Resource Committee — Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture — 4 February 2025

2025-02-04

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

April 25, 2002 RESOURCE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains,

replaces Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin-Placentia West.

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Walsh): Order, please!

I would like to welcome everybody to our meeting this morning. Before we

begin, perhaps it would be in order to deal with the minutes from our previous

meeting. At that time, we will introduce our colleagues who are here as members

of the Committee this morning. We have one substitute from government side.

Wally Andersen will replace Mary Hodder this morning, who is sick today.

The minutes of the Resource Committee for April 23 were held here in the

Chamber, and Mr. Tom Osborne - Tom, were you here as a guest that day?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, I am on the Committee.

CHAIR: You are on the Committee? I am sorry.

I was here as well, along with the other committee members. We dealt with the

Estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister Reid and his

officials were here as well. At the time we moved the minutes from the previous

meeting. The Committee also reviewed and approved, without amendment, the

Estimates of Expenditures for the Department of Fisheries. On a motion by Mr.

Sweeney, the Committee adjourned its deliberations until today at 9:00 a.m.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: The Resource Committee will be dealing with the Labrador &

Aboriginal Affairs Division. Before we begin, just a few housekeeping duties. I

ask all members to introduce themselves, bearing in mind that the cameras are

not on. Kevin is downstairs and he will have to get a sense of where we are.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: He may be looking at you, yes. Then we will go on from there.

If we will begin, I will start with Labrador West and we will do our

introductions through here. The minister will go through his opening statements.

The only thing I ask, just for the first little while or as much as you can

remember, is introduce ourselves into the microphones. It makes it a little

easier for the staff in Hansard to recognize us, and we can go on from there.

We will begin by introductions.

MR. COLLINS: Randy Collins, Labrador West. I am not a member of the

Committee but since the issue being discussed today is Labrador & Aboriginal

Affairs, I decided to drop in.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Tom Osborne, MHA, St. John's South.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, MHA, St. John's East; critic for the

Opposition.

MR. ANDERSEN: Wally Andersen, MHA, Torngat Mountains.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA, Port de Grave.

MR. SWEENEY: George Sweeney, MHA, Carbonear-Harbour Grace District.

CHAIR: Mr. Minister, would you like to introduce yourself? Then, of

course, Ron can do his introduction and then if you wish to begin with an

opening statement, we will start there.

MR. McLEAN: Thanks a lot, Jim.

I am Ernie McLean, the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs and MHA

for Lake Melville District. I also have with me my deputy minister who will

introduce himself now.

MR. SPARKES: Ron Sparkes, Deputy Minister with the Department of Labrador

& Aboriginal Affairs, based in Goose Bay.

CHAIR: Mr. Minister.

MR. McLEAN: I would just like to take a few minutes, before we get into

the questioning, to perhaps give you just a capsule view of what happened the

first year of the department. As you know, last February we set up the

department. I am not going to read the department's objectives. They are all

laid out in the budget document you have there.

Let me just say to you that what we have done in this past year - I will also

say too, that my parliamentary secretary is part of the Committee today because

of a fill-in who works with us as well, and he has an integral part to play in

the department. What we have done is split the department into two sections. One

piece of the department continues to operate out of St. John's and basically,

that is the negotiating division. There is a team that is negotiating the LIA

land claims and there is a team that is negotiating the Innu land claims. They

are still situated in St. John's and they make up - and I have one assistant

deputy minister here in St. John's who looks after that piece of the

department, Sean Dutton. Basically, that piece of the department is responsible

for the final conclusions to the land claims of both those Aboriginal groups,

plus they deal with all of the planning and policy development associated with

the two land claims where it applies to self-government pieces, the whole

transition piece; the five years that we are going to take to do the transition.

What we have established in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is a new piece of

the department that we have only established this past year, is what is called a

Labrador Division. That division is made up of five staff. What they basically

do is deal with all of the Labrador issues that we deal with, apart from the

land claims negotiations. We deal with the Labrador issues, the major issues

like the social pieces and the components of - those kinds of things. We look at

the forestry industry where we interlock the Department of Forestry and

Agrifoods. We inter-disperse, basically, with all of the departments that

operate and function in Labrador. That includes: Labrador West, the Coast, the

South Coast and the North Coast. We have an issue with almost everything that

happens. The reason we get involved with those kinds of things is that we tend

to be a coordinating piece of a lot of the issues that we are dealing with.

I will give you a couple of examples. That is probably the best thing to do

with that, with the Labrador piece. The whole issue of the Goose Bay airbase -

in the way it is marketed, in the way it is operated with the DND and the NATO

Forces - we look after all of the provincial piece of the requirements of that.

Just recently we signed off on the agreement to expand the bombing area for the

military operations. We were the lead department in making sure that went

through, both through Crown Lands and through DND in Ottawa, DND in Goose Bay,

and working with the militaries to ensure that kind of thing took place.

We also have a large part to play in the RFP, which is the new contract that

is coming out. Probably in June, I think, is it? We are playing a large

part in

that to ensure the labour pieces of it are all put in place in the right way so

that we do not see downsizing, and we ensure that the contractor who moves in

there to do that is not going to be going in there just to do certain things. We

want to ensure that they are doing it in the best interest of Happy Valley-Goose

Bay and in the best interest of the Province.

We deal with the issues with the military in trying to get DND to encourage

them to bring more aircraft into Goose Bay, to do more training in Goose Bay.

