I agree with you. We're

definitely looking at projects and other incentives for municipalities that are

co-operating and are looking into regionalization. I agree with you. That's a

great way we are looking at that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I just

want to go to

section 2.2.01 and look at the Operating Accounts. Last year, the

budget was $36,000 and there was only $5,800 spent. This year is budgeted for

$12,500. Why the decrease in the amount?

MR. CHIPPETT:

If you look at the line items above that add up to the $12,500, really they were

looked at again through the line-by-line exercise and historical spending. So

really that's the general reason that we're down.

particular, I think we looked at reducing travel under Transportation and

Communications. That's really the biggest contributor to the number going from

$20,000 down to $10,000 in 2016-17.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I want

to go to

section 2.3.02. I wonder if you can give me an explanation on the

Salaries there. Has there been a salary removed from this department?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We had one employee which was a water utilities superintendent who retired. So

we chose to make this a part of our attrition management plan.

Just to

give you some context. These relate to industrial water services. So at one

point in time the province had I can't remember the numbers 54 or 56 of

industrial water systems that the department was responsible for running. We are

now down to six. We hope, and have signed an agreement, with four of the six

communities involved that we would upgrade those systems to a certain standard

and then we would pass the systems over to the communities.

because we have such a small number of systems left and we actually have an

engineer in Cluney's branch, the Engineering branch, who looks after water and

waste water, we're able to look after those six systems until we hopefully pass

them on to the people who use them on the ground. We can handle the workload

through that position.

MR. JOYCE:

There is only one who may

not be here and that is Ramea. We may not be able to put it past Ramea because

Ramea uses salt water. The cost to maintain that system is very high and Ramea

wouldn't be able to sustain the cost for that water system. The other five we

can pass back to the municipalities and, in one case, it may be a business, but

I don't think any government would be able to get rid of Ramea because the cost

is so high because it is salt water.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, that's good. Thank

you.

On the

Professional Services line, last year it was $94,800; what wasn't spent there

last year? What services are provided here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We actually pay plant

operators on the ground to operate a lot of these systems. So it would just be

based on how much we had to pay out in a given year. But we've budgeted for the

full amount for next year. I don't know the specifics of why that number was

down, but it would be basically we didn't pay out as much as we expected to.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Then the next line,

Purchased Services, is that just what you're paying out for people to do the

work? We have the Professional Services and then the Purchased Services, the two

lines there.

MR. CHIPPETT:

In the Purchased Services

we will deal with the projected revised first the $510,000 basically reflects

emergency repairs that had to be done in addition to the routine maintenance

that we would envision doing. So it was up for that particular year and we would

have transferred money in. Then for the $502,000 we actually transferred in some

funds to better reflect the amount that we expect to spend.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's a huge cost to

maintain.

On the

provincial revenue line there it's $390,000, budgeted $733,000 and now $365,000.

Can you explain what happened there in that one?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The big increase in revenue

in '15-'16 was due to some accounts receivable that came in from people who

utilize these systems. People paid, as I understand it, after the fiscal year

was over. So there were some owing amounts. Then the revenue in '16-'17, the

decrease actually reflects the hope that we will be able to pass on some of

those systems to the people who actually use them in 2017.

MR. JOYCE:

Then once they take them,

there will be no money coming in, no revenue to the province; they would own

them. So that's the decrease in the revenue.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Just a general question now

on water systems and stuff in the province. We understand communities have large

costs in maintaining the ones they have and sometimes the boil orders, like you

said earlier, because of the cost of having an operator to operate the system,

towns can't afford it. Is there anything we're doing to help towns to be able to

get the proper training and have the people in place to take care of these

systems?

MR. JOYCE:

Well, actually, one of the

programs your government put in place for those pilot projects was to go out and

help with the smaller municipalities for training and education and help with

water testing and water quality. In a lot of places, in many cases that we got,

people just don't like the taste of chlorine and some find it too expensive. So

it's a bigger issue.

There

are a lot of reasons why this boil-order advisory is on. Some just won't turn it

on; some won't do the maintenance on the water treatment plant because it's just

too expensive. Some even said it's better to let it run down than have to put

the money in and go 90-10 again. So there are number of reasons.

Through

the environment, we are looking at different ways we can help every municipality

who wants, and even encourage some, to have a system in place that will give

proper, safe, chlorinated drinking water. So there are a few initiatives

involved.

There

is a deputy minister's group that is looking at all possibilities and got all

the reasons why the boil-order advisories and try to just pick out a few

(inaudible).

