PDF Version

May 27,

SOCIAL

SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Eli Cross, MHA for Bonavista South, substitutes

for Glenn Littlejohn, MHA for Port de Grave.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Eddie Joyce, MHA for Bay of Islands, substitutes

for Stelman Flynn, MHA for Humber East.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, George Murphy, MHA for St. John's East,

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Nick McGrath, MHA for Labrador West, substitutes

for Tony Cornect, MHA for Port au Port, for part of the meeting.

The

Committee met at 9:06 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Pollard):

Good morning, everybody.

It is

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 and welcome, everybody, to the Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs and Labour Relations Agency Estimates.

Thank you for gracing us with your presence on this raining morning.

Before we dig in to the Estimates, we will have some introductions,

beginning with Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE:

Eddie Joyce, MHA, Bay of

Islands.

MR. SIMMS:

Randy Simms, Researcher, Opposition Office.

MR. MURPHY:

George Murphy, MHA for St.

John's East.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP Caucus.

MR. CROSS:

Eli Cross, MHA for Bonavista

North, and I am filling in for Glenn Littlejohn.

MR. LITTLE:

Glen Little, representing

the beautiful, historic District of Bonavista South.

MR. CORNECT:

Tony Cornect, MHA of the

great and cultural District of Port au Port.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I would

like to ask the minister for an introduction and go from there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keith

Hutchings, Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs and I will ask my

staff to introduce themselves.

MS JANES:

Colleen Janes, Deputy Minister for Municipal Affairs.

MR. DUTTON:

Sean Dutton, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MS BALLARD:

Donna Ballard, CEO of the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. BRANTON:

Glenn Branton, CEO of the Labour Relations Board.

MR. SCOTT:

Paul Scott, ADM, Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. MERCER:

Cluney Mercer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal Infrastructure.

MR. HOWE:

Peter Howe, Assistant Deputy Minister for Lands.

MR. WINTERS:

Scott Winters, Manager of Communications.

MR. CURTIS:

Ken Curtis, Departmental Controller.

MS TIZZARD:

Heather Tizzard, ADM, Policy and Corporate Services.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I am

Kevin Pollard, MHA for Baie Verte Springdale, filling in for the Chair, Glenn

Littlejohn.

It is

the wish of this Committee, I understand, that we will go with Labour Relations

first. Before we do that, I will

ask the minister he has up to fifteen minutes to have his opening remarks.

Before you do, we will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

CLERK (Ms Hammond):

Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Subhead 1.1.01.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr.

Chair, I do not have any extensive remarks here this morning.

I am certainly delighted to be here to share with the budget Committee

the layout for our budget estimates for this fiscal year.

With

that, I will certainly go to the Committee.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

The

first speaker over here has up to fifteen minutes.

MR. JOYCE:

I will not be fifteen

minutes on this.

First

of all, thank you, Minister, and all of the staff for being here today.

I will just go on the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.

How much is paid per meeting for each person on the board?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Again, just for clarity,

where are we to, Mr. Joyce, which number?

MR. JOYCE:

Heading 1.1.04, Standing

Fish Price Setting Panel.

Subhead

6.1, sorry.

CHAIR:

Say that again, Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE:

Subhead 6.1.04.

CHAIR:

Subhead 6.1.04, I cannot

find that.

MR. JOYCE:

Standing Fish Price Setting

Council.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Subhead 1.1.04, Standing

Fish Price Setting Panel?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

OFFICIAL:

Yes, 6.1.04.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It is 1.1 here.

Sorry,

Mr. Joyce. Okay.

OFFICIAL:

It is 1.1.04.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Subhead 1.1, yes.

CHAIR:

For clarity, 1.1.04,

Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.

Thank

you.

MS BALLARD:

Your question, Mr. Joyce,

was the -?

MR. JOYCE:

On that line item, how much

do the people on the panel get per sitting per day?

MS BALLARD:

The panel itself Mr.

Joyce, their per diems come from Professional Services.

The Salaries budget line of $94,500 is for one staff person who deals

with the negotiations in the fishing industry and is administrative support to

the board itself. The board members

are paid their per diems from Professional Services.

MR. JOYCE:

How much do they get paid?

MS BALLARD:

Their per diem rates; the

Chair is $1,000 per day with a $500 annual retainer, the regular members are

$600 per day with a $3,000 annual retainer, and the alternate members are $6,000

per day.

MR. JOYCE:

Six hundred dollars per day.

MS BALLARD:

Six hundred dollars per day,

sorry.

MR. JOYCE:

Can we get a breakdown of

how much has been paid so far this year?

Say, up to a year, how much has been paid per person?

CHAIR:

Could I interject there,

please, before you answer. Could

you wait for the red light and then say your name, please, for the purposes of

the media people downstairs.

Thank

you so very much.

MS BALLARD:

That information is

available and can be provided.

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That is fine.

We will make that available.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

Last

year, Minister Bill 22 during the Estimates it was stated there would be a

review of the Labour Relations Act.

We were told stay tuned. Have there

been any amendments made to the Labour Relations Act?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, not at this particular

time, but we are looking at various initiatives in terms of the act itself.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

1.1.02, Transportation and Communications, there was a reduction of expenditures

compared to the budget. The budget

was $63,000 and the actual spent was $12,000.

Now it is back up to $43,000.

What was this money supposed to be used for and why was it not used?

It is subhead 1.1.02.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

In Transportation and

Communications there was a decrease of $20,000 in 2015-2016 due to identified

savings through the deficit reduction exercise.

As well, there was a decrease of $51,714.50 in revised, due again to

spending and travel restrictions.

MR. JOYCE:

Are the restrictions lifted

now?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Well we are always certainly

cognizant of travel and expenditures.

We have gone through a process as you remember, the Premier announced

last year to look at restrictions in terms of travel that we are doing.

We still need to meet the needs, obviously, and the services we provide

through the Labour Relations Agency, and we will continue to do that.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

We see

here with the Salaries figure for the department there is no change, actually.

How many people are on staff?

How many are used for arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, the

numbers themselves?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The Labour Relations Agency

has twenty-two staff under the direction of a chief executive officer.

Donna,

we want you to take us through the particulars of the question there.

MS BALLARD:

Yes. The Labour Relations Agency

and the Labour Relations Board together have a staff of thirty-three.

That includes executive, but not the Labour Relations Board per diems.

That is separate.

Within

the Labour Relations Agency, we have a unit of labour relations officers.

I believe those are the people you are talking about who deal with

mediation and conciliation and so forth.

Within those we have a director and four officers, an officer specific to

the Fish Price Setting Panel, and an administrative staff; so five officers

altogether plus the director.

MR. JOYCE:

So there are twenty-two

people at the staff

MS BALLARD:

Plus one administrative staff. That

is for the Labour Relations Division of the agency itself.

MR. JOYCE:

Only five of them do

conciliation? What does the rest

do?

MS BALLARD:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

What is the role of the

other seventeen or eighteen?

MS BALLARD:

Well, then we also have a Labour Standards Division.

Those are the people who deal mostly with non-unionized labour relations

issues. They take a lot of phone

calls when people call, for example, and say they did not receive their overtime

they worked on the weekend. They

give out information as to what the minimum wage would be, what their rights are

with regard to clothing allowances, those sorts of things, mostly in the

non-unionized retail sector.

They

will become involved, if it is necessary, in investigations.

They will issue orders. For

example, if somebody is not paid what they are supposed to be, orders will be

issued and registered with the court.

They also provide information sessions to high schools, college

graduates, people who are entering the workforce and so forth, mostly the

non-unionized sector.

There

are eight staff who deal with that including an office in Corner Brook, which

has one Labour Standards Officer and one administrative staff.

The other officers are here in St. John's.

There is a Director and administrative staff as well.

addition to that, we have a policy and planning division, which has four staff.

They are responsible for the corporate services of government annual

reports and that sort of thing, plus policy development such as amendments to

legislation, the worker protector legislation, those sorts of things.

Then

there is the Labour Relations Board itself, which has a staff of officers who do

the investigations and prepare for the staff meetings.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

Thank you.

1.2.01, the Labour Relations Board itself, it says the Salaries have gone up by

$69,000. The actual was $665,900

and the budget was $735,500. Was

there hiring there?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Joyce, that is related

to an increase of $21,400 in 2015-2016 due to the 3 per cent salary increase.

MR. JOYCE:

Increase, okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Salaries fund about eight

positions, I think, at the Labour Relations Board office.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

That is

all of the questions I have for now, Mr. Chair, but I am sure I will be back.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Eddie.

We will

pause there. We will go with

George.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to

carry on in 1.2.01 in the Labour Relations Board, just a couple of more

questions on the line items.

Professional Services line shows that in 2014-2015 you were looking for $79,800

and the actual that you spent was $94,000.

I was just wondering if you can give me a breakdown of what happened

here.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, that was an increase

there of $14,200 in 2014-2015; revised due to 2013-2014 expenses for a very

detailed and complex Labour Relations Board case involving fourteen parties.

It was a significant legal issue dealing with something that had not yet

been interpreted. So there were

additional professional services required for that particular case.