Those are the kinds of things that the Labrador division takes on. Also, the

hydro problems on the coast, the Labrador division takes on that. We have people

working on that. We are doing a number of things in terms of the outfitting. We

have a part to play in all of those things, and that is what this Labrador

Division does.

The other component that we have in Labrador is the Aboriginal division.

Basically, what the Aboriginal division does is take care of all of the

Aboriginal issues outside of the negotiating piece that the land claims takes

care of. There are a lot of social problems, social concerns and social issues

that we have to deal with, outside of the land claims piece.

This Aboriginal Affairs Division looks into and works along with Health

Canada, LIHC, which is the Labrador Inuit Health Corporation, the Innu Health

Commission, the Band Councils and other communities on the North Coast.

Basically, that is what Wally's prime interest is, in that category to ensure

that, socially, we are dealing with those kinds of issues. I do not have to tell

you what the issues are in Davis Inlet and Sheshatshiu, for example. We are

fully involved and fully engaged in those issues. We are kind of coordinating

those kinds of things. The most recent issue with the gas station in Davis Inlet

being shut down and contaminated and that kind of thing. Ron and Wally were the

two lead guys in getting all of this sorted out so that we could ensure that

they have a service. Those are the kinds of things that this department is

involved in from the Aboriginal piece. That is, basically, where we have gone in

this past year.

We have involvement with all the departments through, what we call, a

regional council. Once a month we draw together all the directors of all the

departments that function in Labrador, with the provincial government, to ensure

that we are working as a unit and that we have some mechanism to the executive

piece of government through the deputy minister being set up in Goose Bay; that

way we can certainly have access to the political side as well, through myself

being situated in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Actually, I think I am the only

minister that has a main office established outside of St. John's. So, that is

quite a change, quite a different twist to operating and functioning through a

department that has a very wide-ranging and varied mandate to do and to carry

out.

As we move through it, with the other projects as well, we are involved a lot

on the social side with the Lower Churchill piece and the Voisey's Bay piece

to ensure that these kinds of pieces all move together and start to form up into

what we eventually hope will be an agreement. We are a little bit of everything

and we are certainly here to answer questions.

I do not want to take any more of your time, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to give

a little capsule view of what we have done in the past year.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We will follow in our normal pattern and go to the committee member who would

be more the critic for the particular department that we are dealing with.

John, perhaps you could help me with -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few questions for the minister and his deputy, Mr. Sparkes; and

thank you for being here today. One question, and you referred to it in your

introductory comments, Mr. Minister, and that dealt with the situation in Davis

Inlet. Before I get to several questions that I have in mind, I wonder, could

you just give us some update on that in terms of the issue there several weeks

ago concerning home heating fuel, gasoline, and you mentioned the contamination.

Has that been resolved or is that still an ongoing matter?

MR. McLEAN: Well, it is in the process of being resolved. Basically, what

we had to do - through Wally and Ron who took the lead on getting this squared

away. A number of things happened, there was a dispute with the supplier,

Woodward's Oil, and the band council. Of course, that is what precipitated all

of this. What eventually was worked out - just to be very brief about it - is

that there was a deal brokered where, for the time being, we hired an individual

in Davis Inlet to operate the service. We provided a sixty-day period for

resolution to the issue. Basically, the resolution will be that Woodward's

will be compensated for the fuel that is there and he will provide the rest of

it for the cost he had to put it in there. He is not making a profit on

anything. What will happen is that there will be a group forming a business in

Davis Inlet who will take over this operation and own this operation at the end

of the sixty days. Along with Indian and Northern Affairs, and through Wally and

Ron, basically, we are working towards that. We are about twenty to twenty-odd

days into that now. So, we are working towards a resolution to that. I think it

will work out to be a very reasonable -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So in terms of access and supply of product, that is not

a problem?

MR. McLEAN: No, that is all cleared away. They are getting their fuel and

they are getting their gas. That was the key concern that we had: if you did not

get this sorted out, there would not be any supply in there either for heating

fuel or gas. That is fairly critical this time of the year because this is

between breakup and freeze up. We really need to have something on site there.

There was a bit of a problem with some contamination because of certain values

turned on that should not have been turned on, but we had all the testing done

and that was all cleared up. In the last three or four weeks, I guess, it has

been operating fairly smooth.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My main interest this morning is with respect to the

land claim issues. Several months ago, you may recall, you and a number of your

officials met with me, and we had a good chat about where we were at that time

in terms of both land claims issues involving the LIA and the Innu. That was

several months ago. What I am really interested in finding out now is: Where are

we, particularly in terms of the Agreement in Principle with the LIA and the

moving of that forward? Maybe we could discuss that first before we get into the

issue involving the Innu Nation. Could we have an update with respect to where

we are on land claim discussions and developments involving the LIA?

MR. McLEAN: The LIA piece, the AIP was signed, as you know, last June.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: There have been a number of activities and a number of

negotiating sessions basically concluded since then. Just last week, the LIA

membership voted to approve the new constitution, which is a piece of the

self-governance part of the land claim itself.

We are basically working towards a final agreement by late this year or, at

the very latest, early next year. The aim is to have it done late this year and

have the official signing probably by the end of March or early April next year.

That will be all of the pieces in place. While this is happening, the

negotiations on the Voisey's Bay thing, which is a part of the land claims

piece, the

Chapter 7 piece -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: - we have negotiated

Chapter 7 outside of this context of

land claims negotiations.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What is the status?