CHAIR:

Okay, before we call for a

vote on Services to Municipalities, did Ms. Michael have any more questions

under that subheading?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, just one question

related to that.

In the

budget it was noted government is going to increase rates for the industrial

water systems to $2.75 per 1,000 gallons in 2017 and then up to $4 per 1,000

gallons in 2018. Do you have a concern about being able to collect that? What is

going to be the implication on clients of this?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We've spoken to all of the

municipalities involved and none expressed an issue with the rate increase, in

fact, expected that there might be some increase. I don't think generally, in

terms of the municipal systems in particular, that there's usually an issue with

collection. Cluney could speak to that better than I could.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Nobody

else has anything else to say on that.

MR. MERCER:

If you're okay with that,

then I don't

MS. MICHAEL:

No, you can go ahead.

MR. MERCER:

Yeah, so there's never been

an issue with collection. I think Jamie had referenced the fact that three of

those systems we expect to divest to municipalities come January 1, 2017. So

there won't be an issue of collecting revenue then, it's their system. They'll

operate it themselves. If they're providing water to a business sector, it will

be up to them to negotiate some kind of water rate with that business sector or

tax and local agreement, that sort of thing.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

CHAIR:

Okay, if there are no

further questions we'll call for a vote on that subheading.

Shall

2.1.01 inclusive up to 2.3.02 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.02 carried.

CHAIR:

We'll move to the subheading

Lands.

CLERK:

3.1.01.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I have a general question

first to ask the minister because I know how vocal he was about Crown lands and

with cabin owners and everything else. You had major issues in your area and I

have them in mine.

Right

now, there's an application process for Crown lands. When people call and apply,

the amount of time they have to wait is huge. Are we doing anything to address

this? Like I said in the past, I've heard you talk about this issue too.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm wondering what now

that you're the minister you should be getting on the ball.

MR. JOYCE:

Well, I can assure you I

understand. The staff do what they can to help people out, I can assure you of

that. I know I've been dealing with (inaudible) in the Opposition. His staff is

doing whatever they can to help people out.

A lot

of times the process, sometimes, when you have to send out referrals, it takes

so much time to get back and to hear from other different departments about

their referrals. Part of this Lands Act

review is a way to speed up the process when you send referrals out to town

councils and to other entities in government.

There's

another process that we're trying to get online for applications. What would

happen is that you can go online, look at a piece of land, then look and see if

it's reserved or who owns the land. Then you could actually look at the piece of

land. A lot of times applications come in, and by the time they go through the

whole system and take up the paperwork, then you realize, okay, this is on

reserve and you can't so then send it back and say, no, we can't because it's

on reserve.

One of

the initiatives we're planning on with the

Lands Act review and bringing in that

new legislation is that you can go online, you could actually look at the piece

of land to see if you can apply for it, see the location, get the GPS on a

location and actually fill out the application online so you can send it in

online. In a lot of cases the land itself is taken and it's just moved. Then

once it goes through the system, it goes through the whole referral backlog

because they did the system. The Lands

Act review on that was completed and there were a lot of positive things in

that, also, that would speed it up.

Another

thing that we discussed and that's all part of it in the fall is giving a

bit more authority back to the regional offices. What happens now, everything

now has to come into St. John's, has to go into the director, has to go up to

Peter, has to go up. We're looking at it to see if we could give, in some cases,

more regional power authority to the regional office.

Another

thing, a lot of applications take up a lot of time, it take months and months

is a normal referral. For example, they want a reserve. For some types of

reserves it has to get Cabinet approval. So something that would be very simple

to do, that the ADM, the deputy minister or even the minister could sign it off

right now, as they go through that process, then it has to go to the Cabinet

process and go up to the Cabinet to be approved, which is routine and it should

be done in the department. That's part of the

Lands Act review also.

All of

these, hopefully and I'm sure there are going to be great improvements to

Crown lands. We're hoping to have most of these in, up and running by the fall.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

So I agree with you. It's

not because of the staff; it's just the length of the process.

MR. K. PARSONS:

The process itself.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, so that's all being

reviewed.

MR. K. PARSONS:

No doubt about it.

Have we

got anything budgeted to help with this? There are a lot of recommendations in

the Lands Act Review and some costs

related to it. Is there anything in our budget?

MR. JOYCE:

I think there's only one

with the OCIO, is it? I think there's only one: $150,000. I think that's the

cost, is it?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes.