MR. MURPHY:

Can you give us any more

detail on what that case involved?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I would have to go to Donna

on that.

MS BALLARD:

That maybe before the board still.

MR. BRANTON:

That is a decision with respect to the offshore platform.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

For

this year then you are budgeting only $70,000.

You are anticipating that there is going to be a resolution to this case,

I guess.

MS BALLARD:

Yes, that case is finished.

MR. MURPHY:

That is done.

MS BALLARD:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

There

was another line item here that was of concern and jumped out.

wonder if you can give me a breakdown again in 1.1.02, Administration and

Planning. The Transportation and

Communications in the budget here showed $63,700.

In actual fact, you only spent $12,000.

Can you give me another breakdown of what happened here again?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

In that particular case,

there was a decrease of a little over $51,000 due to spending and certainly

reduced travel and being cognizant in our financial position and travel

restrictions based on that.

MR. MURPHY:

Is the department still tied

in with the travel restrictions now as a result of what we are seeing in the

budget?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Again, we are cognizant of

our expenditures, but if the services that we provide, whether it is the Labour

Relations Agency or anywhere else, those services have to be provided.

So we will provide those services.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

So you do not anticipate that there would be anything that would be held

back as a result of that and spending would go on.

Under

Purchased Services, Minister, $300,000 against $352,200 that was budgeted.

I wonder if I can get a breakdown of what these Purchased Services may

have been.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We are still with 1.1.02?

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, Sir.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, sorry.

We had

an original of $352,200 estimated, revised to $300,000.

Then, yes, for this year is $325,000.

So are you asking about the $300,000, sorry, again?

MR. MURPHY:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

There was a reduction there,

as we can see, of $52,200 for 2014-2015.

Again, spending, in terms of being cognizant of our spending, certainly

resulted in less than anticipated expenditures.

Administration and Planning funds also purchase services for the Labour

Relations Agency. So we get a

reduction of $52,200.

MR. MURPHY:

So what sort of services

would you have bought under this particular line item?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Donna, could you give us

some detail in regard to that?

MR. MURPHY:

Please.

MS BALLARD:

Subhead 1.1.02, Operating Accounts?

MR. MURPHY:

Purchased Services.

MS BALLARD:

Purchased Services the most significant cost is our lease for our building.

MR. MURPHY:

It is lease costs, isn't it?

Okay.

Has

government been looking at other places, for example, where it could save money

when it comes to leases, that sort of thing?

Any empty government facilities that are out there, for example, where

they could be moving their offices?

Right now, where are their offices too?

Are they renting off the private sector out there now?

MS BALLARD:

Well, we are in the Beothuk Building

MR. MURPHY:

Right.

MS BALLARD:

which a decision was made some years ago to have us separate from government

itself because of the independent nature of what we do, including

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

MS BALLARD:

providing conciliation services to the public sector as well.

So we have the floor there, as well as the Labour Relations Board, and

its hearing room. So all of the

space that we have there is necessary, and we also have a very small office in

the government building, which is rent-free, in the sense, for us as an agency

in Corner Brook.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

That is great, thanks.

Mr.

Chair, I have no other questions on this particular

section right at the time

being

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you very much.

We go

back to Eddie.

MR. JOYCE:

I am just going to ask,

Minister, you mentioned Bill 22, that there are no plans.

I notice there is no money in the budget.

So does that mean it is not going to be coming forward this year, the

changes

MR. HUTCHINGS:

(Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE:

Subhead 1.2.01, Bill 22.

You just mentioned that you are going to bring some changes forward.

There is no money in the budget itself.

Will there be changes? You

mentioned earlier that they were looking at it (inaudible) the minister said:

stay tuned.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I did not say there were

going to be no changes, no. I said

we are always under review in terms of legislation and possibilities of what we

might do.

MR. JOYCE:

Is there any money in the

budget this year to bring changes forward this year?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Changes will be done through

our staffing. As you know, we bring

legislative changes to the House for a review, if we were to do it.

So we have the staffing if we were to do legislative changes.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Donna, anything further to

add on that?

MS BALLARD:

One of the big pieces of work that we are doing right now, Mr. Joyce, as you are

probably aware, there was a motion in the House in the spring related to worker

protection legislation. So, we are

doing that in-house with an interdepartmental committee.

We have the capacity within our policy division working with other

departments of government to bring that forward.

Of course, there is the OPE which will assist us in public consultation.

So we can use in-house resources to bring that forward.

We have the capacity.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

I will

just go back to Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.

It says here Profession Services of $90,000, and it is up to $115,000

this year. Why the increase?

Are they expecting more board meetings?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Donna.

MS BALLARD:

As you can appreciate, it is volatile, and it just depends.

We usually keep enough money in there so that we are able, depending on

how many disputes and how many hearings there needs to be, to ensure that we

have enough money to cover it; but we are not expecting necessarily anything

more specific this year, unless there are issues with the industry.

MR. JOYCE:

This price setting council,

is that paid totally by government?

MS BALLARD:

Sorry?

MR. JOYCE:

Is it paid totally by

government?

MS BALLARD:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

One hundred per cent so

there is no cost recovery from the (inaudible)

MS BALLARD:

The panel itself is established and funded through government, yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

This

$90,000, is this just for the price panel it cannot be?

MS BALLARD:

The Salaries of $94,500, that is salary and benefits for the one officer I

discussed earlier.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MS BALLARD:

This is all just for the panel, yes this particular 1.1.04.

So then you have your operating expenses, and so forth.

Your Professional Services, of course, as I indicated, would be for the

per diems and the travel for the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.

MR. JOYCE:

Just a question for the

minister: If there is no agreement with the panel, once they set it, is there

any arbitration after that or is it binding?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The final

MR. JOYCE:

Decision by the panel.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I guess they are open to the

courts if they wanted to go through the court.

MR. JOYCE:

The courts, okay.

I am

fine, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you very much.

We will proceed by asking the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK:

Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

Subhead 1.1.02 to 1.2.01

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall subheads 1.1.02 to

1.2.01 inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.1.02 through 1.2.01 carried.

CLERK:

The total.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, Labour Relations Agency, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Okay, ladies and gentlemen,

that concludes the Labour Relations Agency Estimates.

Thank

you very much.

We will

take a minute just to okay, I think we are ready to go.

I will

ask the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK:

Moving on to Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs, 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Subhead 1.1.01.

Okay,

Mr. Joyce, you have the floor whenever you are ready.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

Thank

you again.

Minister, I am just going to ask some probing questions first and then we can go

through the line items. It is much

easier to ask the staff than me trying to dig it out and go through each line

until we get the answer.

Waste

management; can you tell me what line item and how much is put in that for the

Western Region this year? Where is

that in the Estimates?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It is probably easier if we

went through line items and when we get to it, we can give you those details on

it, if you want. Or we can skip

around.

MR. JOYCE:

What happens a lot of times

is that we may not make it through the three hours.

I do not know if the staff I am sure they would know.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, we can skip through

it. What

section is it?

CHAIR:

Cluney.

MR. MERCER:

It is under subhead 4.2.03.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

How

much has the Province put into waste management this year and budgeted this year

for waste management for the Western Region?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I will just give a

high-level number, Mr. Joyce, and then we will get into further details.

To date there has been approximately $160,000 spent on waste management?

OFFICIAL:

No.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It is $160 million, sorry.

This

year we are in the range of $60 million in terms of future continued

expenditures. That will be related

to a transfer station in Clarenville, as well as the six transfer stations for

the West Coast. That RFP will be

closing, I do believe, at the end of the month.

It is expected that those facilities will be up and operational in

mid-to-late 2016.

regard to your question specifically in regard to break outs of that, I will go

to Cluney to speak to that.

MR. MERCER:

Included in subhead 4.2.03

for waste management expenditures for this year there is $12.75 million.

We expect to spend $4 million or $5 million of that in cash flow

associated with the construction of transfer stations in the Western Region.

That would be in addition to $4 million that they already have, that

government has provided in previous Budgets.

We expect the total cost of the six transfer stations to be roughly $30

million spent over three years.

MR. JOYCE:

How much of that is

provincial money?

MR. MERCER:

The $12.75 million budgeted

for this year is gas tax funding, so that would be money that came from the

federal government. The $5 million

previously advanced to the board is all provincial money from provincial

coffers.

The

minister referenced $160 million spent on the waste management strategy to date.

In excess of $90 million of that has been provincial expenditure and

$62.4 million of it has been federal expenditure out of gas tax funding.

MR. JOYCE:

In the 2014-2015 budget for

Grants and Subsidies it was $41.4 million, but only $17.3 million was spent.

Was that $40.1 million federal gas tax?

Why wasn't the money distributed?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The same one, 4.2.03?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

Last

year it was $41.4 million.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, Mr. Joyce, that

reflects lower waste management expenditure as a result of some of the

infrastructure work not proceeding as quickly as intended, as planned; as well

as grant payments to municipalities of $15 million under the gas tax program

that are held for various reasons: municipalities may not have submitted their

proposals or municipalities may have not been incompliance with the program

requirements; as well, interest earned on funds that have not yet been spent.

MR. JOYCE:

There was $26 million or $27

million not spent last year?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It was $24 million.

