Resource Committee — Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture — 6 October 2020

2020-10-06

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY First Session Forty-Ninth General Assembly Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Resources October 6, 2020 - Issue 6 Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Assembly Honourable Scott Reid, MHA

RESOURCE COMMITTEE Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture Chair: Christopher Mitchelmore, MHA Vice-Chair: Jordan Brown, MHA Members: Paul Dinn, MHA Carol Anne Haley, MHA Pam Parsons, MHA Chris Tibbs, MHA Perry Trimper, MHA Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA Clerk of the Committee: Kimberley Hammond Appearing: Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture Hon.

Elvis Loveless, MHA, Minister Stephen Balsom, Assistant Deputy Minister, Forestry & Wildlife Tracy King, Deputy Minister Keith Deering, Assistant Deputy Minister, Agriculture & Lands Philip Ivimey, Departmental Controller Katie Norman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Enforcement & Resource Services Lorelei Roberts-Loder, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture John Tompkins, Director of Communications Also Present Hon.

Derek Bennett, MHA, Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities James Dinn, MHA Pleaman Forsey, MHA Paul Lane, MHA Kevin Parsons, MHA Laurie Bonia, Researcher, Official Opposition Office Scott Fleming, Researcher, Third Party Office Susan Walsh, Researcher, Third Party Office

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 254 Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derek Bennett, MHA for Lewisporte - Twillingate, substitutes for Carol Anne Haley, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank. Pursuant to Standing Order 68, James Dinn, MHA for St. John’s Centre, substitutes for Jordan Brown, MHA for Labrador West. Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits, substitutes for Paul Dinn, MHA for Topsail - Paradise. Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis, substitutes for Chris Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. The Committee met at 6 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Mitchelmore): I would like to welcome everyone to the Estimates for Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, as Chair of the Committee, Christopher Mitchelmore, the MHA for St. Barbe - L’Anse aux Meadows. We will start our meeting by asking the minister and his team to introduce themselves, and please wait until the light comes on before speaking. Throughout the Committee meeting, if the light is not coming on, you may have to wave for Broadcast so that they can identify. We will do the best we can to make sure that it’s a very smooth process. With that, I’ll ask the minister to begin introductions. MR.

LOVELESS: Okay. It’s Elvis Loveless, MHA for the beautiful District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. MS. KING: Tracy King, Deputy Minister. MR. IVIMEY: Philip Ivimey, Departmental Controller. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Lorelei Roberts- Loder, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture. MR. BALSOM: Steve Balsom, Assistant Deputy Minister, Forestry and Wildlife Branch. MR. DEERING: Keith Deering, Assistant Deputy Minister, Agriculture and Lands Branch. MS. NORMAN: Katie Norman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Enforcement and Resource Services Branch. MR. TOMPKINS: John Tompkins, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: Now we’ll – MR. K. PARSONS: Kevin Parsons from the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. MR. FORSEY: Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits. CHAIR: Your light didn’t come on there. We’ll just wait for Mr. Forsey’s light. He’s sitting in Mr. Brazil’s – MR. FORSEY: Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits. MS. WALSH: Susan Walsh, Researcher. MR. J. DINN: Jim Dinn, from the even more beautiful District of St. John’s Centre. MR. LANE: Paul Lane, MHA for the thriving metropolis of Mount Pearl - Southlands. MS. P. PARSONS: Pam Parsons, for the historic fishing and strong District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave. MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH: Sherry Gambin- Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary’s. MR. BENNETT: Derek Bennett, MHA for the beautiful, scenic and historic District of Lewisporte - Twillingate. MR. TRIMPER: Perry Trimper for all 100,000 square kilometres of Lake Melville. CHAIR: I think we also have a staff person with the Official Opposition, who would be sitting in –

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 255 MS. BONIA: Laurie Bonia, Researcher with the Official Opposition Office. CHAIR: With the NDP there’s a staff person as well. MR. FLEMING: Scott Fleming, Researcher, Third Party. CHAIR: Great. Now that we have done the introductions, I would just like to remind all participants of the Committee meeting that if you’re moving about the Chamber for any purpose to ensure that you are wearing a mask, if you need to get up to use the facilities, or take a phone call or step out for any reason. We will have a break typically halfway through the Estimates for 10 minutes.

I’m going to now turn matters over to Minister Loveless and his officials, to the Committee, to have an opportunity to give an overview or introduction for 15 minutes. I’ll ask the Clerk to call the heading. CLERK (Hammond): 1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive. CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive carry? I’ll ask the minister now to bring opening remarks. MR. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For me, I’ve been in many Estimates meetings, but this is the first as minister. It’s a privilege and I’m proud to be here.

I just wanted to say this department is the same department, but with a different name, and that’s Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. Just to note that we no longer are responsible for protected areas. That’s the only change in the department. I know I only have a few behind me, but there’s more to the department than what is behind me – 621 people, actually. I just want to thank those that are with me tonight. I don’t think we can thank them enough. I wouldn’t be able to function or the department wouldn’t be able to function without them.

COVID-19, we all know, has challenged all of us, and I guess it’s no different in this department. They faced that challenge, but I believe they have done a good job. I thank them and I thank all of you for participating tonight. Without further ado, I’ll let the proceedings begin. CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I will hand matters over to Mr. Parsons. MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much and thank you, Minister. First of all, Minister, I’m wondering if we can get a copy of your binder. MR. LOVELESS: Yes, you certainly can. I have it here.

And any other information that you’re looking for, we will certainly get it for you at a further date. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Is the attrition plan still being followed in your department? If so, what changes from last year to this year? MR. LOVELESS: I’ll ask my deputy. MS. KING: The attrition plan is still being followed for this year. For this year, that represents $173,652. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I noticed, Minister, you said that there was 621 staff now in the department. As I remember, I think that was a little bit higher last year.

Can you give me a breakdown of the permanent, seasonal, temporary and contractual employees in the department? MR. LOVELESS: Yes, I certainly can. Of the 621, we have 438 that are permanent, 113 are seasonal, 64 are temporary and we have six contractual. In ’19-’20 we have 15 retirements. I don’t know if there’s any other number that (inaudible). MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 256 Were any of those retirements filled this year? MS. KING: Some of them (inaudible). MR. K. PARSONS: Some have, okay. Were there any layoffs in the department since last year? CHAIR: Just asking, for the purpose of Hansard, to identify yourself. MS. KING: Oh yeah, sorry. I’ll get back into the swing. No, there were no layoffs this year other than the usual seasonal layoffs that we would have. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. How about new hires, any new hires in the department? MS. KING: No new positions were created, but of course we have competitions always ongoing. MR. K.

PARSONS: Okay. Are there any vacancies now in the department and what is the department doing to refill them? MS. KING: Yeah, there are 74 vacancies in the department right now and 39 active competitions. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. As we know, we’re going through COVID, so what has your department done and has it impacted anything on your budget and your departmental spending? MS. KING: COVID has been a big change, I guess, within the department. It’s changed a lot of the operations front line, of course. Changing from front-line service delivery to online or appointment by phone.

But as well, the department has also really stepped up and we’re really proud of the work that we have been doing to support the point-of-entry process. It’s our fisheries field representatives and some of our resource enforcement officers that have been attending to the points of entry at Port aux Basques and Lab City, and as well in Southern Labrador when that border point was active. So that’s been certainly a change in our business. MR. K. PARSONS: What effect has that had on the service delivery and the impact it had on programs in your department? MS.

KING: We have done, I think, well overall, maintaining our service delivery and certainly we’ve seen that by moving more to on the phone. In fact, in some areas – I’m thinking about domestic woodcutting permits and some of the Crown Lands activities – we have actually found some efficiencies through that. Obviously, dealing with COVID and making sure everyone is safe and doing their work safely has been a challenge, but I think we’ve done really well overall. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Has your department received any monies from the COVID fund and for what purposes? MR.

LOVELESS: Just to reference the financial breakdown, I can provide this if you wish. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, yeah. MR. LOVELESS: That’s for the economic recovery initiative in the department. The total investment was $28.7 million. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. MR. LOVELESS: That’s under, well, the agriculture, the aquaculture and the forestry. MR. K. PARSONS: Has your department received any money from the contingency fund? MR. LOVELESS: This is what I have in front of me here now. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Now, I have a couple of questions.

Actually, last year I understand that the deputy minister’s office was located in Corner Brook. Is that …?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 257 MS. KING: The headquarters has always been in St. John’s, but as deputy ministers we split time between St. John’s and Corner Brook. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Are we accommodating people that are going to Corner Brook? How is that handled with the department? MS. KING: We have leased accommodations in Corner Brook for the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister of Enforcement and Resource Services. This year, given the change in deputy and our personal circumstances, is a bit different. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

Your Corner Brook office, it’s a fairly new office that you have located over there. Is there a need to do more renovations or is there a possibility that that office could be moved? MS. KING: I will let the minister address the moving part, but I will just say the only renovations that we’ve done are COVID related to ensure that plexiglass and those types of things are there. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. MR. LOVELESS: We’re not moving it to Torbay. MR. K. PARSONS: No. MR. LOVELESS: No, at this time, there has been no discussion – not with me – around any relocation of any offices. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

No, I’m talking about a move in another office building, probably, in Corner Brook. I hope you’re not going to move it again. I don’t want to see that. MR. LOVELESS: No, again, I haven’t been privy to any conversations on that. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, no problem. We’re going to get into some of the line stuff now. If you turn to the first page, Minister, it’s your statement there of the department. I just have a question on the Program Funding

Summary. Under Fisheries and Aquaculture, I see $5 million as capital. Can you explain what that is? MR. LOVELESS: Where are you? MR. K. PARSONS: On the very first page. MS. KING: (Inaudible.) MR. LOVELESS: Oh here, okay. The very first page. I skipped over, sorry. That’s the $5 million allocated for the Grieg. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, I thought that’s what it was for. MR. LOVELESS: The Grieg project. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, let’s get in to 1.1.01. Under the Salaries, can you explain the variance? MR. LOVELESS: The actuals compared to the budget, you mean? MR. K.

PARSONS: Yes, and also there’s an increase from budget to what we’re going to have this year, too. What was budgeted, the actuals. There’s a variance there and I’m just wondering what the variance is. MR. LOVELESS: Yes, the variance was for the minister’s executive assistant, which was vacant for a while. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. MR. LOVELESS: For I don’t know how many months of the year, but it was vacant and that’s why the number is lower there. There’s a salary adjustment required for ’20-’21. We have 27 pay periods this year, versus 26. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. All right.

Under Transportation and Communications, could you explain the variance there, too, please?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 258 MR. LOVELESS: That was due to lower than anticipated travel expenditures during the year. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Now, I do have a question and it’s a question that maybe I’m going to ask three or four times on Transportation and Communications. Under the circumstances we find ourselves in now, we all know that there’s going to be a lot of less travel. I mean, there are no conferences; there’s no nothing. Is there any adjustment for what’s happening to the departments?

I don’t know if this was a question that was asked in other Estimates, but it kind of struck me that under the circumstance we find ourselves in, there’s going to be a lot less travel and a lot less communications needed for different conferences and whatnot. So I’m just wondering. MR. LOVELESS: Yes, to speak to that, I understand what you’re saying, but for me as minister and even the deputy or the ADMs, we do have a responsibility for the office in Corner Brook and there will be travel there. But to tell you that there would be a lot, lot less, I don’t know.

Based on the challenges with COVID, you would think, yes, there will be less travel, because Zoom has become a reality of our lives. If I can do it to be more efficient, then I certainly will as a minister. There’s no doubt about that. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. All right. I’m going to go to

section 1.2.01. Again, the difference in the Salaries: Almost $200,000 more spent than was budgeted last year and there’s a reduction this year. Can you explain it? MR. LOVELESS: Yes, the former deputy minister retired, so the severance and leave entitlements were associated with that. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Again, we go to Transportation and Communications here, and it’s exactly how I explained it the time before. It’s a different variance, but there’s a reduction this year. Why is there a reduction? MR.