A lot

of those recommendations are process oriented so we didn't feel they required a

budget submission of our own. The minister refers to putting the Land Use Atlas

online which would also facilitate the public applying online.

think the price tag for that, as the minister said, is about $150,000. OCIO, I

think, was budgeting for that in their system because it was a software

solution, basically.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Another

question is: Municipalities for years and years have been looking for access to

Crown lands for themselves. Just explain. I know there is a policy in place now

for municipalities so how's that going to work for municipalities?

MR. JOYCE:

What was established in the

red book, and for us to help create economic development and help with

municipalities, is if there's a block of land in a municipality that they can

see for development it could be private development, houses, it could be for

industrial development what they would do is they can actually freeze that

land for municipalities now up to five years. Then once they start developing

the land, then they can start paying for the Crown land. The way it was before

is if you went out and bought Crown land you'd have to pay it upfront. A lot of

municipalities, of course, couldn't afford it.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Couldn't afford it.

MR. JOYCE:

The process now that we have

in place is that you can freeze the land and start your economic plan. If you

had someone who wanted to come in and do a housing development, then that land

would be sold at market value and negotiated with the department. Then, as you

move along, you can pay for the land itself.

The

same if you had some industry coming in. Then you can freeze the land, some

industry would come in. You could entice the industry to come in. Once the land

is there, once it started being used, then you could start paying back the land

instead of paying everything upfront. Each one is negotiated with the

department.

Some

municipalities have come in already and frozen a lot of land for industrial use,

for economic development and for subdivisions in their area that they couldn't

afford upfront, to come in and buy the land upfront.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So we do have municipalities

that are availing of this?

MR. JOYCE:

Oh, yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Good. It's a good idea. It

gives a chance for the towns to get a bit of revenue for communities that really

do need revenue.

Okay,

I'm going to go to

section 3.1.01. First, it's going to be the Salaries line.

There's a decrease. Is this a vacancy or is it the eliminating of a position?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The initial budget in '15-'16 of just over $4 million accounted for 77 positions

in the Lands Branch, or in the Crown Lands portion of the Lands Branch, and the

revised Estimate was due to vacancies.

terms of the reduction for 2016-2017, that is an elimination of three vacant

positions, and budgeting for four positions that we expect to become vacant

through attrition in the next while. So it's going to be a reduction of seven

positions, eventually.

MR. K. PARSONS:

So these positions, what are

these positions?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The three vacancies related to so these are the positions that have

been abolished already are a manager of Crown Lands corporations and two legal

secretary positions.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

On the Supplies line again, we budgeted for a lot of money

there, $114,000, and this year it is $55,000. I guess that's just your answer

is going to be the line-by-line analysis of what supplies are, and that's okay.

I want to go to the Revenue line now, if I can, and just

explain to me last year the revenue was $50,000, this year's Estimates again

now is $150,000. So what happened there with that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That particular Revenue line relates to the sale of maps, air photos, and

related lands products. So we really just didn't have the demand on those

services that we did in the past. I think there's been a trend of decreasing

revenue in that area, as people use more online products in particular. So

that's the explanation for that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Just on that there alone, I know in my previous life I used to spend a lot

of time over there with aerial shots, aerial photos. Are people still coming in

and looking to see what land was worked in the '50s and '60s and'70s and stuff

like that?

MR. HOWE: Yes,

we usually get a lot of people still coming to the Air Photo and Map Library

looking at the aerial photography over the years, either for business reasons or

purely for personal reasons, general interest or even for academic reasons.

MR. K. PARSONS:

The years they go back to, that goes back to '57, is it, or in the early '50s?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It depends on the area in which the various areas have various years of

coverage. Some are in the

'50s, '60s, you might even get some areas even into the late '40s that have

coverage.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

A lot

of times, I guess, when people are looking to see whether their land is worked

or whatever because, as you know, different grants and stuff like that. They can

still go and be able to look and see what was done on that land back in the

'60's and '70s. Is that the idea?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yeah, anybody can come into our Air Photo and Map Library and ask to see what

years photography existed in the area and have a look and see what occupation

has taken on the land.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

ahead, Lorraine.

MS. MICHAEL:

We can come back.

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, we can come back.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) thank you.

Mine

are mainly line items for this section. So looking at 3.1.02, under Professional

Services, $115,000 was budgeted last year. Only $28,600 was spent and $110,000

this year. So what are the professional services you get in this area?

MR. CHIPPETT:

This

section of the Lands Branch, one of their primary pieces of work relates to

cottage lot developments. You'll see public draws from time to time. So the

Professional Services and Purchased Services lines are for septic design for

those pieces of land. Purchased Services relate to roadwork to put in proper

roads to access those developments.