MR. JOYCE:

There was $24 million not

spent.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That would be related to the

infrastructure projects, identifying the projects, rolling them out in terms of

planning, tendering (inaudible)

MR. JOYCE:

Is it carried over to this

year?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Is there any breakdown of

where the money is going to be spent, or what major projects it is going to be

used for?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I have listed some of them,

but we can certainly give you a list of what is in the hopper this year for

moving forward. We can certainly

give you that.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, if you do not mind.

I do

not know where it is at in the budget items as I go through the cost to

operate the Western Regional Waste Management, do you have a breakdown for the

Western Region so far, the cost of that?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Do you mean cost of the

authority to run it or the investment we made in infrastructure?

MR. JOYCE:

Salaries, who is on salary?

I know Don Downer is. The

cost to operate it, can I get a copy of the breakdown on that?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The operation of the

Regional Waste Management Authority?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, we certainly can do

that.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, and who is on the

regional authority now because there was some discrepancy there where people in

the last election never made it and new appointees

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The appointees would come

from the local governance structure and sit on the authority.

MR. JOYCE:

It took a nice while before

they were that is what I would like, if I could get a copy of that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

You want to know who sits

there, where they are from I guess.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, who sits there and the

cost to date for the Western Regional Waste Management; if I can get a salary

breakdown, travel, and meetings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

We have that available. Do

you have anything to add to that, Cluney?

MR. MERCER:

Mr. Joyce, the Western Regional Service Board for the calendar year 2014, which

would correspond with our budget year 2014-2015, we did not provide any funding

to the Western Regional Service Board for operations.

They would have on their website published their operational budget for

the year, the salaries of staff, stipends for board members, they are all a part

of that budget, and they are paid for by fees collected from municipalities,

local service districts, and users of the waste management services in the

Western Region.

Yes, we

can provide these two pieces of information for you.

MR. JOYCE:

The Wild Cove dumpsite is

totally self-sufficient now? Is

that what you are saying?

MR. MERCER:

The Wild Cove dumpsite

while the ownership of this site, on paper, belongs to the City of Corner Brook,

the Western Regional Service Board has taken over operations of that.

The operational cost of the Wild Cove site as well as the Bay St.

George's site is all combined together in their operational budget and they have

budgeted the fees on the basis of a balanced budget.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

I just

one more question on waste management.

What is the capacity of Central?

Would you have that? I know

it is not in the Estimates, the capacity of Central waste management at Norris

Arm to handling waste management

MR. HUTCHINGS:

(Inaudible) overall

capacity.

MR. JOYCE:

I visited the site a few

years back and it was about 30 per cent, 32 per cent, 33 per cent capacity; that

is it.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Do you mean at capacity at

that point?

MR. JOYCE:

At capacity, yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, we can certainly

provide that information. Cluney,

do you know

MR. MERCER:

I think what you might be

referring to, Mr. Joyce, is the initial lined cell that was developed at the

site. The site itself, from a

landfill perspective, is good for about 150 years.

The lined site that collects the leachate that is treated before it is

released into the environment was a five-year cell.

So the

ongoing operational costs associated with the Norris Arm site is that every four

or five years they will put in a new liner and it will be connected to the

existing liner. It is like having a

self-contained unit. By the time

that landfill is completed, they will have dozens of lined cells.

MR. JOYCE:

So my question is: Can they

handle the waste management from Western Region?

MR. MERCER:

Absolutely.

When the facilities, not only the landfill facilities at the Norris Arm

site but the recycling facility as well that just became operational earlier

this year, it was all built to accommodate waste from Western.

CHAIR:

Your time has expired.

Do you have a follow-up question (inaudible)

MR. JOYCE:

Just one follow-up question.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

You are telling me that the

intent from day one what you just said was the intent was never to build a

site in Western Newfoundland, that was built to the capacity that could handle

Western Newfoundland.

MR. MERCER:

No, that was not the intent.

The decision of the Western committee to take waste to Central

Newfoundland was made in time for the capacity, or to increase capacity into the

leachate treatment system for the landfill and the material recovery facility,

which is the recycling facility.

That decision was made in time to incorporate the additional capacity into the

design requirements before the infrastructure was actually built.

MR. JOYCE:

Oh, that is not correct.

CHAIR:

Okay, I have to stop you

here now. You have to park here for

the time being. We have to go to

George. We will come back to Eddie

on that.

George.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to

carry on with the questions around the Wild Cove site and the installation of a

liner. I believe it was last year

government decided against the installation of a liner out there in that

particular site. I think it was a

cost-saving measure. Do you have an

update on that or what government has done with that afterwards?

MR. MERCER:

At Wild Cove?

MR. MURPHY:

I think it was at the Wild

Cove site.

MR. MERCER:

I am not knowledgeable of any discussion about a liner for Wild Cove.

About

four or five years ago when the Western Region was looking for potential sites

for a landfill site for the Western Region, there was some consideration given

to Wild Cove at that time.

Underneath the soil in Wild Cove there is a clay layer.

So there was some consideration given to whether or not it was a natural

liner, but Wild Cove was eventually ruled out because it did not have the

capacity to take waste for the Western Region for a minimum of a fifty-year

period.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

I am

just curious, when it comes to the decision to move material then to the central

area of the Province, has your department done a cost-benefit analysis of the

benefits of moving it to the Norris Arm site versus keeping a full- fledged

operating facility on the West Coast of the Island?

MR. MERCER:

Yes, there has been significant analysis done.

There was one significant report that was commissioned by the Regional

Waste Management Committee in the Western Region.

The work was completed by SNC-Lavalin over the course of two years with

significant analysis to demonstrate that the cost of transporting Western waste

to the Norris Arm facility was cheaper from a household cost perspective for the

region.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

MR. MERCER:

In addition, it was followed up with a study on the impact on the environment in

terms of the additional trucking.

So from

a greenhouse gas emission perspective, we looked at both options of operating a

lined landfill in the Western Region versus trucking.

It was determined it would be cost neutral and carbon neutral from an

environmental perspective.

there has been significant work done to demonstrate that it is, in fact, cheaper

to take Western waste to Central Newfoundland.

MR. MURPHY:

Mr. Minister, I am just

wondering is that report available?

Can we have a copy of that report so we can have a look at it?

MR. MERCER:

Most certainly.

A copy of that report is actually posted on the Western Regional Service

Board's website, and has been there for at least a year-and-a-half or so now.

MR. MURPHY:

Alright, thanks.

I will

just go over to some line items then.

Starting at 1.2.02, Administrative Support, your Purchased Services line

shows $30,600 was budgeted for and $42,000 was actually spent in the past year.

I am just wondering if we can get a breakdown of what happened here.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Subhead 1.2.02?

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, Sir.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What was the line item?

CHAIR:

Purchased Services.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That was due to an increase

of $11,400 we can see there of higher than anticipated departmental advertising,

equipment rental, printing, and other general purchased services costs that we

had an increase in that amount from what the estimate was to what was revised.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

Down to

1.2.03, Strategic Financial Management, I wonder if we can get a breakdown of

what is happening here as regards to your salary line.

You have $212,000 difference in the revised figure for this year against

what was budgeted and, again, you are up to almost $1.2 million in salaries for

this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The decrease between the two

years reflects some staff vacancies we have and some delays in staffing those

vacant positons. So that is related

to actual positions.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

I am just looking at the salary details for this year and it looks like

it is up. Are there going to be any

hiring in this particular department?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Hirings?

MR. MURPHY:

Hirings.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

There would be recruitment done there.

As well, funding that was moved from the division's budget last year to

be used in another division is being moved back to this division this year.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

There was a salary component

there. There is also an increase

associated before I indicated the 3 per cent salary increase due to the

collective agreement.

MR. MURPHY:

Yes.

How

many of these vacancies are going to be filled this year?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

How many?

MR. MURPHY:

Yes.

How many positons are we talking about here?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Do we have that, Colleen?

ahead.

MS JANES:

There are four currently

vacant. Whether all of those will

be recruited during this year remains to be seen.

A couple of those are the same type of position, so we would move to fill

one and then we would determine whether we have an operational requirement.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

So we

do not know yet, if that is the case, if these are going to be contractual

positions, just a temporary filling of these positions, or if they will be

full-time permanent.

MS JANES:

They would not be

contractual positons. These would

be either permanent or temporary positions.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

That is great. Thanks.

Coming

over to 2.1.01, Regional Support in Regional and Financial Support Services, the

Transportation and Communications line shows $106,700 that was budgeted for, and

$87,700 was the actual for this year.

I wonder if I could get a breakdown of what is happening here.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Is that Transportation and

Communications?

CHAIR:

Subhead 2.1.01.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, Sir.

CHAIR:

Transportation and

Communications.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, that reflected just

lower than anticipated travel and communication costs.

We have adjusted it for the estimate this year to $90,000.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay, so $90,000 would be

historical that you would be going back on?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, it would be reflective

of what we have seen, I guess, to date in terms of what was required based on

last year and looking to this year.

We feel certainly that would meet our needs.

MR. MURPHY:

All right.

Under

Purchased Services, $49,700 was spent against $63,100 budgeted.