MR. McLEAN: Of what?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In terms of -

MR. McLEAN:

Chapter 7?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. McLEAN:

Chapter 7 will be pretty much put in place when the Voisey's

Bay thing is resolved. If that happens before the final settlement, that will be

in place. If not,

Chapter 7 will be included in the land claims itself anyway.

The reason they took

Chapter 7 out of the basic land claims table was that

there was a view that Voisey's Bay could be signed off before the actual final

land claims settlement was done. We wanted to take it out so that there was not

a delay in one or a delay in the other while this was happening. That was why

Chapter 7 - and

Chapter 7 basically tells you what is going to happen to the

Voisey's Bay area; because, remember, we took that Voisey's Bay footprint

out of the land claims until the mine has expired. At that point, that is what

Chapter 7 basically deals with: the royalty regimes, and those sorts of things,

and what happens to that footprint area after the mine expires. Really, we

wanted to have that dealt with outside of the main land claims table, which was

all of the other components: the self-government piece, the financial piece, the

co-management areas, and those sorts of things, which are being negotiated.

been finalized?

MR. McLEAN: They are ready to be finalized, but they will not be

finalized until there is a Voisey's Bay agreement. If that happens before we

get the final land claims agreement, it will be signed off separately. If not,

it will be a part of the land claims process.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But it can be finalized prior to a final agreement

between the Province and Inco on the development of Voisey's, is that right?

MR. McLEAN: That is right, yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Or, from what I understand, if the Voisey's deal comes

down quickly, the

Chapter 7 details can be finalized after. Is that what you are

saying? Or, would it have to be done in conjunction with the signing?

MR. McLEAN: It can be done after or it can be included in the final land

claims agreement. The reason we took it out, outside of the main land claims

table, was that there was a view that Voisey's Bay could be signed off this

year and we knew we were not going to get the final land claims agreement signed

off this year. We needed to have not one delaying the other, so we agreed with

the LIA to take it out - that

Chapter 7 was taken out - and basically that deals

with the Voisey's Bay footprint which is outside of the land claims area.

Because, remember, initially in the AIP it put the Voisey's Bay footprint

outside of the land claims area, even including the land itself -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So, it could be dealt with separately.

MR. McLEAN: - until the mine expires. Once the mine expires, that is what

Chapter 7 is partly about, what happens to it after

Chapter 7 expires, because

there may be an overlap with the Innu. So, you had to have some mechanism there.

They wanted it before anything started, rather than work at it while the mine is

going ahead. That is why

Chapter 7 is basically outside of it.

The lands claim itself has been moving forward. There have not been any

glaring delays. There are always glitches in it because you are negotiating, but

we are still working towards, late this year, having everything ready for

official signing. Then the official signing will take place. Probably, we are

looking at late March or early April of 2003 for a final signature.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: From a procedural point of view, Mr. Minister, how do

you envisage this being done? In any land claims settlement or resolution, how

will the Province - or in this case the LIA, the federal government - from a

procedural point of view, how does all this come together upon the final signing

and agreement amongst all parties?

MR. McLEAN: Well, there basically has to be agreement on all three

parties for two reasons, or basically two reasons. One is that the fundamental

land claim itself is an agreement between the federal government and the

Labrador Inuit Association. The reason the Province gets involved is that there

are a number of areas that are provincial jurisdiction, like the land quanta,

like education, like health, like inland fish and those sorts of things, so a

part of the agreement has to be that we are co-managing. We will be co-managers

of these jurisdictions once the land claim is in place in certain areas. That is

essentially where the Province comes in.

All of the cash transfers that go with land claims, and all of the main

components of self-government and those pieces, are all signed off between the

federal government and the LIA. The Province will sign on behalf of the issues

that we are responsible for, like the jurisdictional areas, the health issues,

education - and the environment is another big component. We have to ensure that

we meet the standards and the requirements that the Province has, and they will

continue to be the benchmarks for this agreement.

That is the involvement that the Province has - and, of course, the land

quanta. We have to agree to the land quanta because it is a provincial

jurisdiction; Crown land is a provincial jurisdiction, and that is the major

area that we are involved in. That is why the provincial government is kind of a

third party to this.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is there any ratification procedure upon signing and

final resolution?

MR. McLEAN: The ratification piece on the part of the other LIA is, they

have to have, I think, fifty plus one based on all of the eligible voting

members.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In other words, the final agreement is then presented to

the LIA?

MR. McLEAN: The final agreement will be voted on by government. Both the

federal government and our government have to vote on it, but the LIA

ratification has to go back to its membership. The membership has to vote fifty

plus one of all registered members who are eligible to vote. If you do not vote,

you are classed as a no-vote. This is the ratification piece that they have put

in place. The governments have to ratify our piece.

CHAIR: Just a quick comment. I cannot remember, and I am not sure -

Hansard will show whether I am correct or not - I don't remember moving

heading 1.1.01. I want to do that, for the record. That will allow everything

upcoming, or that has transpired, to take place.

I would like to move 1.1.01.

John, we will go back to you.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does that mean we have to start over again?

CHAIR: No. It just means that Hansard will move it forward for us.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

So, from the LIA perspective, the ratification procedure is that, upon final

agreement being entered into amongst all parties, it must be ratified by the

membership.