LOVELESS: I guess I could repeat my answer before, in terms of lower than anticipated travel expenditures during the year. But if the deputy wanted to add to that, she certainly can. MS. KING: The reduction here really relates to your question at the beginning around accommodations in Corner Brook. You see the reduction here related to travel and then you’ll see an increase in Purchased Services. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. That’s my next question. MS. KING: Yes. MR. K. PARSONS: What’s included in that and why is there an increase in the Purchased Services? MS.

KING: Yes, the increase in Purchased Services really relates to leased accommodations in Corner Brook. That’s not picked up in the travel line; that’s picked up down here to account properly for that. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Last year’s budget only showed $10,000. What’s the reason for such an increase? MS. KING: The travel budget, it’s the exact same total; it’s just that the expenses are allocated a bit differently. The circumstances of the previous deputy were that she had private accommodations in Corner Brook, so that would be on the travel line;

whereas I don’t, so some of that is picked up in Purchased Services instead. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. What

section are we going to next? CHAIR: You go as far as 1.2.02. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Under this

section here, it’s a little bit interesting. This was a placeholder the last couple of years and I think it was for the purchase of a boat. I don’t know if the funding that was announced this summer or is this related –

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 259 MR. LOVELESS: Are you referring to 1.2.02? MR. K. PARSONS: 1.2.02, yes. MR. LOVELESS: Yes. I’ll defer that to … MS. KING: This account, as you note, is a placeholder account. But, Minister, if you want to take the opportunity, in the COVID funding there is funding for the vessel for Aquaculture. I’m assuming that’s what you’re talking about. MR. K. PARSONS: Yes, we’ll have questions on that later, too. MS. KING: Yes. But that’s just to (inaudible) so we’ll see that this year. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, that’s it for that section. CHAIR: Mr. Dinn. MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Just some general questions, to start off. Overall, what initiatives are being undertaken to combat invasive species that negatively affect our fisheries, in particular green crab and surf clams? MR. LOVELESS: Are you referring directly to green crab? MR. J. DINN: Green crab, yes. MR. LOVELESS: I know DFO has initiatives in terms of fishermen, I guess, tackling, if that’s the word, the green crab species; but right now I don’t have a plan that I can say to you: This is what we’re going to do tackle the problem. It certainly is a problem that I’ve had discussions with to date. I’m still fairly new, August 20.

Even before becoming minister, I certainly chatted with the harvesters and the concerned fishermen in my district as well. I’ll ask the ADM responsible if she wishes to add to that. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: DFO does have an active committee on aquatic invasive species, and green crab is one of them. There are others. We do participate as a province on a federal- provincial working group to discuss strategies to address green crab. In terms of work that’s ongoing in our province, we do fund some projects, or we have funded some projects out of our Sustainable Fisheries and Oceans Policy Division for green crab. MR. J.

DINN: If I may follow up on that, I know, as a listener to The Broadcast, there was some discussion – I think it was last year or the year before – about a commercial fishery related to the green crab and there were some experimental or sentinel – I don’t know what you want to call it – project. Is there any attempt to pursue some sort of a green-crab fishery with this? Apparently they are edible. If I remember the comments from the fish harvesters, there didn’t seem to be a willingness at the government level to pursue this.

Yet I know they’re a pretty invasive species; they’re moving pretty quickly out of Placentia Bay. I’m just wondering what the update is on that. MR. LOVELESS: To your question, again, I’ve had discussions around it. As the assistant deputy minister alluded, there are concerns for it. Anyway, I’ll ask the ADM to comment further on it. She’s more up to date on it than what I am. MR. J. DINN: Before, if I may, Chair, I’m just wondering is there a potential to turn this into some sort of a commercial fish harvesting industry. That’s where I’m going with it. And kill two birds with one stone, more or less. MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of a green- crab fishery, DFO is responsible for, of course, issuing licences and they would determine whether or not there would be a green-crab fishery going ahead. With regard to green crab, it is a very invasive species. It’s a possibility that it can travel in the water.

In terms of looking at it from a commercial standpoint, right now the direction that DFO is giving is essentially that the crab is destroyed and it’s destroyed fully, because these species, apparently, can survive quite a bit and they can do quite considerable damage to the ecosystem for a fishery, particularly where the cod is spawning in the eelgrass and other things.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 260 As of right now, DFO has not shown an interest in moving into green crab from looking at issuing commercial licensing. It’s more around the experimental so that they can study the habitat and basically how we might be able to address them from an aquatic invasive species. MR. J. DINN: Yes, I hear they’re quite aggressive compared to others. MS. KING: They are indeed. MR. J. DINN: Okay. With regard to, just an update on the sale of Quinlan Brothers to Royal Greenland.

I guess that’s one of the things that have been brought to a number of fish harvesters including representatives of the FFAW contact. Where are we going with this? There’s certainly a concern here that the monopolization of the fishery by or the concentration hands of a few, can have detrimental impacts on competition for fish harvesters and those who depend on the fishery. MR. LOVELESS: In terms of the transfer, I’ve signed off on it. There’s no going back. I’ve heard the concerns from the Member opposite and your concerns now.

When the decision was made, just to go to the process, I guess, there was a four- to five-month process where the board welcomed objections from whomever. There were no objections. That was what was presented to me in terms of the recommendation from the board: There were no objections, other than one, referring to the St. Anthony. As I said in media, I believe this is a good transfer that will result in jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I’ve recently met with officials of Royal Greenland and I have to say I’m encouraged by that and I’m encouraged by what they had to say in that meeting.

I understand it in terms of foreign investment concern, but I think I make a statement that: Where would we be without foreign investment? The concerns as were asked, I guess, to me by Reg Anstey and the board that moving forward the foreign investment should be part of a conversation piece, maybe under the umbrella of a policy, and I said: Absolutely it will be. I don’t know if that helps you. MR. J. DINN: Okay.

There’s certainly a concern that you concentrate the processing in the hands of a few, especially those who don’t have real ties to the province – they’re not locally homegrown, I guess, for lack of a better description – that it puts the fish harvesters and our plant workers at a bit of a disadvantage. I know we’ve heard similar issues raised here and in the media, but that’s where my concern is. Is there an opportunity to review this deal down the road, or is it done now for all eternity? MR. LOVELESS: There is no going back in terms of a review. MR. J. DINN: Okay.

I’ll probably have to come back to this, but this has to do with the merging of conservation enforcement officers and Wildlife. I’m just wondering what’s driving that. You’re merging the two divisions. You have your enforcement or conservation officers and the forestry officers. What is driving this and what will be the cost associated with it? MR. LOVELESS: Well, it’s moving forward. The plan is certainly moving forward. We believe, certainly always with conservation in mind, that this will enhance those that are providing that service, and it certainly will enhance their duties and responsibilities.

To give an update on where that is, I’ll ask the ADM responsible for … MS. NORMAN: The rationale behind the restructuring is to provide greater scope to the officers that are currently active in our backcountry. Prior to the merger, which we are actively in the middle of right now, some officers had a responsibility for forestry matters, while others had a responsibility for fish and wildlife enforcement matters, to generally describe it. With the merger, the same number of officers will be employed, but they will have enhanced designations.

When they’re coming across issues of non-compliance with our environmental regulations, they will be able to take action

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 261 across a variety of different mandates: everything from illegal occupation under Crown Lands, animal health and protection, wildlife matters, inland fish matters under the federal Fisheries Act and matters related to ATV and snowmobile, just as a high-level example. In terms of the cost, the operating budget you’ll see here today reflects current status and not the merger. The anticipation is that the funding associated with the 44 conservation officers moving from Forestry Regional Services will simply transfer into the division.

There will be some upfront training costs and uniform costs associated with that. The average cost of outfitting a uniformed officer is about $12,000, but many of those officers are already coming with duty belts and some of the more expensive personal flotation devices, things of that nature, that they already have. We don’t have a final total on that now because it will depend on what those officers have and what state of repair it’s in. But certainly, once it’s complete, we could release the details of the cost. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Dinn; your time has expired. Mr. Parsons, do you have further questions? MR.

K. PARSONS: I just have one question. I was going to ask it at the end. The Royal Greenland topic was brought up. Minister, I’m wondering if you are aware if there are any controlling agreements with the companies that are involved. MR. LOVELESS: All I’m going to say to that is if there are any controlling agreements, bring them to us. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Was there an investigation done or anything to check and see whether there are controlling agreements there? MR. LOVELESS: That was my same response to FFAW as well, in terms of controlling agreements. So that’s all I’m going to say to that right now. MR. K.

PARSONS: Okay, all right. That’s it for that section. CHAIR: Mr. Dinn. MR. J. DINN: Thank you. I just want to follow up on the merger of conservation and forestry. How many people are we talking about altogether? You may have mentioned that, I didn’t get it though. How many people are we talking about when we bring the two – the total number of forestry officers and conservation officers? MR. LOVELESS: Are you referring to the numbers for the whole department or for the reorganization? MR. J. DINN: Just the merger.

I guess they’re looking at the people who were out in the – I think those who are out in the field, those who are responsible for enforcing it. Actually, both divisions. The total number of people and also the number of officers who are actually – who I’m going to meet out, I guess, on the river or the backcountry or whatever. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. Well, without not giving you the accurate number, I’ll ask the ADM to give us that number, please. MS. NORMAN: Currently we have 47 fish and wildlife enforcement officers and post reorganization there will be 91, so there will be 44 additional.

In terms of headquarters positions, there would be, I believe, nine additional, but we could confirm that. So just about 100 people will be in the division post reorganization. MR. J. DINN: Okay. I understand, too, then that one key difference, not in the training, is that the conservation officers also – or enforcement officers carry side arms and I understand forestry do not. Would that be correct? MS. NORMAN: Yes, that’s accurate. MR. J. DINN: So we’re looking at purchasing side arms for another, would that be correct, 44 people at least?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 262 MS. NORMAN: Yes, the department has within its custody additional side arms for those employees, so that’s not a cost that will have to be incurred this year. MR. J. DINN: And the training that goes with that? MS. NORMAN: That’s correct, yes. All officers will be trained prior to being issued a side arm. MR. J. DINN: And that training would be carried out by your department? MS. NORMAN: Yes, that’s accurate. We have in-house trainers who will complete basic pistol training. MR. J. DINN: Okay.

What I’m looking for, then, at the end is the total cost of doing this, when you have those numbers, please. Because there are going to be, I guess, significant costs in terms of letterhead, uniforms and so on and so forth. So when the final cost is available, if that could be shared, please. If I understand what you’re saying, this is simply to increase the capacity of the enforcement division so that officers will be able to do multiple – they will be able to act on anything in terms of resource or forest management. MS. NORMAN: Yes.

I mean, just to give a simple example: If officers are in the backcountry and they come across somebody and they’re checking whether or not they have a big game licence, they may also have recently illegally cut some wood. At this time, that would actually be two separate officers that would have to address those illegal issues. Now it will be one officer who can deal with both illegal woodcutting and also poaching. MR. J.

DINN: Is there a plan, then, somewhere down the road, some sort of attrition – now that you have the departments combined – to eventually reduce the number of people employed in these divisions? Is this the first step towards actually reducing the total number of people who are actually out in the field? MR. LOVELESS: No, that’s not in the plan. MR. J. DINN: Okay. CHAIR: Mr. Dinn, just for the purpose of the Committee and the flow of sections, I know the minister has given a lot of latitude to your line of questioning, but they could be dealt with the specific Estimates.