That same figure that you had budgeted is also the same figure that you

have budgeted for this year as well.

I wonder if we can get a breakdown here.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

On the decrease?

MR. MURPHY:

On the decrease, yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, it just reflects lower

than anticipated training, meaning in general, Purchased Services required

throughout the year. I guess

historically we see it has gone back to $63,100.

MR. MURPHY:

Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It is just reflective of

what it historically has been, so we will maintain that for this year's

Estimates.

MR. MURPHY:

Down to 2.1.02, Municipal

Finance, Professional Services; $15,000 was budgeted for and there was nothing

spent this year. I am just

wondering what was happening with this line.

CHAIR:

Subhead 2.1.02, Professional

Services.

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, Sir.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That reflected lower than

anticipated consultant costs. As

well, costs typically incurred by the department for work completed by the Stats

Agency were not incurred this year due to the elimination of the whole

interdepartmental building system.

That caused some of that reduction as well.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you very much for

that.

Just a

quick note on the Municipal Finance

section on the Salaries, not too much had

changed in Salaries versus this year what was budgeted for this year, I should

say, against last year. Last year,

you had budgeted $416,200. I am

wondering if I can get a breakdown of just what is happening here, or what did

not happen, I guess, in this particular case.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

There was a salary decrease

of $30,900 between 2015-2016 and the salary budgeted for 2014-2015.

It reflects an increase in funding for required step increases.

Sorry, that is going from what was budgeted and what we are looking at

for this year.

MR. MURPHY:

Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

There is a 3 per cent salary

increase negotiated as we spoke of as well.

There was some offset in attrition management.

Did you ask about the revised number as well?

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, the budgeted figure was

$416,000. It was actually all not

spent, I guess, in this particular case.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, okay.

The

$33,100 was due to one of the director's positions being vacant for part of the

year.

MR. MURPHY:

Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That was part of the salary

for that position.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay.

George,

could I hold you there?

MR. MURPHY:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Eddie.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible) a couple of

questions. I thank the minister and

staff.

The ADM

just mentioned that and I just have to get this correct in my own mind

Western made the decision. After

Western made the decision to move it to Central in Norris Arm, then Central

built their facility to equal that.

Is that correct?

MR. MERCER:

To be clear, the area that constitutes that Central Newfoundland regional

landfill facility was identified back around 2008, and prior to the Western

Region having much work done in terms of planning.

The area that is available for landfill development at the Norris Arm

site is significant, it is tens of hectares.

The estimated life of that site, from a landfill perspective, is in

excess of 100 years. The landfill

site itself is developed on a cell-by-cell basis, each cell being a lined cell

so that you collect leachate and you treat it.

Each of those cells has a life of about five years.

The

landfill got developed. So the

landfill, even with taking waste from the Western Region, is good for nearly 100

years. During the period whereby

the Western Region made the decision to go to Central, the first cell for the

Norris Arm site was under development.

That cell was only intended for the use of the Central Region.

All the other facilities on the site the leachate treatment, the

recycling facilities were all designed and constructed building capacity in

for the Western Region.

Given

the fact that the landfill, which is developed on a cell-by-cell basis, can

accommodate waste for 100 years, there is no issue with taking waste from the

Western Region and accommodating it at the landfill site.

It may mean that you have to develop cells more frequently, absolutely,

but you will have double the users contributing to the cost of replacing that

cell.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

When I

visited the site the Central site opened in February 2012 with the capacity of

30 per cent for all Central. The

decision was made months later, July 26, 2012, for Western.

I mean,

this is a very big issue in Western because in your own report that you just

referred to, it is $1.8 million extra to ship the garbage by truck.

It is in the report; I mention that to the minister.

It is in the report.

What

you are saying here today is that there was already a decision made to ship that

out of Western before July because the facility was built.

I visited the facility personally; it was at 30 per cent capacity only.

You cannot have it both ways.

MR. MERCER:

I will address one issue at a time.

Your $1.8 million in transportation costs from Western to Central is indeed

correct, but you fail to realize in the same report it identifies in excess of

$2 million per year in savings associated with not having to operate the

landfill or the recycling facility in the Western Region.

The net

benefit is that it is cheaper on a household cost.

Our objective here, everyone's objective here, including all of the

regional service boards and the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental

Affairs, is to provide the cheapest operational cost to the residents and

households of the Province for a modern waste management strategy.

That is

in the document. If you follow your

logic in terms of the 32 per cent capacity in 2012, well, we would be at

capacity right now if they were only operating for one year and they were at

32 per cent. What you are referring

to is the five-year cell, but there will be dozens of cells developed within the

landfill to constitute a landfill.

MR. JOYCE:

I was at the site.

I went through it. It was

not the 32 capacity for that cell; it was 32 per cent for the whole site, the

whole area, the acreage for the whole area.

I went through it with the regional manager there.

That is just interesting, that is all.

Anyway, I will get back to it because obviously, in my opinion, it was a

predesigned plan, which I said from day one was never to be built in Western

Newfoundland.

How

much is in the budget this year to do I know the minister mentioned that there

will be stations built in Western Newfoundland.

How much is in the budget for that tender and where in the budget the

transfer stations?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Looking over the next three

years there is about $30 million. I

think that is right, Cluney, for the six transfer stations?

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Is there going to be a

tender this year for that?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, there was an RFP that

is closing the end of this month.

We look at awarding in, hopefully I would say, June.

Cluney,

do you want to add anything further to that?

MR. MERCER:

It is a design-build RFP. The tender was

issued the first week in January. It is closing, I think, the end of May or the

first week of June. We expect to

award a contract to the successful bidder, I would say, within six weeks or so

of that closing. We expect

construction to start this year.

Construction will continue into 2016 and potentially early 2017 before they are

fully completed.

With

respect to your question we answered earlier, the budget for this year cash

flow for this year on the $30 million the minister referenced is $12.75 million,

contained within the gas tax funding that we previously identified for this

year. That is in addition to the $5

million that we provided the board with under a previous year's budget.

MR. JOYCE:

This $12.75 million would be

for the transfer stations?

MR. MERCER:

The $12.75 million is what

we have budgeted in gas tax this year.

We do not expect the Western Region will spend that much money this year.

So we will spend some of the $12.75 million on other infrastructure in

other regions. We are committed to

the $30 million expenditure for the Western Region and have been for a long

time.

MR. JOYCE:

My question is how much is

going to be spent out of the $30 million for the Western Region this year?

I am being asked a lot of questions on it.

This $30 million that is supposed to be spent for the Western Region, how

much is in the budget to be spent this year, this fiscal year coming up that we

are going to vote on in the House of Assembly?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

What is the exact number

that is in overall the waste management number we have in there, but we have

called an RFP-Build Design, when that comes back, obviously, there will be a

selection process for.

So when

you are looking at cash flow, it depends on when the project starts and what

cash will flow in the current year.

Whatever that commitment is, we will meet that commitment.

What

that number will be, we are not really sure because you know what the cash flow

is going to be based on when the project starts and when construction starts,

but we will meet that commitment.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

The

remaining will be spent up to 2017?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, as the project is being

built and unfolds.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

Can I

ask why the delay for the Western Region?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Delay in

MR. JOYCE:

The Western Region was

supposed to be completed in 2012; that was the initial plan in the provincial

strategy.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We looked overall at the

waste management strategy. I

referenced before, we had a plan, a strategy with some detail we would have to

bring through, as a government, and attach dollars to it.

That plan started in 2007.

So,

obviously, it is a significant plan when you look at the Island and Labrador in

terms of where we were in terms of opening burning, teepees, you name it, and

how we would progress to a modern waste management facility and infrastructure

in the Province. It is a big

undertaking. As we went through

that, and on a regional basis and building the capacity on the ground to get

everybody involved to do that, there are challenges with it.

recognizing, would we like to have done it sooner?

Sure, but it is a significant undertaking.

There is the infrastructure build.

There is the change in people's ability to buy into waste management, to

stream waste management, and how we handle all of that.

We built significant infrastructure and moved it forward.

We are

committed to Western Newfoundland, just like we are to other regions of the

Province, to build on infrastructure and bring the best possible service we can

to waste management to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

I will

hold. I have a few other questions.

CHAIR:

Okay.

If I

could interject for a moment, not to be mean or cold-hearted or whatever, I

would like to remind everybody that the minister has his discretion as to how

far he goes and strays from the line items in Estimates, as opposed to policy.

Hopefully, we can through this session within three hours and everybody

will be satisfied. I just want to

clarify that.

Okay,

George.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will

just carry on with a couple of line items and at the same time, I guess, come up

with a couple of general questions around policy too, if that is alright with

the minister.

Under

section 2.1.03 under the Local Governance, I want to first get into the salary

details of this particular department; $443,800 was budgeted for.

The revised figure was $371,900.

This year you are anticipating salary increases to $523,600.

So I am wondering if you could give us a bit of a detailed breakdown on

what is happening, particularly, number one with the salary line, I guess, to

start off.

CHAIR:

Okay, for clarity, 2.1.03,

Local Governance, Salaries.