MR. McLEAN: By the membership. The board will ratify and then they have

to go to membership for ratification prior to any sign-off with the two

governments.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What is the form of ratification by the other players,

namely, both the federal and provincial government?

MR. McLEAN: My understanding is, it is signed off by the Cabinets. It

doesn't have to go to a provincial referendum, or anything like that. That is

my understanding, as we stand now. The Cabinets will approve on behalf of the

people of the Province and on behalf of the people of Canada.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: As far as you know that procedure is in place, is it?

MR. McLEAN: Yes. As we did with the AIP. Now, the AIP was a little

different on the part of the LIA because they did not have to get the percentage

that they are requiring under the final agreement, as long as they had a yes

vote from their membership, no matter how many voted, which approved the AIP

piece. Now the final approval they are requiring is fifty plus one of all the

membership approving this. They have just ratified their constitution, by the

way, as a self-government piece.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I may want to just go back to that in a few minutes, but

for the time being I wonder if we could talk perhaps about where we are, just an

update on land claim discussions and any developments with respect to the Innu

Nation? I know when we had that briefing, that meeting there awhile ago, it was

anticipated that there would be some progress in the relatively near future, and

I understand that has happened. I wonder if maybe either you, Minister, or your

deputy could perhaps share with us exactly where we are and how close we are to

an agreement with the Innu?

MR. McLEAN: As you know, the whole piece with the Innu has been

accelerating in the last six months; close to a year, I guess. Last year there

was a huge concern on the part of the federal government that nothing was

moving. A number of years had passed and there was a lot of money spent and very

little progress. So, I guess there was kind of what we would term as a come to

God meeting. You either sit down and start making progress or we are going to

pull the plug.

That happened very late last year. I guess mid last year, was it? In June or

July we were in meeting on that piece of it. Let me give you the view since

then.

There has been a lot of work done on the Innu land claims since that time.

They have progressed to a point where there is anticipation that by the end of

this calendar year there may be an AIP, which is an Agreement in Principle,

based on the components that we are dealing with now, the land quanta, the claim

area, the self-government pieces and those sorts of things. The Innu is being

worked at a little different. The Innu have taken a little different direction.

What they have done with the land piece in what they call the Labrador Innu

Lands, which is a quantum that will be agreed to in the AIP, is they are out in

the public prior to the AIP. Now the LIA signed their AIP and then put all of

this stuff out. The Innu are taking a different approach and putting it all out

to the public before they do the AIP on that piece.

We are also dealing on the other side with registration of the two

settlements of Davis Inlet and Sheshatshiu, which is part of the land claim

piece but it is kind of outside of that too. That is being negotiated directly

between the federal government and the two Bands, in terms of what the

reservation is going to be and what the registration piece is all going to

involve, even though the federal government tells us we are still going to be

involved in the programing piece, you know, for a period of time until there is,

I guess, a realization that they can handle all of this themselves. Those two

pieces, along with the other pieces that we always do with the land, the

self-government piece, have been forwarded in a little different way. The major

focus right now is to reach a point where they can sign an AIP. They are working

towards that. There was a great deal of progress made in the last - as I say, it

is probably closer to a year. We do not see any reason why that could not be

signed off by the end of the calender year as an AIP. Then we would work towards

the final agreement and refining the bits and pieces that you have in terms of

the land quanta, the (inaudible) piece which is the servicing lands. You would

have to arrive at some of these conclusions.

One of the things that has slowed this down a little bit is the fact that

there are a number of files that they are working on. They do not have a whole

lot of human resource. They are restricted in the number of people they have to

put on the different files. There are a number of files because we are doing the

forestry stuff, we are doing phase three of the highway, we are doing the Voisey's

Bay piece and they are involved in the Lower Churchill stuff. So, those kinds of

things tend to slow them down a little bit. We are still anticipating that we

will have an AIP on the Innu land claim by the end of the calender year, this

year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are there separate parts to this is, as there is a

chapter seven with the LIA?

MR. McLEAN: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With respect to the Innu Nation, is there a similar

breaking down of the overall land claim discussions in view of project

development, whether it be Voisey's or the Lower Churchill? If so, I wonder

could you be a bit more specific as to exactly where we are on any breakdown

that may exist?

MR. McLEAN: On the Voisey's Bay piece, the Innu are basically in the

same position as the LIA. As soon as there is an agreement to be had they will

sign off that piece, both their IBAs and the chapters. They will not hold up the

project based on the fact that they have to have a land claim prior to

development. That has been negotiated away from and agreed to by both those

groups. That is why they have gone and done separate Tables on this. We have

basically reached agreement with them on those pieces. They will not sign - I do

not think anybody will sign off - until the agreement is actually there, because

if we do not sign an agreement, then all of this has to fall back into the full

land claims package itself and be looked at, probably, in a little different way

because there is an environmental management agreement. There is some overlap on

the Voisey's Bay footprint with: Where does the Innu land claims start and end

and where does the LIA start and end, once the mine has expired.

Those are the kinds of things that have all been agreed to. They are actually

doing an overlap negotiation between the two groups, as well. So, they are

making a lot of progress in this area, much more than we were expecting.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: On those particular parts of this agreement, is it fair

to say we are relatively close?

MR. McLEAN: Yes. Very close.