Just for the flow of the Committee and (inaudible) – MR. J. DINN: No, that’s fair enough. That just means I won’t be asking them at that time, as well. I’ll come back to that I’m assuming at some point, either at the end or whatever, but I understand. I’m still looking at the cost. I’m just trying to get an idea of the cost here. CHAIR: Absolutely. I’m just asking for the flow of the Committee if we could stick to the line-by-line items of 1.1.01 to 1.2.02, which is the Minister’s Office. MR. J. DINN: Well then I’ll certainly come back to that, Chair. Thank you for your guidance.

Okay, on to 1.1, I think some of those questions then – that’s the other reason, Chair. My colleague to the left has asked most of the questions I wanted to ask. But I’m looking at 1.1.01, Minister’s Office, and I’m just wondering there with regard to the travel, the question was asked: Will there be a lot less travel? I’m wondering, too, certainly with the pandemic, but leading up to that, has there been a greater reliance on technology for meetings?

Zoom is what we all know now, but I’m just thinking over the years and considering that you have an office out in Corner Brook, is there a greater reliance on technology for meetings, or is it still basically travel based? MR. LOVELESS: Well, since I’ve been – MR. J. DINN: I know you’re new to this. MR. LOVELESS: Yes. I’ve done very little travel. It’s been all Zoom and telephone calls in terms of meetings and whatnot. I think it speaks to the reality of COVID. We’ve all come to realize that you can do it by Zoom as well as travelling to that point.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 263 But, again, back to the necessity for the deputy ministers and staff, going to Corner Brook is a necessity. So there will be travel, although we’re faced by COVID or the challenge of COVID, I should say. MR. J. DINN: Thank you. One last question here in this section. You said protected areas are not part of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. Where would that have been accounted for then in this part of the line by line? Would it have been in the Executive Support or somewhere else? MS.

KING: It comes under Agriculture and Lands for this year and then in the next budget it will move to Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities. MR. J. DINN: Okay, I’ll come to that at that time. Thank you. I think, Chair, that’s it right now for that section. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dinn. Members who aren’t part of the Committee or official substitutes can attend a meeting but can only ask questions if they are given leave. Mr. Lane has attended meetings and has asked questions. I don’t know, Mr. Lane, if you have questions.

If you would like to ask questions, we would have to ask for leave by Members here of the Committee. MR. LANE: Yes, I wouldn’t have line-by-line questions and so on, so everyone can go ahead. But at the end of each section, with the leave of my colleagues, I might have a question or two. That’s what I’ve been doing. CHAIR: Is leave okay for Mr. Lane? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.) CHAIR: Leave has been granted. Mr. Lane, do you have any questions at the end of this section. MR. LANE: The only question I have in this particular

section – and it’s kind of been covered by my colleagues about the COVID. But in addition to travel, I think in one of the answers we talked about woodcutting permits and different things, doing it over the phone and all this kind of thing. I’ve been at every Estimates and I ask it at every one of them. I think that these are things that we need to be doing permanently if it can be done and can still be done efficiently to save money, which we desperately need to do.

I don’t know if there’s any commentary as to the types of services and the types of expenditures that have been curtailed as a result of COVID, whether it be the use of Zoom for meetings, travel. I understand, Minister, you and the deputy minister have to do some travel. But I’m talking about across-the-board utilization of Zoom, utilization of online, telephone, other things and maybe people working from home to save office space. Things that can be done to save money overall, beyond COVID-19. MR. LOVELESS: Well, I’ve been to a couple of Estimates and you’ve asked the same question. It’s a good question.

There’s no doubt it. Efficiency is a very nice word and all departments are certainly looking at it. Again, Zoom is a reality and COVID-19 has brought about a lot of realities for departments. So this department is no different in terms of looking at that and if efficiencies can be had and we can do it. It’s certainly a part of our conversations in this department. MR. LANE: Okay, thank you. I have a couple of questions around the fishery, but I think that will be in the next section. So that’s it for me for now. Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Lane. Any further questions from Committee Members?

I’ll ask the Clerk.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 264 CLERK: 1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive. CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive carry? All those in favour, ‘aye.’ SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’ Carried. On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.02 carried. CLERK: 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive. CHAIR: 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive. Mr. Parsons. MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much. I’m going to go to the line by line first. There’s a difference there in the variance in the Salaries, can you give us an explanation of that? MR. LOVELESS: That variance is due to vacancies that will happen during the year. MR. K.

PARSONS: Okay. We’re going to go to Transportation and Communications and, again, it’s similar to what we talked about earlier. I would like to have an explanation, too, please, on that. MR. LOVELESS: I can’t give you really any different answer. MR. K. PARSONS: No, no, okay. I have to have it because I don’t like the way it’s going because I understand we’re going to be in the same situation for the rest of this year and why we’re budgeting more money than what’s actually going to be used, because we only used $54,000 and we’re budgeting close to what was budgeted last year.

It’s different when we’re talking the Minister’s Office where the deputy minister and the minister has to move back and forth, but it’s a bit of a difference. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. I’m hoping I can add a little bit to it for you. It was lower than anticipated travel expenditures, but to move forward with the budget I guess it’s – I don’t know what it will be this year, but based on the budget from last year it is lower for ’20-’21. I don’t know if anyone behind me wants to add to that. MS. KING: Just to add a little bit, particularly to last year’s travel.

I think last year was a bit of a different year, from an FPT point of view, just because there was a federal election and we had our own in the last fiscal year, so those caused unanticipated delays as well. In here would be some of our funding for staff to attend some of the trade shows and things that we would have seen late in the year, late in the last quarter as some things start to come down. So that would be explained here.

Frankly, as we head into the current year, it was really difficult for us to plan or know exactly what would be a safe amount or how quickly, when we were making some of these decisions, we might come out of where we were. So I think as we head into ’21-’22 it will be a bit of a different conversation now that we have a bit more under our belt. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. On the next line, Supplies, there’s a reduction. Can you explain the actual spending that’s getting done on this line? MR. LOVELESS: (Inaudible) Supplies? MR. K.

PARSONS: Under Supplies, we only spent $9,000 and we budgeted $24,000, but it’s gone back to $24,000. What was the reduction in Supplies? MR. LOVELESS: That was for subscription costs for some of the seafood information and news services, so they were lower than we anticipated. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Under Professional Services, what’s included and explain the increase in spending last year and the reduction this year?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 265 MR. LOVELESS: To explain the $147,000, it was due to slightly higher than anticipated Professional Services expenditures for research and market intelligence. If there is anyone who wants to add to that, by all means. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the cost for that particular category, the market services or the intelligence that’s provided, it’s provided to the Fish Price-Setting Panel.

Because of COVID and because of the unknowns in the fishery for this year, there was an added cost because we required more frequent intelligence information to be able to provide to the Fish Price-Setting Panel, as is our obligation. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. On the next line, Purchased Services, again, what’s included and an explanation of the variance, please? MR. LOVELESS: The variance, again, was due to lower than anticipated expenditures associated with trade shows and booth fees. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Then under Grants and Subsidies: Can you give us an explanation of what the funding

section is here and what they’re for? MR. LOVELESS: They’re for the Seafood Development Program, and I can ask the ADM responsible to expand on that if you wish. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: The Seafood Development Program supports the fisheries and aquaculture industry for marketing and industry development. It’s a program that allows us to address projects, for example, that wouldn’t be captured under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund or other pots of funding that we would have. That particular amount is fully subscribed, it was fully subscribed in this past year and it is a provincial program. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

In this section, under the Fisheries section, this includes agriculture also. How is that broken down? Because you have the fisheries and you have agriculture in the one. MR. LOVELESS: How’s it broken down in terms of aquaculture? MR. K. PARSONS: In terms of expenditures, basically. Was it a percentage or …? We’re talking marketing. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: We actually have one marketing and development officer that’s responsible for agriculture under this particular division. The expenses would be for whatever work and supplies and things that are being carried out in the agriculture field as well. MR. K.

PARSONS: Okay. Can you give us an update on what the Fisheries Advisory board is doing and what they have done? MR. LOVELESS: The Fisheries Advisory board right now is, I guess from my perspective, very important and one that’s certainly in my mandate letter. Right now the chair of the advisory is going through, I guess, the Independent Appointments Commission process. So we’re anxious for that to be filled and certainly look forward to when those meetings will begin and participating with them. MS. P. PARSONS: Okay. Did they meet last year? No? MR. LOVELESS: When you say last year? MR. K.

PARSONS: In the last budget year, has the Fisheries Advisory board met? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: The last meeting of the Fisheries Advisory Council was on March 29, 2019, and the chair resigned on June 28, 2019, and it wasn’t filled since that point. So it’s going through the Independent Appointments. MR. K. PARSONS: How much money has been spent on the Fisheries Advisory board in the last budget year? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the money that was spent, there really hasn’t been any amount of money spent. There was

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 266 $100,000 that was allotted for the Fisheries Advisory Council, and you will note that that’s no longer in our budget this year because the time (inaudible) ended for that amount. But it can be covered under our regular costs. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. CHAIR: Minister. MR. LOVELESS: Just to add to that, the funding for the council before was a three-year commitment of $100,000 per fiscal year. That ended on March 31. The support for the council will continue under departmental existing funds. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

Can you give me an update on what’s happened with that cod revitalization plan, the strategic plan that’s happened for the cod revitalization? MR. LOVELESS: I’m going to defer that one to Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: The cod revitalization plan would be part of the work that’s under the Fisheries Advisory Council. That would be included in the work as we’re ongoing this coming year. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I’m going to go to

section 2.1.02. Again, there’s a big increase in this year’s amount for Salaries. Are there new staff hired here? MR. LOVELESS: That variance is due to additional aquaculture inspectors and additional fisheries field reps budgeted for ’20-’21. So there are new positions. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. You’re lucky this time; I’m not going to ask you the Transportation and Communications question. Professional Services: What’s included and can you explain the increase from last year? That actually happened? MR.

LOVELESS: Yes, that was due to a higher number of meetings by the Fish Processing Licensing Board during the year, due to increased applications being received. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Did that have to do with where they had to go back to renegotiate the price again? Is that the reason with the crab? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: No, that’s a separate function. That’s the Fish Price-Setting Panel. This is the Fish Processing Licensing Board. It’s for processing licences. MR. K. PARSONS: Yes, okay. Purchased Services: What’s included here and explain the decrease in the budget line here?

You only spent $9,000, but you actually budgeted for $19,000. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. Well, the variance is due to lower than anticipated Purchased Services requirements during the fiscal year. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. CHAIR: Your time has expired, but I’m sure we can come back to you, Mr. Parsons. MR. K. PARSONS: Oh, we’ll be back again. CHAIR: We will now move to Mr. Dinn for his questioning in this section. MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Chair. Just a few things here. Under 2.1.01, Professional Services, and I know you said such as research and market intelligence.

I guess I’m looking for some more specific details as to what exactly that involves. Is there a company that we hire? Is there a service that we use? I’m just trying to get an idea. Do we send someone down to get the information? I’m just trying to get an idea of what exactly is involved. I guess it’s a such as question. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, you’re asking for more research and market intelligence, correct? MR. J. DINN: Yeah, I’m just asking what exactly are we talking about in Professional Services when you were talking about research

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 267 and market intelligence? Where do we get that from? MR. LOVELESS: Right, I’ll ask Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: We get that from multiple sources. There are a number of trade subscriptions that we have that provide us updates on market sources, as well as depending on the species that we would have to provide the intelligence on. Some of it is consultants that are experts in those particular fields. Unfortunately, I don’t have a list with me, but it’s a variety of different sources, it’s not just one source. Again, it’s in some cases species dependent. MR. J.