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, Sir.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, $443,800 to $371,900,

we would have a decrease of $71,900 between the two years due to savings related

to staff vacancies and a delay in staffing those vacant positions.

So that would be related to staffing.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

This

year your salary details were up though.

So do you anticipate filling some of these vacancies?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, the salary increase of

$79,800 between the two years as well reflects a re-profiling of a contract

position from the gas tax program, which is about $87,500.

There is an increase in required funding for salary step increases again;

the 3 per cent salary increase negotiated through the collective bargaining

process. There is a new staff at a

lower salary step of $8,500. So all

of that combined gives us the $523,600.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay, so how many vacancies

altogether are going to be filled here?

By the looks of this it is going to be substantial.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Colleen, do you have that

number?

MS JANES:

The minister referenced that

there is a re-profiling of salary from a gas tax contractual position that is

now moving to Local Governance, so that is predominately the basis for the

increase there. There is an intent

to fill that position this year.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

Mr.

Minister if I can ask you a question around the Local Governance

section here

altogether, it says, the

Department's legislative program and provides interpretative advice on the

various legislation to the Department and local governments; and administration

of the Municipal Training Program.

It also gets into the question around amalgamation, as well as community

relocation requests.

I was

just wondering: Has your department, as of late, been taking any inquires as

regards to the possibility of amalgamation, number one; or, number two, when it

comes to requests for the possibility of community relocation?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes and I will get staff

in terms of numbers we always get inquiries in regard to possibilities of

amalgamation, local service districts to municipalities, a local service

district wanting to consider incorporating.

We certainly get inquires like that and discussions.

I think it is something we all agree we need to go to in terms of greater

regional services and regionalization.

On the

issue of relocation, I think there is, if I remember correctly, four that are in

the process or five. Those are

communities that have showed an interest.

In our relocation policies, there are various stages to that in terms of

identifying who exactly the residents are, because that is important from the

official vote. There is a

cost-benefit piece we go to.

Again,

we have a commissioner who would hear any appeals in regard to people that the

department may indicate, based on the policy, that we do not feel they are

permanent residents, which you would have to be we appoint a commissioner to

hear those appeals and then make recommendations back to the department in

regard to what they have found.

It is

not a short process, but we have to make sure that everybody has a right to make

representation. Obviously,

residency is very important, permanent residency; and with that comes,

obviously, the ability to partake in the decision-making process.

There

are five right now that are ongoing in various stages.

MR. MURPHY:

Five communities?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

Which communities are they?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Those communities would be

Round Harbour, Snooks Arm, Williams Harbour, and Little Bay Island.

Nippers Harbour, we made a decision on that and based on the mayor and

representation, the cost-benefit analysis we had done, I guess it was not

reflective of some of the cost that they thought should or would not be

involved. They made representation

to me, as minister, and I said if you have additional information, make it

available to us and we will take another look.

I guess that is where that community is to right now.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

So somewhere down the road we will probably hear that some of these

communities are gone by the wayside, unfortunately.

Mr.

Minister, just further down in Professional Services then, $28,900 was the

number spent, there was nothing anticipated in the budget last year, nothing

anticipated this year. What would

that money have gone towards?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The increase was due to

higher than anticipated consultant costs related to fiscal framework.

We did some survey work in regard to general populous in regard to some

of the initiatives. As well, that

would be part of the What We Heard document.

It was overall I guess the consultative process in terms of going through

the fiscal framework over a two-year period and getting everybody's view on some

of the initiatives.

MR. MURPHY:

That would be the new fiscal

framework that government just presented in the last little while.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, it would be related to

that. It would all be contained in

our document: What We Heard.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

In the

Purchased Services line $15,500 anticipated and you only spent $6,000 there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Again, that was more of an

operational issue in regard to a decrease of $9,500: lower than anticipated

basic meeting rooms, equipment rental, printing costs, those types of things.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

Farther

down in Grants and Subsidies then $46,500 was spent against $119,500 that was

appropriated for. It is the same

dollar amount as what is being asked this year in line 10.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Do you want to speak to

that, Colleen?

CHAIR:

Colleen.

MS JANES:

These would be grants that

we provide for feasibility studies associated with communities who come forth

with an interest on amalgamation, or some regional sharing of services.

It is lower than anticipated spending this year, but for next year we

already have a number of communities who have expressed an interest in having

feasibility studies done associated with various initiatives.

So we are anticipating to require that full amount this year.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

Mr.

Minister, I take it from the dollar amount that you are budgeting for this year,

government obviously has some sort of a vision itself on where it would imagine

they would like to see municipalities be in the next little while when it comes

to the operations, for example, the local service districts and the

regionalization of services.

I am

just wondering if you might be able to explain a little bit on where you hope

the government would be, for example, five years' time from now on these

particular steps the government would like to see, I would imagine, happen.

I think everybody in the Province has come to the realization pretty soon

that we have to come to a happy spot, a happy medium, where we can share

services.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, good question.

Our community sustainability partnership, obviously one of the issues we

have identified in that through Budget 2015 was the whole issue of local

governance. I guess over the past

two years with the consultations for fiscal framework, we have heard a lot about

that in regards to sharing services, more effective services, integration of

communities and regions to provide that service.

For

those of us who represent rural parts of the Province and local service

districts and municipalities and areas that are neither, we have seen the

challenges sometimes in providing services.

We have seen success, and I think that is what we need to continue with

and duplicate, whether it is fire prevention services, whether we are seeing it

with waste management in regard to the model in regard to communities coming

together, and doing things more effectively and efficiently.

Through

the community sustainability partnership, what we have identified is a process

that we would look to other jurisdictions to look at a regional governance

model, what is out there, what may be applicable here, and to use that

information to lead into the fall to start a process with all stakeholders and

see a vision of where we need to go.

As you

said, everybody understands that regionalization service, all of those types of

things, at the end of the day are

about providing the best service we can to our communities, to our regions.

We know urbanization has happened internationally and it has probably

happened nationally, and probably happens a bit slower here in this Province.

It has challenges in coastal and rural communities.

A different structure in regard to regional governance, I think that will

provide better opportunity for delivery of those services.

Factored into all of that, there is only one taxpayer, and we all know who that

is. Whether it is provincial or

municipal, it is about sustainability and being able to find that model that

supports sustainability.

To your

question, after we go through this process in the fall and into 2016, we are

hopeful that collectively and it is a buy-in.

My vision is it not a top-down process where government is going to say

we got to do this, or we are going to do it this way.

I mean, there may be some of that, but I think it is a collective buy-in

from all concerned.

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the work they have done I

certainly recognize what they have done in the work on this.

I think that is where we need to get and I think everybody recognizes

that. That is sort of the road we

are on right now in terms of the next year or so.

CHAIR:

George, your time has

expired and we will park there for now.

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, go ahead.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Sorry, I probably

(inaudible)

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

MR. JOYCE:

I will just go back I am

going to ask some probing question, but I will just continue on with George.

In 2.1.03.01.10, Grants and Subsidies, there is $119,500.

That is for feasibility studies for, say, a place like amalgamation,

relocation York Harbour-Lark Harbour may be one of them.

Can we get a copy of the lists that are being used?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

For different requests in

communities?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, sure.

MR. JOYCE:

I am assuming that if you

send something to the Third Party

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, any requests for

information, we will distribute it to all concerned.

MR. JOYCE:

To all, yes.

To be fair to them also, so we can give it out.

I am

going to get back to just a few probing questions because by the time you go

through it, you will never get through it all with

MR. HUTCHINGS:

You can ask me in Question

Period.

MR. JOYCE:

What?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

You can ask me in Question

Period.

MR. JOYCE:

No, but I thank you for your

openness.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Keep in mind we have to get

through the line items too, but you go ahead.

MR. JOYCE:

Oh no, we will get through

it. That is not a problem.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

There is another little

thing that is a bit hidden out on Western Newfoundland is this regional land use

management committee. Can you tell

me the status of that?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Under the Humber Valley?

MR. JOYCE:

Humber Valley, yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I guess what we have

received just recently was a proposed I am not sure what the exact term is,

land management plan, I guess, that is coming to the office

OFFICIAL:

Regional Land Use Plan.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Regional Land Use Plan.

Over the past several months there has been back and forth between the

committee out there and the department.

Obviously from a departmental perspective, we look at the provincial

concerns to make sure those are being accommodated in the new development plan.

Maybe

in the last week or so it has come to the department.

So now we go through a process where officials will review it to make

sure it is consistent with the directions of the Province, the departments, and

those sorts of things.

understanding then and someone can probably go through it as well is that we

would strike a commission to hear public input on the proposed plan.

The commission would hear from all those concerned, would make

recommendations in regard to that plan, and then would the department and the

minister would review it again and proceed to adopt a plan.

MR. JOYCE:

Can you or your officials

show me which line item there is a budget for that for last year and this year?

Where and how much was spent on this?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

If we do not, I can

certainly get it for you.

Do you

want to deal with that Colleen?

MR. JOYCE:

Is that better, to get it

for me?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, I can get it for you

and get it outlined so you know how much the expenditures were.

MR. JOYCE:

How much expenditures were

last year

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

and for this coming year

because this has been ongoing now for seven years.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

I have not been there that long.