John, I think, in all fairness, the whole negotiation piece with both groups

has changed dramatically within the last year. The Innu, you know, for a number

of years, were the difficult group to reach agreements with. This past year we

have seen a number of process agreements signed off with them. They are much

more prepared to work with us, to work in conjunction with us, and to see the

things move forward as we would like to see them move. I must say it is very

encouraging to see that because, finally, we are going to see everybody starting

to work together.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is the ratification process the same in terms of the

membership? Like with the LIA, I believe you indicated 50 per cent plus one. Is

that the same with the Innu Nation?

MR. McLEAN: I think at the end of the day, within the AAP, you will see

that; that it will be the same process for the ratification.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So, the membership becomes engaged, obviously, in the

acceptance of it.

MR. McLEAN: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is there any time frame at all? Has the provincial

department, as an integral player in these important land claims discussions -

has there been any time frame put on this in terms of when you are hoping to see

a resolution with both groups?

MR. McLEAN: Well, we always look to, not so much deadlines, we look to

time frames. What we have tried to do is to be realistic and reasonable in our

approach to that. If both parties feel that we can achieve this, then we work

towards that. Generally, it has worked. That is what I say, we have seen a much

greater cooperation initially in these sorts of negotiating pieces in the past

year. That is why we believe that, when we set time lines, we are fairly close

in terms of being (inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is there a specific date now you anticipate?

MR. McLEAN: Well, as I say, the aim is to have an AIP with the Innu by

the end of the calendar year, and with the LIA, to have a final agreement some

time, hopefully, late this calendar year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Excluding, though, those special provisions dealing with

land issues as it relates to project development. Is that correct?

MR. McLEAN: Yes, but those are pretty much at a stage now where we are

waiting on the project.

WITNESS: In both cases.

MR. McLEAN: Both cases.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I will certainly allow my colleagues to continue.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have a couple of questions regarding the Estimates,

Minister. Under subhead 1.1.01.03, Transportation and Communication: What was

budgeted last year and what was actually spent, there is a $30,000 difference. I

am just wondering if you could give us some idea as to the reason for that.

MR. McLEAN: There are a couple of reasons for that. We have established

the core of the department in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We also have the

Parliamentary Secretary, who also travels under this category in his functions

with the department as the Parliamentary Secretary for Aboriginal Affairs, who

we did not have last year. I think the other piece is that I travel a lot more

back and forth because my office is in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That is the

reason for the difference in the Transportation and Communications piece.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I mean, those circumstances are the same this year. The

budget has gone down to $90,000 again this year.

MR. McLEAN: Yes, we can function now. We have a bit more ability now to

do less because last year we were just organizing, we were setting up and

establishing, and it caused a lot more travel back and forth. That is why we

spent the extra money, with the extra staff of course. We are more established

now. We have refined that a little bit more now and we have been able to get

that down.

Also, this covers some of the national meetings that we have. We have

established a forum for northern ministers responsible for development in the

provinces and the territories and we travel to that once a year, which we did

not before. We also go to, I guess, Indian and Aboriginal Affairs conferences as

well that are ministerial. My Parliamentary Secretary always travels to those

with me.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under Purchased Services, there was an additional $9,500 spent as compared to

what was budgeted last year, and that has gone down again this year to $9,500.

MR. McLEAN: On top of the 8 per cent that we were required to remove we

were able to refine that a little more. We are not going to spend as much on

that piece this year. We are being very conservative. No, I can't say that! We

are being very liberal.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What was the reason for the increase in that last year?

MR. McLEAN: On the Purchased Services?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: I do not know. Deputy, do you have any-

MR. SPARKES: It was, I guess, in terms of the coordination role that the

minister referenced, relative to meetings with other departments in bringing

people together to talk about how the new department was going to function and

how it was going to fit in with line departments so they could work together

smoothly. So there were a number of events, as well as the northern minister's

events. I think there was some of this that applied there as well, Minister.

MR. McLEAN: We also did a travelling road show last year throughout

Labrador. We went to all the communities and did a slide presentation on what

the department's roles and responsibilities were so that everybody would have

an opportunity to understand what the department was for. That took us to a few

communities where we had kind of larger gatherings. You know, where the road is

in place, we could take five communities together and we provided, probably, a

meal for them and that sort of thing. That is where that expense was

(inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would not have come under Transportation and

Communications.

MR. McLEAN: No, no! I thought you were talking about Purchased Services.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes. But, I mean, your road show would not have come

under Transportation and Communications.

MR. McLEAN: Part of it would have, the transportation piece. Under

entertainment we would take it out of the Purchased Services. That was rental of

rooms and things like that, Tom, for the meetings and that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Aboriginal Affairs, 2.1.01.

MR. McLEAN: Under 2.1.01.?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: Yes, okay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The difference in salaries - there was less spent last

year than was actually budgeted. Was there a lay off or-

MR. McLEAN: No. We were in the process of hiring people last year. We

probably budgeted at the beginning of the year, but we did not have our people

in place at the beginning of the year. We hired two analysts and a manager

throughout the year. That would have seen the difference in the budget. That

would be the same for the Labrador Affairs piece, too, where we did not have

people in place right away.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Professional Services, under the same title, last

year there was $257,000 budgeted and only $150,000 spent. So, there is a

difference there of $93,000.

MR. McLEAN: That fluctuates every year because we do a lot of specialty

things in terms of the land claims. We may have to do special services for a

piece of the land claims, we may have to do some research on part of the

self-government, or we may have to hire somebody for dealing with the land

quanta. That is what that is for, and it comes up on occasion. That is a part of

the negotiation, if the negotiation requires that, if the parties agree to that.