DINN: Would it be possible to have a list of the consultants, at least, or the sources that are used here? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: We can certainly get that for you. MR. J. DINN: Perfect. That would be the same thing with the Purchased Services. I think my colleague asked a question along those lines. Again, there’s a drop of $60,000, I think. But the Purchased Services, would that be along the same lines, or would they be something different under 2.1.01? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Under Purchased Services? MR. J. DINN: Yeah. MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: Under Purchased Services, in terms of what that category is for, that is not for market intelligence. Basically the variance was there, it was due to lower than anticipated expenditures due to trade shows and booth fees. In particular, COVID struck us right when Boston and Brussels trade shows were happening in terms of costs associated with those. MR. J. DINN: I guess that’s where I’m going, Chair. That’s basically what the Purchased Services would be for, for trade shows and marketing opportunities like that. Under 2.1.02, Transportation and Communications:

Whereas my colleague wasn’t going to ask you, I will ask just as to what exactly is involved when it comes to – is that for people involved with the licensing or is it for departmental travel? I notice there it’s dropped. It’s $87,000; it dropped significantly this year. I’m assuming that’s COVID-related. We’re budgeting $84,500 for it. I’m just wondering, when we talk about transportation, what are we talking about there? MR. LOVELESS: Again, the answer is similar to what I said before: lower than anticipated travel. Staff meetings were held via video conferences and whatnot. That’s due to the reduction.

The budgeted amount for this year, well, I guess it’s uncertain what’s going to happen in the coming year. MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Minister. That’s what I’m asking. That’s staff travel, then, mostly. That’s what that would be for, correct? MR. LOVELESS: Yes. MR. J. DINN: Okay. Thank you. That’s it for 2.1.02. May I go on, Chair? CHAIR: Yes. MR. J. DINN: 2.1.03. I think in – I’m not sure if it was in the Budget Speech, it talks about how the fund will be used to foster growth and assist processers, aquaculture specialists and aquaculture operators to expand their product lines.

I’m just wondering how will that fund be used to do that, the Atlantic Fisheries Fund. MR. LOVELESS: Sorry, say that again, if you don’t mind repeating. MR. J. DINN: I might have it here, actually. In the Budget Speech on page 14, it talks about: The fund will be more or less used to foster growth and assist processors and aquaculture operators to expand their product lines. I’m wondering how this fund will be used for those purposes.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 268 MR. LOVELESS: I’m going to refer that to Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of your question, the Atlantic Fisheries Fund actually has two parts to it. One piece funds innovative projects and partnerships, research and development, marketing science and infrastructure for harvesters, processors and the aquaculture industry. There’s a secondary process as part of it and it’s called the Canadian Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund. It’s a part of the AFF, the Atlantic Fisheries Fund. That supports pan- Canadian seafood marketing projects. It does both.

It actually supports the growth and development of the industry. MR. J. DINN: Thank you. Furthermore, why was $7 million of a projected $9.7 million awarded in Grants and Subsidies last year? I also note that $3.7 million was left on the table here in the 2018-2019 actuals. I’m just looking here; there seem to be a decrease. MR. LOVELESS: Just to speak to the AFF process, applications come in and the money goes out, but there’s a lengthy process to that. Jim, in terms of your question, I don’t know. Are you asking for a list of the AFF projects? MR. J. DINN: That would be useful as well, yes, please. MR.

LOVELESS: Yeah. Do you want me to get into that or do you want us to provide you a list? MR. J. DINN: If it’s too lengthy to get in now, providing a list would be useful. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, we’ll do that, if you don’t mind. We’ll certainly provide that. MR. J. DINN: Perfect. Again, though, looking here, certainly there’s a drop in Grants and Subsidies. I would assume then that’s just reflective of the fact that there haven’t been as many applications or many awarded. I notice that it dropped significantly in the actuals for 2019-20. It’s up a bit from the actuals but it’s still down from the $9.7 million.

I’m assuming that’s like she said, money in, money out; it’s just fewer awards or fewer people applying for grants and subsidies? MR. LOVELESS: It’s a process. I’m not going to be slow with it because I know how important it is to harvesters and others in the fishing industry, but there is a process to it. I don’t know if, Lorelei, you want to add? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: With reference to your question, I think the piece that would be helpful for you is to know that this, the Atlantic Fisheries Fund, is a seven-year program; it spans from 2017 to 2024. The total amount that the province is committed is $41.8 million.

Essentially, the way that it works is that it’s application-driven. As applications come in, the money goes out as they’re approved. There’s a whole technical review process that happens by both the province and DFO. DFO is actually the administrative lead for this particular program. In terms of the way that the funding goes in and out, overall for the whole seven years we have that commitment of $41.8 million. At any given year we could spend – so we budget a certain amount for each year. We may go under that but that’s just basically how it s budgeted. You would just carry that over to the following year. MR.

J. DINN: Then, if I may, one last quick question. Basically, you’re looking at this in the long run. In the end, the total amount will be spent but it will vary from year to year. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Yes. MR. J. DINN: Thank you. MR. LOVELESS: Just a point: Any unspent funds are carried over to the next year. MR. J. DINN: Right. So it doesn’t go on the debt, it’s still in play somewhere. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. MR. J. DINN: Okay.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 269 MR. LOVELESS: I mean, like any process, not every application gets approved. It has to be within the scope of the program. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Dinn. I move to Mr. Parsons. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, I want to get back to what Mr. Dinn was saying there with the Grants and Subsidies. Every year it seems like it’s a little bit less than what’s always allocated there, budgeted for that year. I know it’s application-driven and stuff like that. Were there not enough applications this year? I’m just wondering about the application process. Were there lots of applications in?

How many got turned down? MR. LOVELESS: You’re still on AFF, right? MR. K. PARSONS: What’s that? MR. LOVELESS: You’re on 2.1.03? MR. K. PARSONS: Yes, 2.1.03, Atlantic Fisheries Fund, Grants and Subsidies. MR. LOVELESS: I’ll defer that to … MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of AFF, the amount of the project could vary. Not every project that comes in is the same cost. In actual fact we have a number of harvesters, for example, that would be funded, but if they’re coming in as individuals, it’s probably a lower amount.

In terms of the amount, it’s not necessarily the number of projects; it’s the amount of money that the projects total. In terms of expenditure, to date in the province we’ve spent, as I said, $15 million in terms of our provincial contribution, with $35 million as the federal contribution because it’s a 30-70 split, so $50 million has been spent in total AFF contribution in the duration of the project since 2017. At this particular point in time, our province actually is leading in terms of the amount of projects that we are funding and the amount of money that we’ve funded. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

You said the provincial money spent this year was how much? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: The total, not this year. The total since the beginning of the program. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. It was how much, $21 million? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: We’ve spent $15 million in provincial contribution and $35 million is the federal contribution, for $50 million in total of AFF contribution. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Minister, I would also like a list and a breakdown, too, of what the projects were. MR. LOVELESS: No problem. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. When we deal with applications to the province, like the criteria, has that changed over the years?

Are people receiving – I’m interested in where the money is getting spent in the program itself. Can you give us a little breakdown on how the processing or do the harvesters – what money is in there? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: I can’t give you the actual breakdowns per category, but I can say to you from a harvester’s standpoint, we are funding a lot of automatic jiggers and fish tubs because they help with the fish quality. In terms of processing plants, we’ve invested in new technology that improves the yield for the cutting of the fish and improves the quality of the fish.

In terms of aquaculture, we’ve had a number of innovative projects that have been funded. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I’m going to go to

section 2.1.04. Again, I would like an explanation of the variance on the Salaries. MR. LOVELESS: Again, that’s due to vacancies within the division during the year.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 270 MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. When we go to Purchased Services, there’s a small amount, but what’s included here? MR. LOVELESS: The variance is due to lower than anticipated Purchased Services expenditures during the year, but I don’t know if the deputy wants to refer to what the actual amount represents. MS. KING: This is just funding for printing, any meeting space and those types of things that might be required. Obviously, there was very little of that last year. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

Under the Grants and Subsidies, we’ve been told that in the past this money was for science, cod recovery initiatives. Is this still the case? What projects are included this year or the past year? MR. LOVELESS: I can confirm that it is for fishery science and resource and cod recovery, but I can ask the ADM to respond to the actual question. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of where this money has been spent, $500,000 of it is earmarked for a MUN scholarship each year, in terms of fishery science, resource management.

The other amount of funding or funding projects that we’ve looked at this year, as I’ve mentioned earlier, we’ve done some things on green crab. We’ve funded a project on there. Most of the funding is going to projects under Marine Institute and Memorial University for research around fishery science and cod recovery. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I’m going to go to

section 2.1.05. In this section, Grants and Subsidies, this is for the fish plant workers employment program, so I gather there was no actual shutdown or any plants that needed to be subsidized this year. MR. LOVELESS: You’re right in terms of the scope of the program, what the money is for. The answer to the question – yeah, there have been no permanent closures and hopefully there won’t be. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Are you aware of any plants that are possibly deemed to be permanently closed in the next year or so? MR. LOVELESS: Not right now. Again, hopefully there won’t be any. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

Can you give me how many crab plants are currently operating in the province? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Just give me one sec. Right now we have 24 plants that process snow crab. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. How many shrimp plants are in the province? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Eight. MR. K. PARSONS: Eight. Okay.

Section 2.1.06. Now, I understand that this was an inventory loan. This means that there was just $27,000 paid on this loan this year? MR. LOVELESS: Say that again. Sorry, I was flipping the pages and my hearing went. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I understand that this was an inventory loan. It seems that there was over $27,000 paid on this, repaid. Is that what this is –? MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, the revenue was received related to seal inventory financing from – I’m going to pronounce it – Phocalux for a 2019-20 repayment of loan. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I’m going to go to

section 2.2.01. Can you explain the variance in the Salaries this year? MR. LOVELESS: Again, that’s for vacancies within the division during the year.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 271 MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. The difference, again, here in Transportation and Communications, I know you explained it, but it’s a good bit of money that’s been allocated. What happens to that money if it doesn’t get spent? What do you do with it in the department? MS. KING: If funding isn’t spent in the department and it’s not used to fund a variance somewhere else, then it goes to a positive impact to the province’s bottom line, any savings that we have. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Purchased Services: What’s included here? MR.

LOVELESS: That’s primarily (inaudible) to snow clearing and wharf repairs. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. One time there was a program offered for wharf repairs. Is that program still in place? MR. LOVELESS: I’m told no. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Why would you have wharf repairs if there was a program, no money there? You’re saying it’s for wharf repairs, but yet there’s no program you can apply for. MS. KING: The department owns a number of wharves, four of them in this case, that are aquaculture related.

So while the program that would have funded community wharves and those things has ended, this funding is for wharves that the department actually owns and maintains. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment: What’s included here and why is there such less spent than last year? MR. LOVELESS: The variance is due to less requirement to replace equipment during the year. For instance, boat and scientific equipment for monitoring. The equipment was repaired instead of replaced. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I guess I’m finished now on that one. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Parsons. I now recognize Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Chair. I just have to find my place again. I think I left off, yes, at 2.1.03. I’ll just go back there; I have one or two questions on that. The minister was tasked with using the Canadian Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund to advance marketing initiatives, target new markets and leverage benefits arising from new free trade deals with Europe and Asia. Would it be possible to have an update on this fund? How much money has this fund leveraged? MR. LOVELESS: I’ll defer that question over to Lorelei. MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the Canadian Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund, as I had mentioned it’s for pan-Canadian seafood marketing projects. Essentially, there was $800,000 spent to date towards projects. Unfortunately, those projects have not been formally announced yet because we do have a contractual agreement with the federal government, so there has to be a formal announcement, first release, to release the information. As of right now we’ve participated in seven projects for that amount of money. MR. J. DINN: Seven projects? Thank you. MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: Again, those would be projects in a pan-Canadian light that would have an impact on the province, so they would benefit. MR. J. DINN: Okay. Would it be possible to have an update on the Seafood Innovation and Transition Program? What type of innovation is being encouraged and what new technologies, if any?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 272 MR. LOVELESS: Do you want to repeat that, Sir? CHAIR: Mr. Dinn, I think you need to repeat the question, please. MR. J. DINN: Repeat that? No problem. Would it be possible to have an update on the Seafood Innovation and Transition Program? What type of innovation is being encouraged and what new technologies? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Are you referring to under AFF or under a different …? MR. J. DINN: I’m just looking here in seafood innovation. I guess it would be under AFF as well. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: AFF, in terms of the funding there are different pillars.