MR. JOYCE:

What?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I have not been there that

long.

MR. JOYCE:

No, I definitely understand

that, Minister, and I know you are making a lot of difference over there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Maybe Colleen might just

want to speak to it for a second.

MR. JOYCE:

Then, I do not know if it is

too much, how much have been paid to date for that because it is

CHAIR:

Colleen.

MS. JANES:

I can outline some basics,

there is some additional information that we are still gathering in terms of the

detail expenditure breakdown.

terms of what is contained within the line items of the budget here, there is

nothing. The expenditures

associated with this particular initiative have been financed out of earlier

budget years and currently rest with the planning authority in terms of future

expenditures.

date, government's expenditures associated with this have been $572,000.

That is associated with both the planning consultant and our share of it;

the Province funds 80 per cent of the plans work.

The 20 per cent is shared amongst the municipalities that are

participating. So $572,000 has been

our expenditure to date.

We have

not flowed any money in recent years because we flowed it in prior budget years

and they still have money that they are drawing on.

They have about $12,000, almost $13,000, remaining in the contract fund.

The planning consultant has advised that should be sufficient to conclude

the piece of work because they are virtually at the end.

They have sent the plan in for us to review.

MR. JOYCE:

Perfect, thank you.

I will

just get back to the little question that I asked, the transfer stations, are

there still going to be six in the Western Region?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Six.

Okay, perfect.

Little

Bay Islands; I know you mentioned the relocation.

Can you tell me the status on that?

I know we spoke on the Little Bay Islands one.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

For Little Bay Islands, Mr.

Joyce, there was some issue in regard to residence determination.

There were some who felt the determination made they wanted an appeal

process.

The

review was done by a commissioner.

The report has now been received by the department and that is being reviewed in

regard to those who represented in front of the commissioner.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Once that is done, we will

determine whether we are accepting the recommendations of the commissioner to

determine who the residents are.

Then we will proceed to a cost-benefit and a vote.

MR. JOYCE:

Any idea how long that will

be?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

This step here in terms of

accepting the commissioner should be done very quickly, so in the next couple of

weeks. Then we will notify the

residents. I have gotten calls and

contacts from some people as well and I have kept them updated in the community.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

Before

I get off this topic I just thank you and your staff for the work you are doing

with York Harbour and Lark Harbour and that amalgamation.

I know that is proceeding slowly, but that is not the department doing

this. That is within the council

itself getting ready, so I just wanted to recognize the work that you are doing.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you very much and the

staff as well.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

Thank you for that.

I am

just going to ask again so I will not have to waste my time to go through all

of the line items to find out how much is put forth for the capital works this

year for the smaller municipalities except for the larger seven?

I know there are two.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We are still going through

that. We would probably be

somewhere around and I say this is not completed yet $18 million to $20

million, somewhere in that range.

MR. JOYCE:

Can you tell me how much was

carried over from last year, or how much is going to be carried over from last

year?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We have a line item here

that shows all previously approved Municipal Capital Works and all Municipal

Capital Works. I think it is over

$100 million. There is a line item.

What line is that?

OFFICIAL:

Subhead 2.3.01.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Subhead 2.3.01.

MR. JOYCE:

Subhead 2.3.01?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, hold on now subhead

4.2.01. The voted is $107 million.

That is the number we are looking at?

Mr.

Joyce, if you go to 4.2.01, Municipal Infrastructure, the amount voted for this

year is $107,766,300.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

How

much is that a carry-over from last year?

I know (inaudible) in new money this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes and Cluney can speak to

this in a second. The large

majority of that would be carry over based on prior year's approval of Municipal

Capital Works multi-year. I mean in

the multi-year, some of those seven may not have identified yet exactly what

their project is, so we would not have flowed.

There

is a whole combination of a bunch of things going on there.

Those are basically monies that have been committed through multi-year,

or we have sent out an agreement to a municipality saying we are going to do

this project so you need to do your thing with your engineering, sign it off,

and we get that back.

Cluney,

do you have anything further to add to that?

MR. MERCER:

I just had one point to what

the minister said. Most municipal

infrastructure projects take more than one year to do from the time the minister

issues the funding approval letter.

It typically takes three years actually.

In the

initial year that the letter goes out we are finding that approximately 5 per

cent of the value of the project is incurred in cash flow in the first year,

roughly 50 per cent or 60 per cent in the second year, and the balance in the

third year. It has typically taken

the vast majority of municipalities, even the smaller ones, three years to

complete a project.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Thank you.

This

might be a good time to pause and have an intermission for five minutes.

Is that the wish of the Committee and for those people downstairs as well

to have a little break? Is that

okay?

Okay,

we will take five and we will come back to George.

Recess

CHAIR:

If all Committee members

could take their seat, we will commence part two of Estimates of Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs and Labour Relations.

We will

commence with George; you are on deck, Sir.

Thank

you very much.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

always helps, I think, to take a little bit of a break and recharge the

batteries before you go on, so we can appreciate the last five minutes, anyway.

Thank you very much for that.

It just seems so unusual to go to the Government Caucus Room to have a

cup of tea instead.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We are a good bunch.

MR. MURPHY:

Not bad, not bad.

MR. CROSS:

Everybody is welcome.

MR. MURPHY:

I will give them a couple of

extra points too, I guess, for the donuts at the same time.

Mr.

Chair, just to come along with a couple of more line items before I get into

general policy questions again. I

will start off with 2.2.01, Policy and Strategic Planning.

In this particular case I am looking at the salary details, if the

minister can give us a breakdown on what is happening with the salary details

here. I can see probably about 3

per cent there, and looking at the possibility of vacancies here, have there

been any hirings, that sort of stuff.

CHAIR:

So that is 2.2.01?

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, sir.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The $614,800 to the

$566,200, the decrease there of $48,600 was staff vacancies there as well and

some delay in filling some positions.

Then when we get to the voted number of $634,900, there is a salary

increase of $20,100, compared to the prior year, reflects a required salary step

increase, and also reflects a 3 per cent salary increase related to the

collective agreement, and a newer staff hire at a salary step increase of

$2,300. So, cumulatively, all of

those items bring you up to the estimate for this year.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

How

many vacancies were we dealing with in the department before, and how many now

after the hirings?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I will defer to Colleen for

that. Do we know?

MS JANES:

I believe we have two vacancies within that division at the moment.

I am looking to Heather Tizzard.

MS TIZZARD:

There is one vacancy right now, and there is one when we had a delayed hiring.

MR. MURPHY:

I did not hear that.

MS TIZZARD:

Sorry. There is one vacancy right

now, and there was some delayed hiring this year with respect to an information

manager.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

those positions would be filled this year, obviously, according to that?

MS TIZZARD:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

All right, that is great,

thanks.

Moving

over to

section 2.3.01, Municipal Infrastructure and Waste Management, I guess a

breakdown starting off here of the salary details.

It is about a $67,000 difference between last year and this year's

actual. Of course that number jumps

up again to $516,000 this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, the $519,700 budgeted

went to $452,700, a decrease of $67,000.

There were some vacancies which had to be filled.

Then for this year back to $516,200; that number has gone down a little.

So yes,

the decrease of $3,500 between reductions associates with some attrition

management and newer staff at lower steps.

This is offset by required salary step increases and the 3 per cent

salary increase negotiated that we spoke about as well.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

Just a

breakdown too on the Professional Services line; nothing anticipated in the

revised figure, I should say. There

was nothing there. This year it is

$450,800. I am wondering if I can

get a breakdown of what is happening here.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, this is the initiative

that we announced in the Community Sustainability Partnership in regard to three

regional service boards to engage regional water and waste management operators,

to work with a pilot group of communities to address water and waste water

infrastructure operations, and certainly to look at the challenges.

The

second component of that too was for a consultant to be engaged to work

exclusively on solutions to reduce the number of boil-water advisories.

That is the money for that, to fund that.

That is where you would find it, right there.

MR. MURPHY:

That is that particular line

item.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

The $450,000 is for that

water partnership. Okay.

I was

going to ask you a question around that, but it will come back to me.

I might have to come back to it I guess.

Subhead

2.3.02, Industrial Water Services; there is a huge difference in the salary

details from what was budgeted and the revised figure for this year.

I wonder if I can get a breakdown there on what is happening with that

particular line item.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

$174,100 was budgeted and revised to $70,500.

That is a decrease of $98,200 between the two years.

There was elimination of two vacant Engineering Tech II positions which

was $98,400. These were traded off

for two new Planner III positions under Land Use Planning.

As well, there was some small amount of attrition management.

It was

offset by the 3 per cent salary increase that we spoke of again.

So through all of that that is where we arrived.

There is a lower envelope there based on salary transfers.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

I take

it further down to provincial revenue in line 02.

This would be the industrial water from OCI, I am guessing.

T hey had an ongoing balance over the last couple of years.

I am just wondering if I can get a breakdown of what is happening here.

Is this the OCI industrial water here?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Well that would be all of the industrial water systems.

There are six remaining that are with the Province.