We may have to go out and hire consultants to do that kind of thing. It is very

difficult to keep it at a certain rate, because we may need more this year and

not as much next year, because we are getting to the final stages of the land

claims piece itself.

There have been a lot of studies done as to the transfer services; the

educational piece, the medical piece and the environment stuff. We may have to

go out and, in some cases, do the studies in advance of being able to sign off

that

section of the land claims piece. So that is where that comes in and that

can fluctuate fairly substantially, and it has in the last couple of years. We

will see less and less of that when we reach final agreement.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 2.1.02, Labrador Affairs, under Purchased Services,

the budgeted for this year and last year is the same, but there is considerably

less spent.

MR. McLEAN: There again, we had a new office constructed in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, or we were leasing space. We had to stock those offices with

office equipment, basically, last year because we did not have it, we did not

have anything in there. We had to put all new stuff in there.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So that is the Property, Furnishings one.

MR. McLEAN: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Purchased Services.

MR. McLEAN: Under Purchased Services - that is what you just asked, was

it?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: That was also for printing and advertising and things like

that with the new office structure being put in place.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. McLEAN: Prior to us being able to move into the new office, we were

leasing other office space until we were able to move in. When did we move in?

MR. SPARKES: We moved in December. We had anticipated moving earlier, so

we did not spend as much last year as we anticipated, because we were farmed out

in other government offices spread all over the place as we were trying to

organize. That will go back up this year because we moved late December and

early January.

MR. McLEAN: Maybe you could come and visit the office when you are in

Goose Bay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would only drive your transportation budget up.

MR. McLEAN: No, you pay your way in and we will accommodate you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 2.1.03., Inuit Agreement, Transportation and

Communication, there is a Budget of $130,400 for both last year and this year,

and yet only $17,500 was spent.

MR. McLEAN: What would that be for?

MR. SPARKES: That would basically be for getting the management committee

to the meetings. If you understand this agreement, the Inuit agreement is a

federal/provincial cost-shared agreement on a 70/30 basis. There are a number of

components to that agreement. The agreement is managed by a management committee

made up of members from the Inuit communities. There is one from each community,

that is part of the management group. We have a member on that committee as an

ex officio, and the federal government has one. What they do is, four times a

year they get together to distribute the annual budget for that year. The money

that is distributed ranges from everything, from an educational fund that is

supplied to the school boards for the native teaching aids in each of the

schools. There is a component for housing which supports in the housing

development on the coast in the Inuit communities. There is also a piece there

for infrastructure, which deals with water and sewer, road upgrading, equipment

and things like that. That is all a part of that. There is also another

section

called core funding which is funding that is supplied to the communities.

This management committee gets together four times a year to manage that

particular budget. That is allocated each year under this agreement. This

agreement has been in place since about 1985, this particular process. Prior to

that it was always called an Aboriginal support agreement, I think it was. It

included both the Innu and the Inuit. It was split off in the late 1980s. The

Innu took their own and the Inuit took their own. This particular process has

been in place since the mid-1980s.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Did the group meet four times last year then?

MR. McLEAN: Yes, but they probably met in Goose Bay, I think for the most

part, which probably saved them a lot of cash.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) three or four years.

MR. McLEAN: Yes, that is right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So there was less travel last year than anticipated?

MR. McLEAN: Yes, and that fluctuates too because the kinds of

arrangements that you can make to travel in Labrador can run you from a range of

$50,000 down to $10,000, depending on the way that you can arrange it at certain

times of the year. That is why we see the fluctuations in that. It is a

difficult thing to get a handle on because if there is a requirement for a

meeting on short notice, you may end up paying $50,000 to get the meeting.

Whereas if you can plan it out over a month or two months and get your air

services and things squared away, you could probably do it for $20,000.

WITNESS: You might be there longer than you expect to be.

MR. McLEAN: Yes, that's for sure.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How many people are in that group?

MR. McLEAN: There are about nine, I think. The six communities have

representation, there is a recording person from our department and an ex

officio member from our department, a federal representative and I think one

school board.

WITNESS: The Department of Education.

MR. McLEAN: The Department of Education has one person on for the

education piece. That is the core group. They may call in people from different

sectors. They may call the staff from Municipal Affairs to those meetings to

deal with the infrastructure piece, like water and sewer. If they are doing

water and sewage they may call people from NLHC or -

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess Municipal Affairs or the Department of Education

would be responsible for their own transportation?

MR. McLEAN: Yes, they would be responsible for their own transportation.

The core membership would be provided transportation through this particular

component here.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, and that core membership is nine people?

MR. McLEAN: Nine people, yes. They range from Nain right down to Rigolet.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Cabinet could learn a lot from those nine. They are

very efficient. Four trips for nine people. Thirty-six legs of transportation

for $17,000 is good.

Minister, thank you very much.

MR. McLEAN: Could I just mention that I appreciate the fact that Randy is

here? Randy is a Labrador MHA and I appreciate the fact that he is here. Even

though he is not on the committee, he is here to get some understanding of what

we do as a department.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

We appreciate your appreciation. We will go to our other guest who is

visiting with us this morning, and that is Randy Collins.

Randy, would you like to ask a few questions before we move the Estimates?

MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much.