Essentially, it’s research development, innovative technology, marketing science and infrastructure. Any applications that come in, they would fall under a pillar and that’s how they’re funded. Is that what you’re asking? MR. J. DINN: I’m just wondering if there is any particular type of innovation that is being encouraged. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Any type of innovation that increases, for example, yield in terms of fish, or allows harvesters the ability to eliminate bycatch, those types of things; anything that increases the quality of the fish.

As I had mentioned earlier, for example, a lot of harvesters have invested in automatic jiggers and they’ve invested in fish tubs. That would increase the quality of the fish because you’re not using gillnets, for example. MR. J. DINN: Right. Would any money of that go towards innovation in aquaculture, for example? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Yes, it would. MR. J. DINN: What technologies would it support? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: For example, in oyster farming we’ve had technology called an optic eye funded out of this pot. There has been a number of other aquaculture funding that has been funded under the innovation pillar.

Unfortunately, I can’t remember them off the top of my head right now but, certainly, the minister has agreed to provide a list and they would be included in that list. MR. J. DINN: Okay. Thank you very much. If I may go just back to 2.1.01 for a second. I just asked a question with regard to Purchased Services and I think you said it was related to travel and trade shows. I know it dropped a little bit. I’m just wondering: Who would normally go to that? Would that fund department representatives? Would it fund industry representatives as well?

Who would be the people attending the trade shows or would be covered by those services? MR. LOVELESS: It depends on the actual trade show itself. For me, I haven’t attended one yet, so I can’t refer and give you an example of the one that I attended. The goal of any trade show is to showcase the province. To your question, it would be just for staff, not industry. MR. J. DINN: Okay. Then industry would take care of paying their own way, more or less, if they were going to it. MR. LOVELESS: Yes. I did attend the Boston seafood show when I was with the former premier and stuff.

I don’t know, Kevin, if you’ve ever been to one of those shows. MR. K. PARSONS: Always wanted to go. MR. LOVELESS: Always wants to go. Well, I might take you if you’re nice to me, if I ever get a chance. MR. J. DINN: Keep the Third Party in mind, too.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 273 MR. LOVELESS: Industry is certainly involved. It’s a good show for government and for industry, no doubt, in terms of showcase. MR. J. DINN: Okay. Thank you. Just a few other questions there now. I’m just keeping track of my notes. On to 2.1.05. I think you’ll notice that there’s due to vacancies – no, that’s fair enough. I think you have that. What were the vacancies, by the way? I think that there was a decline of $43,700. What position – I guess it is one position – was vacant? MR. LOVELESS: You referenced? Sorry. MR. J. DINN: Sorry, that’s in 2.1.04. My mistake.

My apologies. MR. LOVELESS: I have to ask you to repeat, Jim. MR. J. DINN: No problem. Gladly. Under 2.1.04, the Salaries – and I think, Minister, you said that the decrease in that was due to vacancies. What was the vacancy or vacancies? MR. LOVELESS: Vacancy, I’m told. MR. J. DINN: Yeah. MR. LOVELESS: Policy analyst, to confirm that vacancy. MR. J. DINN: Is that a position that will replaced then? It will be. MR. LOVELESS: Yes. MR. J. DINN: Okay. On to 2.1.05. Just out of curiosity – and I know Mr.

Parsons asked the question about crab plants – with regard to supporting communities and individuals affected by plant closures, has the government explored a means of keeping plants open, such as allowing plants to produce and process more species of fish? Is that always a possibility? MR. LOVELESS: Well, it’s certainly a hopeful prospect, I guess. Like any fish plant and any processor in this province, they have to have the resource to put through the plant in order for it to operate. That resource, the allocation, they’re given to harvesters. Harvesters sell to processors and therefore plants operate.

I don’t know if that answers your question or confuses you any more. MR. J. DINN: That could be a mixture of both, Minister. That, I can only assure you. I’m just curious, certainly in terms of the – we heard a lot of talk about redfish and I’ve spoken to a few people. There’s a hope there that the redfish will solve a lot of those problems – or help solve a lot of those problems as well. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. Redfish – the most recent conversation I had around that it kind of excited me, because as a young fellow, redfish provided a lot of employment out on the South Coast, especially for my own brothers.

To realize that there’s a healthy quota there that can be hopefully used in this province to create employment is very positive. I’m glad you mentioned that in terms of redfish. I think Kevin mentioned it today in his notes, as well, around redfish. I think we’re all on the same page in terms of hopefully that quota will be available for the province so we can put people to work. MR. J. DINN: One quick question before my time runs out.

With regard to the Seal Product Inventory Financing, I’m just wondering and I think you partially answered mine, any loans in particular that are being repaid here and why was the projected repayment amount lower than anticipated? Just fewer people paying it back or …? MR. LOVELESS: I’ll defer that to the deputy. MS. KING: This is a single loan for Phocalux. Last year – MR. J. DINN: I’m sorry, would you spell that?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 274 MS. KING: Sure, P-H-O-C-A-L-U-X. MR. J. DINN: Okay. MS. KING: That was their repayment amount for last year, which was lower, and so this year we’re hopeful that they will be able to make further payment on the loan. MR. J. DINN: Okay, thank you. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Dinn. Mr. Parsons. MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you. I’m going to go to

section 2.2.01. Again, there’s a variance there in the Salaries. We didn’t spend as much and we’re spending a bit more this year. Can you give us …? MR. LOVELESS: That’s 2.2.01, right? MR. K. PARSONS: Yes. MR. LOVELESS: Salaries? MR. K. PARSONS: Yes. MR. LOVELESS: That was due to vacancies within the division during the year. MR. K. PARSONS: So, obviously, you’re planning on hiring somebody this year, is that the case? MR. LOVELESS: Oh yeah, and the extra pay period, too, Kevin. Twenty-seven pay periods this year versus 26, so that’s the salary adjustment required for ’20-’21. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. MR.

LOVELESS: I don’t know if you were asking that or not. MR. K. PARSONS: What’s that? MR. LOVELESS: I don’t know if you were asking that or not. MR. K. PARSONS: No, no, that’s okay, because my next question was (inaudible). MR. LOVELESS: Okay. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Under Purchased Services: Can you tell us what’s included here? MR. LOVELESS: I think you asked that question before. MR. K. PARSONS: Did I ask that question before? MR. LOVELESS: You did. That was the snow clearing and the wharf repairs. MR. K. PARSONS: Oh, okay. Yes, okay. I have a note made of that.

But my question is, obviously you repaired last year, so what are you doing with the wharves this year? Are you replacing wharves? MR. LOVELESS: I haven’t been a part of any conversation about replacing any wharves, but I’ll ask the deputy. MS. KING: Thank you. It’s really about if there is kind of a capital, a larger repair that’s required. That’s what would fall under Property, Furnishings and Equipment,

whereas minor maintenance would fall under Purchased Services. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. I have some questions here now under that section. Can you provide an update on the status of the Grieg aquaculture project? MR. LOVELESS: The Grieg project? MR. K. PARSONS: Yes. MR. LOVELESS: Give me a minute. I’m sure you’re familiar with the ACEP, which is the Aquaculture Capital Equity Program. That was established by government to assist with the increasing production of commercial aquaculture operations in the province, and one being Grieg. Under that program, $2 million was budgeted to be advanced to Grieg in 2019-20

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 275 and $3 million in ’20-’21, for a total of $5 million. They will be paid based on their – and some of it being construction milestones. Once they reach their milestone, they will be paid. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Actually, I had the opportunity to visit their project probably about a month or so ago. It was pretty impressive, to tell you the truth. MR. LOVELESS: Yes, I haven’t had the chance yet, Kevin, but certainly looking forward to it. Because I know you’ve visited the South Coast, too, and know how much the aquaculture is certainly a pillar for employment in those areas.

MR. K. PARSONS: Definitely. Can you give me an update on the Canada- Newfoundland MOU on aquaculture? MR. LOVELESS: I’m going to defer that one to Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the Canada-Newfoundland aquaculture MOU, we’re currently still in discussions with the federal government on that. We have had a number of meetings, but there is nothing solidified yet in terms of an agreement. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Can you give me an update on anything in regard to the new federal government aquaculture act? MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: The federal government aquaculture act, they’re currently in consultations on that right now. We are involved in a working group with the federal government on the development of that particular act. Right now, as I had mentioned, the federal government has done consultations and they’re doing another round of consultations. Actually, during this period they’re preparing for that. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Is the federal government giving you any timelines on when they’re …? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: They have not, in terms of when they think they will have everything ready. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay.

In July, the former minister announced $725,000 funding for the aquaculture industry for a new 32-foot boat and upgrades to the lab facilities in St. Alban’s and support for the development of the Bays West and Bay d’Espoir. Has this money been spent and if so, on what? MR. LOVELESS: You’re correct. For the Bays West salmonid aquaculture development it was $720,000 and also for aquaculture there was a fish and seafood live holding and cold-storage study. But in terms of to date progress I’ll give that to Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of to date, that money was under the COVID.

There’s $500,000 that’s allotted for the vessel and we’ve gone through first round with the vessel to develop the specs. So we’re working with the provincial purchasing agency now to identify the best way to go about looking for the builder for that boat to do the specs. The other piece is for the lab in St. Alban’s. The contract has been awarded to do some renovations, so it was to remove the live holding tanks up in the second floor that were causing some leakage issues. That has been removed. Now the second piece of that will be occurring to actually put offices and do the renovations to that space. MR. K.

PARSONS: Okay. I noticed in the – MS. ROBERTS-LODER: I believe Air-Tite was the … MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. The budget referenced the $5-million repayable assistance loan to Grieg and it also mentioned that it’s going to generate over 800 jobs. Can you provide some detail on that? MR. LOVELESS: On the up-to-date employment numbers?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 276 MR. K. PARSONS: It’s a $5-million repayable – we talked about it in the very first question, I think, I asked you about. You said it was $5 million for a loan to the project. MR. LOVELESS: Right. MR. K. PARSONS: In the budget it also said that this would generate over 800 jobs. I’d like you to provide the detail on that. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, and you’re right. There was a budget line of $5 million in repayable assistance for Grieg. So I’ll ask Lorelei if you want to (inaudible). MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the particular positions, it’s approximately 850 jobs.

That includes construction, supply and service and it also includes those who would be in operations. The $5 million was for the construction and operation of the hatchery and the nursery piece that’s contributing and that’s the milestone for that. But it is $5 million from a $30-million commitment over the next seven years. The total number of jobs for the entire project is approximately 850 jobs. MR. K. PARSONS: What stage are they at with the project? I know that they had the first stage done where they had the fish there. Where are we now on the project? MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of where they are now, they’re just finalizing their final pieces of the milestone for the hatchery and the nursery. They will have met the milestones for that, we believe, in the coming weeks, the next number of weeks. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. The seafood marketing and innovation fund: In July the former minister announced a one-time $400,000 seafood marketing and innovation fund to support marketing for seafood products. How much of this has been spent and on what? How is this different from the existing fund in the department? MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the seafood marketing and innovation fund, this is a pot that was put in place specifically to address some issues that had been caused in the seafood industry with regard to COVID in terms of marketing and developing new product lines. Restaurants were closed so they had to move their product from restaurant packaging, for example, to being able to provide it in retail. In terms of what has been spent to date, we have two projects that we’re in the process of approving. We have a number of other applications in the queue that we have been adding in.

Now, we have no idea if all of these will actually meet the criteria for the actual program. There’s only $400,000 for this program so it will be kind of first-come, first-served in terms of the application process. We’re looking at probably about $100,000 of that in the first two projects. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Parsons, your time has expired. As I said at the beginning of the Estimates, midway through we would take a break. I’m suggesting that we reconvene at 7:42, take a 10- minute break to give anybody an opportunity if they need to use the washroom or make a telephone call. We’ll reconvene Estimates at 7:42.