That would be collectively all the revenues.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

One of them may or may not be OCI, but there are six or

seven companies there that owe on industrial water, is that right?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, they are arrears. The number

they had has been paid. I guess it

would show in this fiscal year in terms of revenue generation.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That payment

schedule is to conclude in June, I think, and returns to what was

outstanding.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I think it is in excess of $400,000, if I remember correctly.

MR. MURPHY: It

was something along those lines, yes.

It used to be substantially a lot more.

I can remember it being, I think, $718,000 at one particular point two or

three years ago. I guess the

department obviously has some sort of a plan put in place to get some of the

revenue back and get some of these balances looked after?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes. In regard to that one, I think

it was Port Union; there were three stakeholders that were involved with that.

I think there was a municipality, OCI, and there was a third one.

When an assessment was done, we tried to do it on a

cost-recovery basis. When they were

looked at particularly, it was seen that the amount charged was in excess of

what the cost recovery would be, so all three were adjusted accordingly.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

So right now they are in good standing, let's say.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

Yes, perfect, okay.

I want to come back up again to the Purchased Services

line, the $550,000 for this year against $490,000 that was in the actual budget

for 2014-2015. Of course, it is

$490,000 as well that is budgeted for this year.

I wonder if you can give me a breakdown on what is happening here.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That would be related to an increase of $60,000.

That is the expenditure associated with emergency repairs at the water

treatment systems. That would be in

addition to the routine maintenance

schedule for the year.

Obviously, we would have a routine maintenance schedule,

but if something happened to one of those industrial systems ,

oftentimes, most of them, there are residents accessing that water supply so we

would have to respond and do what we need to do to make it operational.

MR. MURPHY:

That is where you would

find, for example, it might be a $1,600 water pump repair or something for a

local district. This is where you

would find

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No, this is related to the

six industrial water systems.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We would do the maintenance.

Then, as I said, if something came up outside of this year, obviously,

we did not hit the $490,000 because there were other things that came up that

had to be dealt with, but we will go back to the $490,000 in the envelope for

this year.

MR. MURPHY:

Do you have a list of those

six industrial water systems that the government would be dealing with directly?

Can we have a list of that?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, sure.

I probably have it here and I can tell you, but we can get the list for

you, not a problem.

MR. MURPHY:

Sure, that is great.

Thanks.

Moving

on over then to 3.1.01, under Crown Land, first off I note that the salary

details are down about $1 million overall in funding in 2014-2015, the revised

to the budget figures. At the same

time, the salary details were also up again to $3.988 million.

I am wondering if I can get a breakdown of what is happening here in the

salary details.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

There was $4.115 million

budgeted from the last fiscal year, the revised was $3,166,200.

To that item, a decrease of $126,800 between the two years reflects

savings due to the vacant positions.

There is some offset there as, again, this would involve the 3 per cent

salary increase.

Then

when you look at the voted number for this year, $3,988,200 let me see now.

Yes, what I just said to you, $3.988 million was reflective of what that

number is here. The $3,166,200 that

was $948,800 due to some vacancies as well and delays in getting those positions

filled. It was also partially

offset by a short-term salary cost related to the Lands Act Review.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay, George we are kind of

into double overtime. If you do not

mind, we could park there and come back to you.

Eddie.

MR. JOYCE:

I only have a few more

questions.

Just to

continue on with Crown Land, Minister, which line item is the Lands Act Review

paid?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

In terms of funding for that

Lands Act Review?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Colleen, do you have that?

MS JANES:

There is some funding

associated with Lands Act Review that is coming out of the salary vote there.

There are some that are coming out of Professional Services.

We have three people on the Committee right now.

One is through a professional service contract; it is a solicitor.

The other is through contractual employment, so that is coming out of

salary dollars. The third is

someone seconded from Eastern Health.

I am actually not sure what line that is coming out of

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible).

MS JANES:

That is also coming out of

the salaries.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Joyce, we can get you a

list of what that is, if you wanted it.

MR. JOYCE:

No, that is fine.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

When do you expect this to

be completed?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We had originally indicated

in June. At this point we are

completed the What We Heard document and it has been quite extensive.

We are very pleased with the consultations on What We Heard.

The Committee is reviewing all of that and I will be meeting with the

Committee shortly and determine whether the June deadline is something we can

meet. I have heard from the

Committee, there is a lot of good information.

They may want to do some more exploratory work before they respond back.

I have not had that discussion with them yet, but I will shortly.

We will be updating then exactly where we are with it.

MR. JOYCE:

Just on a point, and it is

in the budget itself, just to the minister and the staff, Copper Mine Brook, I

know there is major, major issues out there, but I just want to recognize that

your department now is taking the lead on that and trying to get some answers

and dealing with the people out there on it.

I just want to recognize that and have it on the record.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

Yes, we are working on that issue.

MR. JOYCE:

On Lands, on 3.1.06, I was

just wondering the Northeast Avalon plan, is that included in this funding here,

the Land Use Planning 3.1.06?

OFFICIAL:

Is it 3.1.05?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Land Use Planning.

MR. JOYCE:

It is 05, yes.

It is probably my eyes.

CHAIR:

For clarity, what

(inaudible)

MR. JOYCE:

It is 05, sorry.

The

NEAR Plan, is that included in this funding here?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Do you want to speak to that

Colleen?

MS JANES:

NEAR was funded out of our budget this year.

There was a transfer of funds to Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador. I am just struggling to

find the precise line item that is reflected in.

It is in Special Assistance.

So you would find that reflected in 4.1.04 in terms of the dollars associated

with the NEAR review.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

How

much was transferred for that NEAR Plan for the Northeast Avalon?

MS JANES:

There was $247,700 provided to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador as our

contribution towards the development of the NEAR Plan.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay, thank you.

That is

enough of Crown Land right now. I

just have a few other questions in municipal affairs.

Subhead

4.1.05, Grants and Subsidies, $5,715,000.

Is that for the community enhancement program?

I am assuming it is.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Joyce, what was that

again? I did not hear it.

MR. JOYCE:

It is 4.1.05, Community

Enhancement, Grants and Subsidies.

The number is consistent there from last year to this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Is there any plan to get

that out a bit earlier this year or

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

It is a great project.

It does great work.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, there is.

There is always that challenge between knowing when people's opportunity

to receive employment have expired for the year and getting the project started.

agree, in terms of the we all know the type of work that has been done.

A lot of it is outdoors. To

actually get the work done we all know what our weather conditions are like.

answer your question, yes, we are always trying to get it out earlier.

Once we understand that a region the opportunity for people to get

further employment has stopped, then we work with them to try and, if there is a

shortfall in their hours, to get them to where they need to be.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

I have

one more question, Mr. Chair.

Subhead 4.2.03, Grants and Subsidies, there is an increase there.

CHAIR:

Under Municipal

Infrastructure, 4.2.03?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Grants and Subsidies, okay.

It went up to $45 million.

The increase reflects an increase of almost $4 million for waste management

funding related to infrastructure development in Southern and Central Labrador.

That is offset by a carryover from 2014-2015.

MR. JOYCE:

Instead of going to the line

item, was there any assistance given to Lab West?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

That is under Special Assistance, I will just reference that for you.

What

section is that again?

OFFICIAL:

Subhead 4.1.04.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Subhead 4.1.04, Special

Assistance. You can see there was a

jump in this year's envelope, what is being voted, the $4,308,000.

The increase to that of $1,908,000 reflects the increase funding for the

Town of Wabush that was due to the idling of Cliff mines.

Obviously, that was in our response to the town and the region and community in

terms of the challenges that presented itself with that.

Obviously, that was a direct grant to the town for operations and all the

other things. We have done that in

similar cases where we have had significant industry shut down in the Province

before.

That is

a funding stream that would phase over three years; 90 per cent the first year,

60 per cent the second, and 30 the third.

It would be a three year period where we would assist the town in terms

of removal of that prior grant that they got.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

I just

have one last question, 4.2.02 Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Programs,

Grants and Subsidies, $16,700. Can

we get a list of that in 4.2.02?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, sure.

Under that heading where we reference various programs, you just want to

identify where the programs were or towns, those types of thing?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Just if we can get a list.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, okay.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

I am

finished with the questions that I was going to ask.

Can I just take my last minute or so to make a few statements?

CHAIR:

Sure.

MR. JOYCE:

First of all, Minister, I

notice in your department this year you do not have fire and safety, but I just

want to recognize last year when York Harbour and Lark Harbour had that major

fire and the truck broke down. You

went out, evaluated it, and there is a new truck ordered for that.

I know it is life and safety, so I just want to recognize that, on behalf

of the town. You took that

initiative to do that personally, to get involved in that.

I just want to recognize that.

The

other thing with Crown Lands again, this is not to blow the staff up too much,

but there is a major difference in being able to deal with the public out in

Crown Lands. I just want to

acknowledge that. Within the last

five or six months the actual people now can sit down with the staff and go

through the issues and follow through.

Before, it was always that you could never get an answer.

I just want to recognize that the staff especially who I deal with out

in the Western Region, because of policy changes there from the department, it

is much better.

I just

want to also recognize all the work that all of the staff do throughout Western

Newfoundland who I deal with and I am sure all throughout the Province who

deal with municipalities. I just

want to recognize that because there is a lot of work to be done and a lot of

work has been done. There is a

different culture to be able to deal with it in the last four to six months.