I have a couple of questions for the minister. I will start off by saying

that I am glad too see - I guess all people in Labrador are glad to see that the

department is located in Labrador rather than elsewhere. I would like to ask the

minister whether or not he will be staffing an office in other regions for

Labrador besides the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area?

MR. McLEAN: Randy, one of the things that we are really looking at, that

I want to see as a part of my tenure in this particular department, is to see

representation in all areas, like Labrador West, the North Coast and the South

Coast, so that we do have a connect with all of it, because it is not a Goose

Bay department. It is a Labrador department. I think one of the ways we need to

do that is to get out - and we are working. We had a fair amount of discussion

on how we should do that. Right from the levels - what level of classification

of jobs should that be? Should that be a management position? Should it be a

working position? Those kinds of things. We are discussing that now. We are in

anticipation that we will - probably one area. Labrador West we may be able to

do it much quicker than we will do it on the Coast or we may try to do all three

together so that we can get fair representation from all parts of Labrador at

the same time. We are just trying to work out the details of how we are going to

manage that piece of it now.

MR. COLLINS: I think that is pretty important because, like you say,

where you are centralized in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for the remainder of

Labrador, because of transportation problems and geographics, it is probably not

much difference for the other regions of Labrador than if it were in St. John's

when it comes to that. Even though the idea or the ideology behind it is - it is

great that it is in Labrador but it is important that this is done, and I am

glad to hear you say that.

MR. McLEAN: We are very appreciative of that and we are certainly looking

at that piece of it. It is going to happen. It is just a matter of when and the

details worked out as to how it will happen.

MR. COLLINS: Are there any new developments regarding the base in Goose

Bay now that Serco and -

MR. McLEAN: Yes, as of yesterday - a number of meetings took place there

yesterday. I think there is a greater comfort level now as to what is going to

happen with the next contract in terms of what the requirements are going to be.

Last week there was some panic because there was a draft RFP released which

indicated, in some areas, difficulty in interpreting what the requirements were,

but we looked at it and we anticipated there might be only 70 per cent of the

workforce required. It troubled us greatly. Also, there was nothing there on

successor rights; nothing there on whether or not this new contractor could

promote other aspects of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in the airport and the military,

because there are a number of areas that you can really expand if you get

innovative.

We took our piece - as well as the community and the unions and the Chamber

of Commerce - took our views to the people who developed the RFP yesterday in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I have not seen a report from it, but I understand it

was a fairly successful meeting in terms of identifying and clarifying some of

those grey areas in the RFP. So, I think there is a greater comfort level today

than there was last week. There certainly wasn't much comfort there last week.

MR. COLLINS: Has there been any discussion or lobby for the base to

return as a government operated base? Because when they privatized that base and

contracted out the services, there were plans to do that in other centres across

the country. From my information, that did not happen because of the problems

that were associated with what happened in Goose Bay. Are there any discussions

or any talks about it reverting to being run by the federal government?

MR. McLEAN: One of the reasons they went to a private contractor to run

the base was that they could offer the NATO countries a cheaper service.

MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) expense.

MR. McLEAN: We had to cut the cost down. One of the questions that was

also asked yesterday was: What have we saved by going to a private contractor

from what it used to be when it was operated by DND? My understanding is that

they are going to get us the answers on that. They are going to supply that. I

would be interested to see if it did save any money. In all honesty, I would be

interested to see because the NATO countries are still concerned about the cost.

That tells me, in military terms, did we save anything? We got a lot of grief

out of it. You are exactly right, they were going to do this to a number of

bases but they gave it up after the fiasco in Goose Bay; but, we had to pay the

price for that. We want to assure the people in the area now, this time around,

what was done wrong is corrected, and the thing is done right from the start.

MR. COLLINS: On another issue, minister, that I think you are quite

familiar with. You are well aware that outfitting in Labrador has seen its share

of problems, particularly around the Western Schefferville boarder area with

Quebec, to the point where last year almost fights erupted at the camps.

MR. McLEAN: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: And there was a meeting held at Corner Brook earlier this

year, I think, that you were present at.

MR. McLEAN: I attended that, yes.

MR. COLLINS: What solutions are going to be - we have people who were

forced out of their camps and had to build new ones because they were not

allowed to operate in Schefferville. They were even to the point of threatening

of being taken to court. They had no choice but to leave there and establish new

camps, build new ones in the Province. Meanwhile, since that time with nothing

else changing, other people have been permitted to operate out of private homes

in the Schefferville region in Labrador. Is there anything going to happen on

that within the very near future before the next hunting season starts?

MR. McLEAN: Yes, there are already things happening. We have been really

involved in this. We were not before but now we are, along with the Department

of Tourism and also to some degree, the Department of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods because there is still a little bit of leftovers within those two

departments. We are working together now. What we want to see is a solution. I

think we were looking originally at June, trying to have a solution by June on

this issue. I think we may still meet that.

MR. COLLINS: Because it all starts again - when, August?

MR. McLEAN: Yes, late August. That is why we said we need to have this

resolved by June. We are anticipating that we will have a resolution before

that.

MR. COLLINS: I think it has to because it is very negative for -

MR. McLEAN: Somebody is going to get killed in there.

MR. COLLINS: Exactly.

MR. McLEAN: Putting it very simply.

MR. COLLINS: Yes, tempers are running pretty hot.

MR. McLEAN: They were still hot when we were in Deer Lake.

MR. COLLINS: The EIS from -

WITNESS: Question.