Thank you. Recess CHAIR: All right, we’ll get back to our Committee business here. I look down to the MHA for St. John’s Centre, Mr. Dinn. MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Chair. If I might go to 2.2.01, I just want to go back to Purchased Services and just to verify what I’ve heard. Mostly that $50,000, if understood it, had to do with wharf repair and snow clearing of wharves and facilities. Would that be correct? MR. LOVELESS: Yes. MR. J. DINN: Those wharves would be primarily used by the aquaculture?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 277 MR. LOVELESS: Correct. MR. J. DINN: Would that be open to the public as such? Could anyone tie up there? MR. LOVELESS: No. I can stand to be corrected, but these are clean wharves and they’re used for the aquaculture industry. So it’s not for you or I to use. MR. J. DINN: Okay. That’s money that we’re paying to take care of the maintenance of those wharves for the aquaculture industry. MR. LOVELESS: Correct. MR. J. DINN: That’s in addition to the aquaculture investment below. Are they sharing in the maintenance or the clearing at all of that? Or is that our share?

Is that the total amount that we budget to do that? MR. LOVELESS: It’s not just for snow clearing and – MR. J. DINN: No, no, I understand that. But in terms of anything to do with wharf maintenance for those wharves, are the aquaculture industry or companies that are using it, are they paying anything for those services or is that entirely something that the province is paying for? MR. LOVELESS: I’ll ask Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: They do lease those wharves. The actual amount that they pay doesn’t come in to the aquaculture development budget; it goes into another budget in the department.

So it’s not reflected here but each one of those companies lease the wharves. MR. J. DINN: Okay. If I may then, they lease them from us so that’s what the province is paying to maintain them, let’s say. That covers a (inaudible). The lease amount, what would they be paying in lease? Would the leases that they’re paying, would that cover the cost of this or less or would we be making a profit on it? I’m just curious, I mean it’s – MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Unfortunately, I can’t answer that. I would have to get that information for you. MR. J. DINN: I would love to have that information, please, that would be great.

If I may, in 2.2.02, and I think you touched on this, but I wasn’t sure if I was hearing it for the right section. The money then, this is part of a $30-million commitment to Grieg? MR. LOVELESS: Yes. MR. J. DINN: Okay. They were looking at 850 jobs. Why the increase then? It was $2 million up to $5 million from last year, is that to be expected? MR. LOVELESS: That’s the budgeted amount and payable to them based on their milestone, which I think Lorelei had mentioned before about the construction milestones, so around the hatchery and stuff. MR. J. DINN: Okay. If I may then, just a general question on this

section here before I go to further questions on 2.2.02. The percentage of fish – I’m just looking at – there’s the hatchery stage, there’s the sea pen aspect of it and then there’s the processing. What is the percentage of fish processed within the province? How much of it is processed and how much of it is shipped out head-on, gutted? MR. LOVELESS: I’ll just say a few words to that. That depends on the fish plant itself. In my district I have Cooke Aquaculture and I have Mowi, which is operated in Harbour Breton by Barry, and a lot of it is market driven.

Head-on, gut is what the market – that’s what the company has been saying. But obviously, as an MHA, I fight for more jobs in Harbour Breton and more hours. We’ve had this conversation as well. But the companies say it’s all market driven. It can vary. I can’t say what’s good for one company is good for the other in terms of the actual fish plant. In terms of numbers, I don’t know if you can add anything to that, Lorelei.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 278 MS. ROBERTS-LODER: (Inaudible.) MR. LOVELESS: No. So I don’t know if that answers your question. MR. J. DINN: I think, Minister, you know where I stand on aquaculture and the whole need. If we’re going to do it, let’s do it sustainably and preferably without damaging our wild Atlantic salmon stocks.

I’m just looking at it, if we’re going to be doing this and they’re getting a pretty good deal here – let’s face it, the companies are in the pristine waters that we have – I would hope that we are getting a bigger bang for the buck in terms of the processing, so that’s where the jobs are. As I understand it, Grieg, for example, is there a still a requirement that 75 per cent of the fish must be processed to the fresh fillet stage for them to operate? Is it 25 per cent for head-on, gutted? Would you know that? MR. LOVELESS: I’m going to say yes to that and I think I’m correct in saying, yes. MR. J. DINN: Okay.

But that wouldn’t be the requirement then, as you pointed out, for Mowi and Cooke Aquaculture and the others? They may be under a different regime? MR. LOVELESS: Correct. But I guess in all fairness, those conversations that I had with them, because what happened last year and this year with COVID-19, we face all these challenges. So markets can change, no doubt about it. Just to go back to your comment about doing it right. I value your concern, no doubt about it.

But, Jim, if you want to sometime come to my district, I’d be happy to take you to – and I say this out of much sincerity because I’ve visited the new sites, and my ADM has done it as well. I’ve voiced those concerns about growing fish in our pristine waters and what we expect of those companies. Mowi itself, I visited the actual sites when they had the new depth cages. They talked about how many fish they would like to grow. I’m telling you, it’s meaning that a possibility that the plant in Harbour Breton would be operating 12 months out of the year. That’s encouraging overall. But I do encourage you.

I would arrange to have you on the site, no doubt, and I say that with much sincerity. You too, Kevin. MR. J. DINN: Minister, many years ago I visited one. My only regret is that I didn’t bring my salmon rod with me at the time, nevertheless. Sustainability is going to be the key word here. MR. LOVELESS: Oh, absolutely. MR. J. DINN: Also, if we’re going to be doing this, then I think we really need to be making sure that there’s the maximum bang for the buck for the people who work in the region. Instead of just shipping it out, head on, gutted, I think that it’s a better deal with Grieg.

At least that’s a start but I think we need to look at how we process more and really ramp up the production for our own people here, if we’re going to invest in it. MR. LOVELESS: No, totally and I agree with you. Even the fish plant in Hermitage, they have a robot there. Everybody always asked the question: Does machinery take away jobs from ordinary individuals? For that robot alone they will need four positions to maintain it because it’s quite technical. It eliminates, really, two jobs but we’re gaining – two, actually, because there are four jobs replacing two. MR. J.

DINN: But we’re also getting more skilled labour as well, which is a good thing. MR. LOVELESS: We are. The robot eliminates, too, the older folks who are on the fish plant, the lifting. It looks after their health and safety as well. It’s, as you said, good bang for the buck. MR. J. DINN: Perfect. Let me see … The money for the program – just to make sure, I think I know what the answer is. The capital investment equity is coming from what agency, from the department itself or as part of the province’s –?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 279 MR. LOVELESS: I’ll ask Tracy. Yeah, from the department. Correct. MR. J. DINN: Okay. Perfect, on to 2.3.01 – I’m just about done – very quickly. The Purchased Services, again, that’s for the maintenance of the wharves? Is that what I heard you say to Mr. Parsons? Did I hear that correctly? MR. LOVELESS: For Purchased Services? MR. J. DINN: Yes. MR. LOVELESS: The variance was due to major work conducted on reportable disease and mortality events with aquatic animals in Newfoundland and Labrador due to the events of last year. MR. J.

DINN: I’ll leave it now but I would like to finish out one or two questions on that section. CHAIR: Mr. Parsons. MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Dinn, if you want to finish up a couple of questions, you can go ahead. MR. J. DINN: I’m just going to the Professional Services. I’m looking here in terms of the cleaner fish. Where are we with cleaner fish? Especially in dealing with the problems – the use of cleaner fish, such as RAS and lumpfish, present themselves. Where are we with that? Now I think that was part of the mandate of Marbase in Marystown. MR. LOVELESS: Right. I’m not going to answer it as such.

I’ll leave it to Lorelei to try to answer that if she could. She’s visited a lot of the sites, which is certainly good in terms of seeing what the operations are. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: I have visited the sites but, obviously, Marbase wouldn’t be one of them because I believe they’re just going through or just been released from an environmental process. In terms of where cleaner fish are in terms of the development piece, I know primarily right now there is lots of work going on at the Marine Institute around cleaner fish. I do believe Marbase is working with them as well.

A lot of the companies are getting their cleaner fish from other locations; I mean they’re natural cleaner fish out of the ocean. In terms of Marbase, I really can’t tell you what the status of that company is at this particular point in time, but they obviously aren’t – MR. J. DINN: I was more interested not necessarily about Marbase, just about the whole progress on cleaner fish, whether they are as effective or not and the use of therapeutants as well. I don’t know how far down that line we’re proceeding with use of cleaner fish to try to control the sea lice infestations. MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the use of cleaner fish, yes, it is certainly something that is being used by the industry. They are having good success with it, yes, those who do have a good supply. For example, there are a number of companies that do have a good supply of cleaner fish and they’re having good success rates. MR. J. DINN: Okay, Mr. Parsons, do you have any questions because I have a few more on this. I’ll come back to them. I don’t want to take up your time too much. MR. K. PARSONS: (Inaudible) on this section, too. CHAIR: Mr. Parsons. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, thank you. I just want to go back to Mr.

Dinn’s question on the packaging and the processing of the fish coming out of our aquaculture industry. I know, being down there and looked at the walls on Cooke and talked to Mowi about the amount of spinoffs that are in Central Newfoundland, when you look at their map on the wall down there – and I’m sure you’ve seen it. We’re asking Grieg to do 75 per cent. Is there a percentage that we’re asking? Is there any percentage that we know how much is coming out? I know each year it’s always said that’s it’s always based on the markets, time of year and stuff like that but, in actual fact, when you look

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 280 at processing, most times it’s sent to New Brunswick. It’s just packaged; the date, package, gives them a couple of extra days on the fish when it goes to the market. Why aren’t we demanding that more market-ready fish is not done in the area? MR. LOVELESS: There are two answers, I guess, in terms of the two companies. It’s a question that I have asked even before I became minister, when I was elected, with Mowi company. Bill Barry operates the plant but they supply the fish.

I had concern about that, and I don’t mind admitting it here, in terms of more work being done at the plant. That’s in Harbour Breton. Their answer to me at the time was around what the market was calling for at that time. Cooke Aquaculture hasn’t stopped work. There’s only been a delay of a couple of weeks. They focus more on filleting. My question is, let’s do that in Harbour Breton as well. In terms of your demand to them – say 75 per cent versus Grieg – it’s a point well taken. I’m going to be demanding it of the companies because we need the employment in Harbour Breton. MR. K.

PARSONS: There are companies in Grand Falls and the Bishop’s Falls area that do a lot of packaging and shipping of the product. I’m sure there are other companies there that I spoke to that would love to see a little bit more. The capability of doing it is definitely there but it’s the company itself. It’s something, Minister, I’d really think on. I know you will because it’s your area, but any time we can do the secondary processing, it’s something that we really have to emphasize to the government. MR. LOVELESS: Absolutely. The cage building is happening in Harbour Breton as well. Right now, Mr.

Manning has about north of 70 people employed. That’s a big operation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s not just about – those cages have to be built, but supplies. There are a lot of spinoffs. I hear you. It’s around secondary processing because we know that provides more benefits and more employment for the people, whether it be Harbour Breton or some other community in Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. K. PARSONS: I just want to go back to the seafood marketing and innovation fund. I know you said there were two projects. I’m just wondering what those two projects are.

The seafood marketing and innovation fund, you mentioned two projects. I think you said there was $100,000 spent on them so far. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: I can tell you that there is one for an aquaculture company and, off the top of my head, I can’t remember the second one. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. When it started back in, I’d say, June the minister had made some announcements. There were announcements made about cold-storage units. I believe there was one that was marked for Gander and another one for Port aux Basques. Is that a part of this fund and if not, where did the money come for that? MR.