I know

with Crown Lands and I know with Municipal Affairs, there is a difference.

I just want to recognize that and thank the minister and the staff for

the work they are doing out there because there is a difference.

Just a few examples that I made to you: Coppermine Brook and a fire truck

out in York Harbour and Lark Harbour because of necessity.

People now feel that they can get answers

whereas before they could not.

I just want to recognize that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Eddie.

We can

give you more coffee for these kind remarks.

Thank

you very much.

Okay,

George.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do

not have too much more, besides just coming down to a couple of line items here

now that I think I can get to relatively quick.

They seem to be self-supporting on some of the evidence already that the

minister has put forth as regards to the 3 per cent salary increases, and the

filling of vacancies and everything.

There is really not too much there when it comes to the numbers.

wanted to start off, though, with 3.1.03, Surveying and Mapping.

I know that when it comes to geodetic surveys, topographical base

mapping, aerial photography and that sort of thing, we are in changing times.

I know that the department is dealing with other issues, I would imagine,

when it comes to surveying and mapping, like when it comes to climate change and

that sort of thing too.

wanted to ask a couple of questions about these line items.

First of all, the salary details here in 3.1.03 show $664,000 was in the

budget for last year, but the revised figure is $395,800.

I am wondering if the minister could give us a breakdown on what happened

here with the line item. All the

money obviously was not spent, but at the same time, the salary details are up

for this year.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, the revised $395,800

was a decrease of $268,200. There

were some staff vacancies and getting those filled, obviously, resulted in no

payout for those positions.

When we

look at the budget amount and estimate for this year, there is an increase of

$22,600 compared to the prior year, again through the 3 per cent salary increase

negotiated on the collective bargaining process; a couple of new staff at higher

step levels, that is about $9,000; and, there are some offset reductions

associated with attrition management, about $6,200.

Collectively, all of that puts us at $686,600 for this estimate.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

That is

great to hear.

Coming

down to 3.1.04, Geomatics Agreements, the Professional Services; $150,000 was

appropriated for, but only $75,000 spent, and $150,000 appropriated for again

this year. I wonder if you can

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, that is just reflective

of a lower than anticipated consulting cost related to aerial photography and

specific mapping projects. I guess

historically we have been up around the $150,000 mark so we have maintained it

again for this current year.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

I will

move on from there then. That is

great. Thanks for that.

Subhead

3.1.05, Land Use Planning; I am wondering if we can get a complete breakdown of

what is happening as regards to the salary details here.

It is a little bit up and down there.

I am wondering if we can get a breakdown.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

The

$624,600 was budgeted in the last fiscal year.

The revised was $597,900. It

is a decrease of $26,700. There

were some vacancies and with that vacancy, or a small amount, that money

obviously was not allocated. Then,

when we look at the current year and what has been asked in Estimates, it is an

increase of $104,200 compared to prior years for two new Planner III positions.

Yes, so

we talked about it earlier relating to the decrease the two positions under

Industrial Water Services. As well,

there is a 3 per cent salary increase negotiated, as we have spoken of, that is

about $21,000. There is also some

funding for salary step increases and that has been offset by some vacancies.

There is also newer staff at lower steps; I think that is about $8,000.

So all of that, collectively, brings us to our voting allocation for this

year.

MR. MURPHY:

All right, so we are looking

at two new and planning three positions that are obviously in these salary

details.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

All right, that is great.

Thanks.

Subhead

4.1.01, Municipal Debt Servicing, I guess, Mr. Minister, just a general comment

on how you are finding that municipalities are dealing with their debt.

Some of them did have issues over the time period.

I wanted to have a look at the Grants and Subsidies number.

I know that the number here is down.

I wonder if you can give me a comment on why these numbers are down this

year versus other years.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

This would be the

Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation.

So prior to fiscal year 2005-2006, the Province's contribution towards

municipal infrastructure projects was funded through interest-bearing loans from

the Crown corporation. In 2005-2006

government decided to discontinue financing a portion of initial projects from

this agency and to instead fund it through the annual Budget process.

This entity is here, I guess this is the debt that is outstanding that

the Province has that it is paying down.

I guess this is a falling number.

If you

look to up top, Municipal Debt Servicing, the decrease of $1,325,700 reflects

lower debt servicing expenses due to declining debt balances, debt reduction,

and obviously no debt because we are not using that mechanism any more to

finance, it is in our annual Budget.

Down on

the next one, assistance and infrastructure, Grants and Subsidies again, if we

look at that

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible).

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The top one is interest and

the bottom one would be principal.

In both cases, obviously, where you are paying off through the Newfoundland

Municipal Financing Corporation, those numbers are falling.

MR. MURPHY:

So the government obviously

has a pretty good handle over that the last couple of years.

I have noticed that these numbers have been declining over the last

little while.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

So there is no need to

address this any further when it comes to that.

Obviously, it seems like you have a good handle on it.

Thanks for that one.

The

only other

section that I have questions on was 5.1.01, Executive Support IGA,

Intergovernmental Affairs. First of

all, just a breakdown of the salary details here, number one.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Budget 2014-2015 was

$280,500 and it dropped down to $260,400.

That decrease of $20,100 reflects delay in filling a vacancy.

It was a temporary director of intergovernmental planning and

coordination.

Then if

we look to the $373,700 that has been asked to vote on, the increase of $93,200

is again a 3 per cent salary increase through the collective bargaining process;

re-profiling of temporary salary funding from 5.1.02, Intergovernmental Policy

and Analysis; and forecasted temporary salary funding for costs associated with

a temporary director of intergovernmental planning and coordination that will

oversee hosting of a couple of events that are coming up this year.

The

Council of Federation will be held in the Province; the Conference of New

England Governors will be here; and the Eastern Canadian Premiers as well will

be here in 2015. So that person

will provide oversight for those three events.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

Coming

a little bit further down, Transportation and Communications shows $128,800

expenditure for this year, can I get a breakdown of what is going to be

happening here in this line item?.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Again, with that one, the

additional funding of $95,000 in the current year is preparations related to the

Council of Federation, Conference of New England Governors, and the Eastern

Canadian Premiers in 2015 for transportation.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

The

Purchased Services line, I take it there is a connection there as well:

$927,900.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, again, additional

funding for these three events in preparation for those.

It is all related to those three additional events that are happening in

the Province this year.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay.

I think

that is about it 5.1.02, just a breakdown of the salary detail line here.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

There was a decrease there

from the original budget amount it was revised due to, again, a staff vacancy

and the funding saved due to that vacancy.

Then the voted amount for this year is $763,400, the $15,000 reflects

re-profiling of some temporary salary funding to Executive Support in IGA, and

we have newer staff at lower steps.

That is offset by an increase in funding for required step increases, and we

have the 3 per cent salary increases through the collective bargaining.

Through all of that, we arrived at $763,400.

MR. MURPHY:

Okay, alright.

That is great.

Mr.

Minister, I only have one more question here.

I have been told that our House Leader, Ms Michael, has been extremely

lucky, as of late, in Estimates, asking about the minister's briefing books.

I just

wanted to ask if I can get a copy of the minister's briefing books on some of

these issues.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, sure.

We will make a copy available to you.

MR. MURPHY:

If it is possible.

That is great.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes.

MR. MURPHY:

At this time, Mr. Chair, I

have no other questions other than as a final comment to thank the staff of the

Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs for showing up this

morning and being so forthright in answering questions.

I would like to thank them for their efforts in keeping this Province

going at the same time.

certainly cannot be an easy job, but no doubt it can be sometimes a thankless

task. So I want to thank you on

behalf of our caucus, in particular, for the job that you do.

Thank

you again for your time this morning.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that, and certainly your kind remarks for staff because they

do an exceptional job right across our Province.

They are on the ground dealing with a lot of issues.

Thank

you for your remarks.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

Now we

will proceed with the vote. I will

ask the Clerk to call the subheading.

CLERK:

Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK:

Subheads 1.2.01 to 5.1.02

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall subheads 1.2.01 to

5.1.02 inclusive, carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 5.1.02 carried.

CLERK:

The total.

CHAIR:

Shall the total carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed.

Carried.

motion, Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, total heads,

carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs and Labour

Relations Agency carried without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed.

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs

and Labour Relations Agency carried without amendment.

CHAIR:

We have a couple of

housekeeping items to conclude our meetings.

I have

the Social Services Committee, May 25, 2015.

I am looking for a motion to accept.

Glen

Little; seconded by Eddie Joyce.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed.

Carried.

motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

The next meeting is Call of

the Chair, but I do believe, from my recollection, this concludes the meetings

of the Social Services Committee for this, as far as we know.

Before

we ask a motion to adjourn, I just want to thank all Committee members for your

thought-provoking questions. I would

like to thank the minister and his departmental officials for your patience and

willingness to co-operate and for your accommodations and all your stellar work

that you do on behalf of the Province.

Thank

you very much.

I will

have a motion to adjourn.

Mr.

Joyce; seconded by Glen Little.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

Thank

you.

motion, the Committee adjourned sine die.