As you

can see, the road expenditures are down to $168,000. The septic designs come

after the roads. So the answer here is probably the miserable July we had last

summer, is probably part of the explanation.

MS. MICHAEL:

So it's not normal for it to

be as low as it was last year. You're right; I think you're probably correct in

your analysis. Let's hope it doesn't happen again soon.

Under

Revenue in the same heading, the provincial revenue, first of all, what is that

revenue? What was the big jump about last year? It looks like you're expecting a

fair amount this year too.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The big jump last year or the big number in there was a large commercial

purchase of land on Kenmount Road. So that drove up our number.

terms of what's in that line, it's generally recreational, residential and

commercial lands throughout the province. So in some respects you don't know

what applications are going to be finished and come in. If you look back through

the Estimates, over three or four years I've been involved in some way with

Lands, usually this division brings in more revenue than has been forecast.

answer your question in terms of the $8.5 million for this year, one, we've

brought that revenue up again in line with historical revenue over the three

years. Secondly, we've gone back and done an analysis of some of the public

draws that occurred in the past. Not all lots have been taken up in those

processes. So we're trying to offer some options to the public on those things.

would have developed, put in roads and so on but particular lots may not have

been developed or selected and bought. So there may be some opportunities for

members of the public to buy some of those, and that would increase our revenue

as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Are all of these lots, when

they're put out there, are they evaluated according to market value?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Fair market value is our

policy with respect to any land that we sell, yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you.

3.1.03;

first of all Salaries, a budget last year of $692,600, revised down to $494,000,

and this year it will be $420,000. If we could just have a breakdown of what

happened there.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The difference within the

2015-16 budget year was due to vacancies, and there were some long-term

vacancies in that division. Then the difference for 2016-17 relates to the

position numbers I used earlier. There were four vacant positions I talked about

that were abolished in the Lands Branch. Some of them would have been in here.

So that's the lower salary vote you're talking about.

MS. MICHAEL:

Just a general question on positions in Municipal Affairs. I'm sure you must

have the figure, maybe it's in the Estimates briefing notes there, the full

figure of job loss either by attrition or just abolishing of positions.

MR. CHIPPETT:

If you check our salary

details online, there are 224 positions. That would be down by I'm trying to

get the number right here now. There will be eight more in time through

attrition. So before that I'm trying to count the numbers up now there would

be, I think there are 15 reductions in Municipal Affairs. They were all

vacancies with the exception of one position that had an incumbent, and the

incumbent has actually accepted a different position in the department. So

there's no personnel impact in the department.

MS. MICHAEL:

So that's between last

year's budget and this year's budget.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services actually, we'll do Professional Services first. You

budgeted $50,000 last year, none of it was used, and this year down to $49,000.

I'm presuming the drop by $1,000 was just because of the line by line.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

anybody watching from the outer atmosphere doesn't understand what I mean by

line by line, they haven't been watching Newfoundland politics over the last few

weeks.

Under

the Purchased Services, a jump of $100,000 there.

MR. CHIPPETT:

When we turned to the next activity there used to be a lot of cost-shared

agreements with the federal government when some of the initial base mapping for

the province was done, flyovers to get the imagery and so on to allow the

mapping to be done. As a lot of that stuff has been done, that activity has

moved away from being a cost-shared activity with the federal government to more

of an internal to our department, or maybe in partnership with another

government department, like Natural Resources, rather than the cost-sharing with

the federal government. So we basically merged the activity that you'll see if

you flip the page, the Geomatics Agreements, into this particular activity.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So I don't have to ask

about Geomatics then because you've given me the explanation; very good. I think

that the Geomatics was my last question in this area.

No, we

come over to 3.1.05. Again, the Salaries, but I take it this is going to be a

similar answer that you've given and when we get the briefing book we'll see the

exact numbers, I guess, of the positions that may have been lost through

attrition or through being abolished.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Yes, that's correct. In '15-'16 there were vacancies in the department, or in

this section. There will be two positions through attrition that will be lost

here.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you.

I think

I'm satisfied with that. We can go back to you, Kevin, if you have more

questions.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I just have a couple of

small ones here to finish this line.

I want

to go back to

section 3.1.03. I want to go to the Revenue line, $70,000

budgeted, $70,000 estimated this year, but there's only $500 under revised. Give

us an explanation of that, please.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This is very similar to the answer from before on mapping products and so on.