LOVELESS: I believe you’re referring to – that’s under the economic recovery initiatives, right? MR. K. PARSONS: Yes. MR. LOVELESS: I’m thinking you’re referring to the post-pandemic seafood marketing. MR. K. PARSONS: Yes. MR. LOVELESS: There was $400,000 that was announced, but I don’t know what the status is of it, Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: If I may, there’s actually two different streams: one is the seafood marketing and, as I said, that’s to change the packaging, to adapt to the changes that COVID has caused; and the other piece is to do a study of cold-storage live holding, seafood live holding.

Essentially what’s happening to that is there is a working group that has been struck that is made up of the processor groups – Association of

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 281 Seafood Producers, SPONL and NAIA, representing the aquaculture industry – that are working with the province. There has been a call for requests for proposals to look at a consultant to do the study because that information needs to be identified as to where best – Gander has been identified, but we need to make sure that it’s close proximity and that it does support Gander as the location for a live holding or cold storage because there may be other areas that there could be benefits. It’s open to wherever it would best fit. So that is a process that’s actively under way.

MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. Minister, I would like to ask you a question now, it’s something that I’ve asked every minister since we’ve been doing this, about capelin. What are your thoughts on the capelin fishery? MR. LOVELESS: It’s a necessary fishery and, to be honest with you, right now I don’t have an answer for you in terms of what my plans would be for the capelin fishery. But I know it’s certainly valuable in this province. Again, I guess I’m allowed to say: I don’t have an answer for that right now. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. MR.

LOVELESS: But I know you had offered to have a conversation with me and I certainly welcome that conversation piece. MR. K. PARSONS: Just speaking to harvesters in the province, and a lot of harvesters, particularly in my area, they’re noticing the capelin is a lot smaller than it was in previous years. It’s later coming and most harvesters feel that it has an impact on what’s happening with our cod stocks. So I think it’s something that the department – and if you want to have a discussion, I could definitely have a discussion with you. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, no. Listen, I certainly welcome.

I don’t sit here and put up my arm and say: Listen, I have answers to everything. MR. K. PARSONS: No, and I appreciate that, but this is a discussion that should be had. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, absolutely. MR. K. PARSONS: I also would like to just have your opinion on this year’s reduction. In some areas there was a reduction in crab, and some more areas there was a small increase. I think 3K had a small increase and 3L was a reduction. I don’t know what analysis is done by the department on these quotas.

I know it goes to the side with different people coming and giving answers, but what analysis is done by the department to determine the amount of quota? I know it goes to DFO, but is the department doing anything in these two particular fisheries to look at what the quotas are? MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, well – MR. K. PARSONS: And I do understand DFO does the final … MR. LOVELESS: Right. I’ll ask my ADM to speak to the analysis piece. In terms of the numbers around the shellfish, I mean it is concerning because there have been reductions, whether that be shrimp or crab.

We know this year price was down, that’s another mechanism of it. I think overall, you agree, that even though the price was a challenge this year and fishermen in the hope that they get more, but overall it was still a good year. I have and you have friends that are crab fishermen. The analysis piece, I’ll defer that to Lorelei. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of answering your question, you’re quite right, DFO, they do issue the quotas and they are responsible for fishery science.

Essentially the province is a stakeholder in fisheries and we do participate with DFO and with other stakeholders in the fishery as part of the science briefings and updates on what is happening in the fishery. In terms of the impact or the amount of say that we would have over the quota, we can indicate if there’s something out of whack with what we’re hearing or seeing. But, fundamentally, the department generally looks at what the science says and what the science bears in terms of where we would stand on quotas.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 282 MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. The federal government announced, I’d say, about four years ago about all of the new science that they were going to do when it came to the different stocks and stuff like that. Have we seen any additional research or science that has been done in any of this? I don’t believe we have. I know there was a major announcement about a couple of hundred people being hired to do it, but I don’t know what the status is there. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of what we’ve seen, this year is obviously a very different year than any other year.

Because of COVID a lot of the science work was restricted. In terms of when the actual science work that would be undertaken, it obviously doesn’t happen during the winter, it happens when the fishery is active and that was when COVID came on. We’ve seen quite a pullback from science, but we’ve noticed that later on in the season that they have been active with science activity. So there were a number of commitments to do a number of surveys and things like that on the fishery but, as I said, this year has been a bit of an odd year. MR. K. PARSONS: Okay. CHAIR: Mr. Dinn. MR. J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

These next few questions, basically, most parts centre on 2.3.01. I think that’s it then of what I have to ask. Under 2.3.01, Professional Services and Purchased Services. I just want to make sure, Purchased Services, the increase in the actuals, would that be related to the die-off that occurred? I notice it jumps in budgeted 2019- 2020 from $301,000 to $538,000. MR. LOVELESS: Yes, that was due to the work conducted on reportable disease and mortality events with aquatic animals in Newfoundland and Labrador due to the events of ’19-’20. MR. J. DINN: Of 19 …? MR. LOVELESS: Year 2019-20. MR. J. DINN: Okay, sorry.

Wow, that’s going back quite a ways. Good memory. Okay. I would assume, then, the Professional Services and the Purchased Services probably involve something along the lines of veterinarian services and so on and so forth, correct? Here’s my question, because this is basically coming out of the budget of the province: Did we recoup that from the aquaculture industry or the companies themselves responsible for it? If we provided that veterinarian service, is that a service that they pay for? Also, with regard to the actual budget, that’s significant; not quite but almost double the amount.

I’m just wondering is that something we absorb or are they responsible for paying that money back to us. I’m just wondering what happens to it. MR. LOVELESS: In terms of the company itself, they do make payments to the province in terms of employment. I know that doesn’t directly answer your question. I’ll ask Lorelei if she wishes to comment on it. In terms of return to the province, there is a return to the province in terms of what the companies do for workers. I don’t need to get into – they pay taxes and all that. MR. J.

DINN: No, but if I’m responsible for an oil spill on my property, let’s say, it’s not going to be the province. If the province or the municipality ends up cleaning it up, they’re going to bill me for that. It’s going to come out of my pocket sooner or later. That’s where I’m going with it. If it’s coming out of the province – and I understand all things being equal – are they not responsible then for reimbursing the province for that extra expense? MR. LOVELESS: If you’re referring to cleanup and whatnot, it is in the public interest.

The companies did the cleanup and they paid for the cleanup, especially when we had the die-off. There was money that was spent by government but it was certainly done in the public interest. MR. J. DINN: Okay.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 283 Are we going to be getting any of that money back from the companies themselves then, for that, the extra money we had to spend? MR. LOVELESS: We’re not getting it back from the companies, no. It’s an investment in the public interest. MR. J. DINN: I know we’ll differ on this, Minister, but I think in that way if a company is responsible for it, then they, I think – it’s being good stewards and good citizens – should be held accountable for it.

Certainly if it’s a cost to the taxpayer, in addition to everything else, I think at that level they should be responsible for reimbursing the province. I understand investment in a wharf and all these things. That makes sense. But for a mistake by a company, I think really they need to – whether it’s a mistake or a natural die-off or whatever else – reimburse the province for that. We just don’t have the money to cover that off. MR. LOVELESS: Point taken. MR. J. DINN: I just want to talk about Grieg.

Before Grieg begins operation, if I understood correctly, it’s supposed to have a baseline assessment of the salmon populations and the ecosystem. Has that been done? Have they carried out any of those assessments to find out what the salmon populations are? Only because, if an escape or if the wild Atlantic salmon stocks are affected, we will never know by how much if we don’t have that baseline assessment done first. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: MHA Dinn, that’s a question that would be part of the environmental assessment.

I would think that the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities could better answer that in terms of the information that they have on hand as part of the environmental assessment. Those were some of the conditions that were set out and the information that they were asked to provide. MR. J. DINN: Okay, so they should have that. Fair enough. I understand it here that Grieg will be still using triploid salmon. Will they be required to clip the adipose fin of farmed salmon so that should they escape they’re easily identified? MS.

ROBERTS-LODER: Grieg actually has, as part of its environmental assessment release, a requirement to look at tracking. Some of the things that they’re looking at doing are from a genetic standpoint. Not necessarily a clipping of the fin because a clipping of the fin could be harmful to the fish, but in terms of genetic makeup. This is why triploid fish would be used, because they’re certainly a different genetic makeup MR. J. DINN: No, I agree. They can’t breed, but they could also compete for food or muscle out other fish as well. I’m looking at this from a recapture point of view.

I know down in Bay d’Espoir many years ago you could catch all the rainbow trout you’d want. It was an open season on them, easily enough identified for that reason. If I’m an angler and I’m catching a fish and it comes in with a clipped adipose fin, great. Maybe it doesn’t count towards the quota that you have, but I’m taking an invasive species, for all intents and purposes, out of the natural ecosystem. That’s where I’m going with that. I would assume also that these fish would be treated with some sort of antibiotics before they’re put into the cages as well, somewhere along the line, correct?

At that time, I was thinking maybe that’s where the clipping of the adipose fin could be part of that. Do you know what recapture program they have? If you have a mass escape, have they come up with a protocol for that? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Yes, there is protocol for that. There’s actually a joint management process, it’s called the Code of Containment. That governs, or I should say it manages, escapes; it’s a joint federal-provincial. Essentially, the federal government is responsible for the escape piece in terms of issuing the licences and what happens after.

There’s a whole management process that requires all companies, not just Grieg, to look at having a process in place, to identify why the escape occurred and to have measures in place to capture the fish should they escape.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 284 MR. J. DINN: Okay. That’s within a certain period of time, hopefully. If days pass, these fish could be anywhere really. It would be harder to recapture them I would think. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of a fish escape, it’s to be reported immediately and it’s to be acted on immediately. One of the changes, as part of the new policy and procedures manual, was to actually look at having the recapture licences issued as part of the aquaculture licence at the same time, because there used to be a delay sometime ago in terms of DFO issuing the recapture licence.

That’s no longer the fact, so it can happen immediately. MR. J. DINN: Good. Two last questions and I’ll throw them out; one has to do with hopefully a land base. Are we doing any research at all or investigation of total land-based aquaculture for finfish aquaculture? Secondly, I’m just wondering with regard to the sea lice protocols, do we have protocols in place that would – for example, if sea lice reach a certain threshold, that the fish are harvested.

That production stops and the fish are harvested because, as we know, sea lice present the greatest threat certainly to salmon smolts, especially those leaving the rivers. They could be fatal. I’m just wondering what the protocols are around sea lice management in those cases? It’s just two questions and I’m done. MR. LOVELESS: In terms of land base, Jim, right now land base in terms of the industry is around the hatchery. We’re not moving towards land base, as what you’re referencing. Right now, we’re continuing on in the industry as it is and that’s growing fish in the water, not on land.

In terms of the sea lice protocols, I’ll ask Lorelei if you want to just touch base on that. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of sea lice protocol, as of January 2021 there will be a sea lice management plan. Each company will be required to have that in place. There will be thresholds in place and they’ll be responsible for reporting that publicly. That is currently being developed as we speak and we’ll be ready for January 2021. That was the commitment. MR. J. DINN: They’ll be available I guess? They’ll have that? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. CHAIR: Thank you for your questions, Mr. Dinn. The MHA for Cape St.

Francis indicated that he concluded his questions in this section, so with that I would give the floor the opportunity to – the MHA for Mount Pearl - Southlands, Mr. Lane. MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first one I’m just looking for some clarification. The Atlantic Fisheries Fund – so I’m 100 per cent clear – I think you said $51 million over five years, or seven years or something like that? No? What did you say then? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: In terms of the Atlantic Fisheries Fund, provincially, what we spent to date are the actual numbers that you’re looking at. Just give me one second now. MR.