This would be the sale of maps, survey data and air photo reproductions, because

you can come in and you can ask for a photograph to be reproduced. So it's

really just less activity in those areas.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Most of this is done over in the Howley Building, I would imagine, over on the

(inaudible). The boys over there weren't very busy last year, is that what

you're saying? That's what it looks like. Anyway, that's about it on that.

Minister, as an MHA, and I know just talking to one of the MHAs behind me, all

districts and all MHAs do have a lot of questions when it comes to Crown Lands.

It seems like we get a lot of calls and I think most of the constituents are

frustrated, to say the least, when you deal with them because of the length of

time and stuff like that.

I had

great dealings with Mr. (inaudible) and the department over there. I know

they're doing their best over there, but we got to find some kind of process

that can speed it up a little bit so people don't be waiting. I had a call just

last week of an application that went in for a cabin on Salmonier Line. Right

off the bat they were told this is going to take over a year. So I don't know

what we can do to make sure that we speed it up.

MR. JOYCE:

I agree with you 100 per

cent. Peter and his staff, Jamie, and all of us are involved with a process to

try to speed it up and make it more efficient as possible. I agree with you

that, yes, we need to do something. It will take time but it will be done.

Hopefully, when we bring in the Lands Act

review and the act for that is going to help, and the other initiatives that we

mentioned today will definitely help. So I agree there is a need for it and we

will find a way to get through it, definitely.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Thank you.

That's

good.

CHAIR:

(Inaudible.)

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.1.05.

CHAIR:

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.05 carried.

CLERK:

4.1.01.

CHAIR:

I'm not sure who's to go

next.

Ms.

Michael?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Municipal Debt Servicing

4.1.01, the Grants and Subsidies has gone down a fair bit from the revision last

year. If we could have an explanation, please.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This reflects the debt balances that the department has in terms of municipal

loans. This one is primarily for infrastructure projects. This heading actually

just deals with interest. So as these are paid off, they become less. It's not

that we're not funding anything here with this reduction, there's just less

interest to deal with in this fiscal year, and it will continue until we

basically pay off all of those loans.

MS. MICHAEL:

Great.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So the next activity is the same issue, and I think Heather, 2026 or 2027?

MS. TIZZARD:

It is 2027.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We'll have all of them paid off.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Then 4.1.02 would be

connected with that, because one is the principal and one is the interest,

right?

Okay,

they were my two major questions for there.

I turn

it back to you, Kevin.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, Municipal

Operating Grants haven't changed, and I'm very, very glad to see that. I thought

with the problems we have with our budget that's one area we didn't need to go.

Again, municipalities right across the province are very pleased with the

Municipal Operating Grants they're getting. We increased it a couple of years

ago, and it's huge for towns because that's where they get most of their money,

especially small municipalities.

I just

want to go to the Grants and Subsidies under Special Assistance here.

MS. MICHAEL:

Can I just ask a question

MR. K. PARSONS:

Go ahead, yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) come back to it.

Is the

plan, Minister, to continue the $22 million again next year? Because I think it

was a three-year plan.

MR. JOYCE:

It is a three-year plan, but

I don't want to prejudge what's going to happen in next year's budget. But I

know this year that it is, and then we have to look at next year's budget. I

have all intents to put my case forward for the municipalities of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I can't

prejudge Cabinet's decision, but it is going ahead next year. I will be putting

forth the need for it, but I can't prejudge what the Cabinet decision is going

to be.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, one of my first

questions I asked starting off the night was about special assistance and how

important it is to municipalities when a special need comes. Most of them are

things that come on municipalities, whether it be a waterline break or a need in

the communities, stuff like that.

Last

year, it was $4.3 million. This year it's reduced to $3.43 million. We even

spent more money last year it looks like than what was actually budgeted.

There's a huge reduction there, almost $1 million. Is that going to be less

money to the municipalities?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The increase for last year's, to deal with that one first, was we transferred in

funds for two things. One would be the relocation in Round Harbour. So as the

minister said earlier, you find the funds when the process has concluded. The

Round Harbour process concluded in the last fiscal year and that payout was done

through special assistance.

The

other piece was the government had committed to assist Labrador City with

municipal infrastructure connecting to the new college and the new hospital in

Lab West. That funding was paid out through special assistance as well.

terms of '16-'17, the biggest decrease you see there is the funding that the

province was providing to Wabush. So it was elevated because of Wabush.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There was also a base funding reduction taken, I think, in

Budget 2015 of about $238,000, along

with the Wabush decline. So that's why it looks like

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Minister, the recent fire out in Bay de Verde, I know you were out with the

Premier and the Member and the minister in the area; is this where some of the

allocation of funding will go to help any community that's in need, like they

are?

MR. JOYCE:

In actual fact, there hasn't

been any request come in yet but if there is any, it would go through the CEEP.

There may be some additional funding. For example, I know some fire departments

lost fire hoses and nozzles in that area. If the request comes in and it's too

large, it would go under that emergency funding.

I know

there are a few other smaller requests because of the fire. In consultations

with the Fire and Emergency Services, they were told to check with the insurance

first because they were fighting the fires right on the wharf and the buildings

came over and if there is no funding there from insurance, then they can apply

under emergency funding, or they can also apply to Fire and Emergency Services

under the normal grants for fire departments.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know that there are

homeowners and people in the area that didn't have insurance. I spoke to one

this weekend actually and his concern was there's a lot of soot around his

property and what could be done to clean up the mess that's there, basically. He

wasn't sure what would be available, who he'd check with and where it would come

from. With no insurance on his property, it's a real dilemma.

MR. JOYCE:

In that case now I'm no

lawyer, I don't profess to be a lot of times if there's a fire through the

fish plant that caused damage to others, the fish plant's insurance may cover

it.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's what I figured.

MR. JOYCE:

So my suggestion is to check

with the company themselves. For example, I'm sure there's insurance there if

there was someone's vehicle on the property, that would be covered. I'm just

saying that's where I would go to try to get that done.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's what I told him.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Anyway, I want to go to line

4.1.05, Community Enhancement. Again, there's a huge difference in the Salaries,

what was budgeted, what was revised and what is there this year. Again, is this

to do with vacancies? It's a huge amount.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There have been some, again, long-standing vacancies in that division. So the

staffing here has gone from 10 to five; three of those were positions that were

actually unfunded, just extra positions on the books. We converted a clerk

position to a seasonal position. CEEP varies during times of the year in terms

of the busy times, so we converted one position to a seasonal position. We

abolished a vacant position that was funded and we will also be restructuring

this division to fall under a different director in the department.

As I

said earlier, there was one incumbent here who was affected but he has accepted

another position in the department.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you.

The

Grants and Subsidies line, I'm just looking at this, there's a decrease can

you explain why the decrease of $1 million in what was budgeted and what's

revised?

MR. JOYCE:

In the initial one, it was

the budget one for 2015-2016, and the revised was $5,500 and it was last year

that there was actually a reduction made into it. So we're just following

through with the reduction that was made from the last fiscal year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Let's

go to the Provincial Gas Tax Revenue Sharing. I'm glad to see the government's

committed this is for our Community Sustainability Partnership, I guess. I

have to say again that I'm pleased to see this is in place in that the Grants

and Subsidies have been increased. I guess that's the reason why the increase

because of the sustainability plan that was put in place last year, on the

Grants and Subsidies line?

MR. CHIPPETT:

That's correct. You might recall that it was a three-year the percentage of

the revenue that would be shared would go actually from 0.5 to 0.75 to 1 per

cent. So this year we're getting into the 0.75 per cent year. So that's why that

has gone up in the Grants and Subsidies line.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Just a

question on that municipalities, so this is a three-year program, right? It's

three years, this program. So when the gas tax money comes out towns use it

for different needs in the communities, whether it's to pave a road with dust on

it or whatever. So they can avail of the full three years in the first year, or

do they have to wait the three years before they can avail of the total funding?

MS. TIZZARD:

This is allocated on an annual basis, twice per year, very similar to Municipal

Operating Grants. So it's allocated that way and municipalities can use the

money however they wish.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Just

another question now with the increase in gas tax, it's gone up by 16.5 cents

again, what effect does this have on the monies there? Our taxes are going up on

the gas, 16.5 cents; will this have any effect on the money that's going to be

available from the gas tax?

MS. TIZZARD:

This shouldn't have an impact, because it's done on cents per litre, so it's

half a cent per litre and 0.75 cents per litre.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MS. TIZZARD:

So unless there's a change in volumes, a change in volumes would affect it. But

the change in the tax won't.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you very much.

Let's

go to

section 4.2 no, I am gone to 4.2 now and that is different. Is that the

last one in this one?

CHAIR:

It's under the same

subheading, yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, we are good

infrastructure.

The

Salaries, I guess again it's the same. I won't even ask that because it is the

same question there. Basica