LANE: $15 million you said. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Yeah, it was $15 million that we spent to date. MR. LANE: You said that was worth – MS. ROBERTS-LODER: It’s a total of $50 million, fed and provincial combined, that we’ve spent to date. MR. LANE: Yeah, because $15 million is our one-third share. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: The $15 million, yes, is our 30 per cent. MR. LANE: Or is 30 per cent, right? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Yeah.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 285 MR. LANE: Thirty per cent is $15 million, so we’ve spent $50 million? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Total AFF contribution has been $50 million. MR. LANE: Okay. That’s $50 million of how much, how much more is there? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Of the total amount for AFF? MR. LANE: Yeah, what I’m getting at is that – MS. ROBERTS-LODER: The provincial – MR. LANE: What I’m getting at is that at one point in time I can remember the former administration had said – we remember the thing at The Rooms and there was going to be a couple of hundred-million dollars, whatever it was.

That was a Newfoundland fund. Then, of course, the new administration came in and said, no, it was changed to an Atlantic fund and we were going to get so many million dollars. How much was that? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: The total over the seven-year period for the province’s contribution is $41.8 million. MR. LANE: $41 million. That’s our share, right? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: That is our share and then the difference would be – MR. LANE: This program is going to get about $135 million? MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Then it would be an additional – 70 per cent is the fed contribution. MR.

LANE: Yeah, so about $135 million in total, roughly. We’d table about $40 million and they’d put in the other $80 million or – MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Seventy per cent. MR. LANE: No, they’d put in $135 million. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: They put in 70 per cent. MR. LANE: Yeah. If we’re putting in $41 million, then they must be putting in about $135 million, roughly. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Yeah. MR. LANE: Okay. That’s about $200 million cost-shared altogether. MS. ROBERTS-LODER: Yes. MR. LANE: All right. Thank you for that. I just want to touch on the Grieg aquaculture.

Just for my clarification, you said we’re going to be putting in $30 million over a number of years – $5 million this year. The trade-off, of course, is 800 jobs and there are spinoffs and everything else. I understand that. But you said the 800 jobs included construction and everything else. Just forget about the construction. Construction is good, but once it’s done, it’s over. How many permanent sustainable jobs are there after the construction? How many people will be actually working there year over year over year in that facility roughly? MR. LOVELESS: I don’t have that number.

We can get that for you, Paul. I don’t have that direct number in front of me. We’re thinking it might be 250, but we will confirm that for you. MR. LANE: Roughly around 250? MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. MR. LANE: Year over year. Okay. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah. MR. LANE: I’m just trying to put a perspective of the number of permanent jobs versus – we’re putting in $30 million and then, of course, we’ve invested in the wharfs. Now, like my colleague said, we had the spill and we took care of that, so it all adds up. I’m just trying to put it in perspective. MR. LOVELESS: Sure.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 286 MR. LANE: I understand the benefit of the jobs and all that kind of stuff, but then you have to kind of look at the other side of how much are we taxpayers putting in to create that. At one point in time I know there was – and this might be taken care of now – occupational health and safety in the fish plants. At one time I know there was – not a committee, that’s not the right word – an association or whatever, to look after the fish harvesters and then there was supposed to be another one for the fish processors.

There was some incentive money that was going to the fish processors, but then they wouldn’t take you up on the offer for whatever reason and it didn’t happen. Is that happening now? Do we have a health and safety association, or whatever, for fish plants? MR. LOVELESS: I think the companies have their own, I’ll say, organization around OHS, but I think that falls under the Department of Digital Government and Service NL now (inaudible) now. MR. LANE: Okay, well, I just thought you’d know, where this is Fisheries. All right, I’ll save that.

This is something that comes up sometimes: I’m just wondering about the plant licences. I apologize if these questions – I mean, the fishery is not my forte, obviously. Neither is it really – it is related to my district. It’s related to every district because we all benefit for it. MR. LOVELESS: Absolutely, that’s right. MR. LANE: But as far as having fish plants and so on, Mount Pearl – let’s face it, it is what it is, right? MR. LOVELESS: What, you’re not looking for a fish plant in Mount Pearl? MR. LANE: No. We have a wharf in Power’s Pond. That’s actually in Mount Pearl North.

I’m just wondering, just trying to put it in perspective. I can remember, for example, when we talked about – I can remember I was doing an economics course at MUN school of business. I had to do a project and it was about the deregulation of Air Canada. One of the things before it became deregulated, was that Air Canada, if you had a number of flights, there were some areas that didn’t make you money, but it was kind of like you had to look at the whole pie. Overall, you’re making money; therefore, there are going to be a few areas that you’re not going to make any money off of.

You’re making money because you get to operate here and from the global perspective, overall, you’re making a profit. I’m just taking that, sort of transferring that over to the idea of the fishery to some degree. There are a limited number of players – there are big players who have multiple plants and they got their hands into everything to some degree. Then you hear scenarios where they’re saying: Oh, well, the market demands we have to send it away, just gut it.

We’ve seen plants where there were certain species – I forget which ones they were, maybe down your way – where they were just taking the fish and sending it right off, raw product. Minister King was the minister of Fisheries at the time – MR. LOVELESS: Minimum processing requirements. MR. LANE: There was minimum processing and all that. I’m saying to myself, do we look at it from the perspective – because anybody can kind of cherry-pick and say in order for this plant to be profitable, you need to give us this; in order for this one to be profitable, you need to do this.

Does anyone look at it and say: Listen b’ys, from an overall point of view you have a dozen plants and you’re making a pile of money. So if you’re not making as much profit as you’d like here, you’re still getting the benefit over here and over here and over here. It doesn’t get looked at that way, does it? It gets done on a plant-by-plant basis. You can cherry-pick every situation to make it look like we have to give concessions in order for this particular operation versus this operation. Do you know what I’m saying, about shutting plants and moving plants? MR. LOVELESS: I think I do, Paul.

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 287 I guess if you want to look under what you’re saying – because it’s very generic, your idea. It comes back to if I’m a processer and he’s a harvester, he has a quota and I’m buying from him. But a processer is not going to process, not keep the plant doors open if it’s not profitable. It is a business venture; they have to make money too, but with the goal of employing as many people as possible in those communities. I don’t know if I’m answering your question. MR.

LANE: I understand they’re a business but I’m looking at it from the perspective that they’re making a business off a resource that belongs to – it’s our fish. MR. LOVELESS: Right. MR. LANE: The people of Newfoundland – well, technically it’s Ottawa, but it’s our fish as far as I’m concerned. Anyway, that’s another argument. It’s our resource and someone is making a profit off that resource. They’re getting all the fish in order to make profits for themselves, right? Hopefully they employ people along the way. MR. LOVELESS: Right. MR.

LANE: Given the fact they’re using our resource and everything, it just would seem to me sometimes – just from the outside looking in and being no expert in this, it almost seems like you can make a case anywhere to say you have to give us concessions here on processing and everything to make this one, give us concessions over here, give us concessions over here and over here, but then you might be making a pile of money over here, still off our resource.

I’m just wondering the thought process around looking at more as a whole to say, overall, your company is making a ton of money off of a resource that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yeah, your profit margins might not be as high here as you would like, but sort of the fact that we need to employ people. You’re using our resources to do it, so if your profit margin isn’t quite so high here, you’re still making a pile over here and you need to keep it all going to benefit the province as a whole. MR.

LOVELESS: Again, from a general point of view, companies are going to do what they need to do to keep their doors open, but for us, as politicians, I think we’re all on the same level in terms of maximizing the employment. That’s where it lies. Again, I have to say the harvesters get the resource, the allocation, and they provide it to the processors in terms of processing in plants. I don’t know. I’m going to have to park it because I don’t know if I’m answering your question, I don’t know how I can answer your question.

The bottom line is – and I don’t know if you’re moving towards that – one company having too much over another. I don’t know if that’s where you’re going. The bottom line for me is all about the employment in those communities. MR. LANE: Minister, where I was going is that if I had multiple plants and access to multiple species and everything else – all the people’s resources – we want to try to maximize as much employment as possible by having as many facilities open as possible. You can always make the argument we need to shut this here because it’s not making enough; we need concessions over here.

But then if you’re making a boodle over here, then maybe that needs to be part of the negotiation of the overall picture of what you’re making so that we can keep as many people employed as possible. That’s kind of where I was going. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Lane. If the minister would like to make a further comment. MR. LOVELESS: No, I think I’ll leave it there. The companies, I firmly believe, come into these communities to do their best in terms of employing people. If not, it’s going to be a problem for all of us. I’ll leave it at that. CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I’ll ask the Clerk to call the headings.

CLERK: 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive carry?

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 288 All those in favour, ‘aye.’ SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’ Carried. On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.01 carried. CLERK: 3.1.01 to 3.3.02. CHAIR: Shall 3.1.01 to 3.3.02 carry? I ask the MHA for Exploits, Mr. Forsey, to begin his questions. MR. FORSEY: First of all, Minister, thank you for your staff to be here. This is my first year in this position, actually. They’ve been good to me over the past year and I’d like to thank them for their responses.

Lots of times, probably, I don’t like the answers sometimes; nevertheless, it’s great to be talking so I can get some answers. I’d just like to thank them for that. I’ll just start off with line by line first and then I have some general questions. 3.1.01, Salaries: Can you explain the steady decrease there in Salaries? MR. LOVELESS: For the actuals, the $2.5 million, that was a variance due to vacancies in the division during the year. For the estimated 2020-21, that’s variance due to salary adjustments and attrition management there. MR. FORSEY: Okay.

Then under Transportation and Communications, there’s also a steady decrease in this category. Can you explain that? MR. LOVELESS: That was due to less than anticipated flying time for helicopter services and the efficiencies for helicopter time realized within the Forestry Division. MR. FORSEY: Okay. Supplies: What is included in that figure? MR. LOVELESS: I’ll just comment on the variance and I’ll ask someone else to talk about what’s included in the Supplies. I believe we’re going to bring another ADM into the fold. That was due to less than anticipated supply expenditures, but I’ll ask Mr. Balsom. CHAIR: Mr.

Balsom. MR. BALSOM: Thank you. The Administration and Program Planning is our headquarter-based programs. We have our Forest Inventory Program; we also have our strategic planning that does our Wood Supply. These are supplies related to those programs, including fuel for ATVs and various equipment related to those programs. MR. FORSEY: Okay. Purchased Services: What’s included there? MR. BALSOM: Our Purchased Services are mainly related to our Xerox and various – I don’t know if we have a list of those? MS.

KING: Purchased Services here would be advertising and promotion, some of our aerial photography, environmental logging, evaluation of some of our plantations, some of our graphic services, production of some educational materials and legal documents. That kind of activity. MR. FORSEY: Okay. The same for Property, Furnishings and Equipment. What’s included there as well? There’s a big difference there. MR. LOVELESS: I can answer that. That was due to the purchase of computer towers, hard drives and computer equipment that were required during the year. MR. FORSEY: Okay. Grants and Subsidies: What is included?

What explains the variance there in Grants and Subsidies? MR. LOVELESS: The variance was due to higher than anticipated grant expenditures as a

October 6, 2020 RESOURCE COMMITTEE 289 result of support for industry diversification in response to downturn in markets. I don’t know, Steve, if you want to add in terms of what is within the Grants and Subsidies? MR. BALSOM: Yes, included in our Grants and Subsidies we have forest management agreements with the Labrador Innu Nation and the NunatuKavut Community Council. We also have a grant for the Lumber Producers’ Association.

We are also a member of FPInnovations, the national research body for forestry; our Canadian Council of Forest Ministers membership; as well as various individual grants related to the Atlantic Teachers’ Tour, Envirothon and those type of grants. MR. FORSEY: Okay, thank you. 3.1.02, Salaries: Can you explain the variance in the Salaries? MR. LOVELESS: The variance was due to

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2020-10-06
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga49_pdfs_2020-10-06_20_rc_20-_20department_20of_20fisheries__20forestry_20and_20agriculture_.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a10d7131d69b49cc0c6fbf8cac53839397d43def

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).