CHAIR: I heard the word question but if you wish to ask another to cover

your point, by all means.

MR. COLLINS: I could say to the other members of the committee here that

if they do not we could pursue this during Question Period. I have an interest

in this because it affects Labrador and if they want to rush this and get it

over with, then I am certainly not going to go along with that.

CHAIR: The Chair is in an awkward situation in a sense - I would not say

awkward, is in a situation where only committee members have a right to vote.

Other guests are here - I, by all means, would allow the member to conclude if

he wishes but I am in an awkward situation. I have had the question asked and I

have no formal objection that can come to me from other members. I can only deal

in procedure with the committee members that are here representing either side.

I am now without members from the other side of the House of this committee. If

hon. members would permit you to ask another question or two, I guess that would

be in order. But, the Chair can only deal with the rules there in front of the

Chair and that is: That the committee at this point in time is without - I have

a quorum, but I have to honour the quorum's wishes as well.

MR. COLLINS: Well, I will just say that I conclude this. My remarks are

finished.

CHAIR: But if you wish to ask some questions, by all means.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, on behalf (inaudible). We have no

reservations with Mr. Collins asking questions.

CHAIR: Okay. No, I heard the question and I can only deal with it.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: You are going to have to be nice to me. I am sitting here

ready to ask -

CHAIR: The Chair will grant leave to carry on.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I was interrupted, I was in the middle of asking the minister when the

EIS study, on the

section of highway between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, was expected to be concluded.

MR. McLEAN: The EIS process, as you know, has been on the go for almost a

year now. We started last year. The registration took place about two weeks ago.

We have basically sat down with the Department of Environment, the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation and the Innu who are an integral part of

this, as they were with Phase II. We have worked the

schedule out to see the

completion of the EIS in February 2003. We asked the question, are there any

glaring issues that would slow this down, and we were told by all three parties

that, no, they do not see anything that would unduly halt this or delay it or

anything else. They see a process that will work its way through in pretty

ordinary fashion. There will be public hearings in the communities that are

impacted, as they normally do. I think they mentioned Cartwright, Paradise

River, Mud Lake, Sheshatshiu, North West River and Happy Valley Goose Bay. They

have not identified anything that would give us cause for concern, because we

asked that question just last week, actually.

MR. COLLINS: Talking about the land claims: You have had some discussion

with other members of the committee on the land claims. What is government's

position on the land claims map that has been circulated, that you have seen I

am sure, that shows the area of land claims by the Inuit and then it shows the

land claims by the Innu as being all the rest of Labrador? A lot of people have

commented on that, a lot of people have mentioned it to me, and they are sort of

skeptical; not that they do not want to see a fair land claims settlement occur

but they are pretty worried about where they fit into these land claims issues,

as it affects them.

For example, at the present time, anybody applying for a cottage area even in

Western Labrador receives a letter saying that this could be affected by the

land claims outcome. That has people talking, it has people worried, and they

are wondering how the land claims issues are going to affect non-natives who

have been living in Labrador for the past forty or fifty years or more.

MR. McLEAN: I will take the Inuit piece first because the Inuit piece is

firm.

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: They know where they are. There are a few areas that are

still under, I guess, discussion, if you want to call it that, in terms of the

LIL piece. That is the 6,000 square kilometers that the Inuit have, that they

will own. I think that is what you are referring to more than the LISA piece

which is the full piece.

MR. COLLINS: Exactly!

MR. McLEAN: What will happen in the claim areas, and even in the LIL

piece: In the LIL piece anybody looking for a cabin who is non-aboriginal, who

would want to build a cabin or something, would go to the Labrador Inuit and the

land that they own and seek permission to put a cabin up or a house up or

whatever, instead of coming to Crown Lands. In some cases it may be a quicker

process.

MR. COLLINS: There is no question in my mind about that.

MR. McLEAN: You know, in that sense. But there is still some concern in

the Lake Melville area with the Labrador Inuit LIL piece. There is still some

concern there. That has been out there for a fair amount of time and there are

negotiations going on as we speak to try and conclude all of this. In the sense

though, that the Innu - you said that the Innu covered all the rest of Labrador.

I think that was the original. Wasn't that last year's piece?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: There is no substantial change in terms of what they have put

forward. I do not think that has been out to the public yet. I think they are

just piecing that together now to go out to the public which is substantially

different than what you saw last year.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, because-

MR. McLEAN: I saw that last year, too, and it scared me.

MR. COLLINS: Even as recent as last week letters are still coming out to

that effect.

MR. McLEAN: Yes, but that policy has been in place since 1991. It was put

in by the Wells government. Basically, why it was put in was that at that time

there were two land claims issues being dealt with, one on the Inuit side and

one on the Innu side, and nobody really knew what it was going to take in. So

the Wells government put in a policy that letters would go to the Innu, out of

courtesy, on any piece of property that was applied for, whether it was for

cabin development or any kind of development. As we moved along, that got

construed as government policy, so letters were always sent out to these people.

In some cases it interfered with the process. I mean, in some cases we had to

intervene and clarify so that we could identify and straighten out those kinds

of things. Actually, what will happen is the quicker we get the land claims

settled the quicker we will get a better understanding and we will have a direct

process then as to which way we have to go for land claims. Non-Aboriginals will

still be able to build cabins and stuff like that. It is just that you have to

go to a different government in terms of the Inuit.

I do not know what is going to happen in terms of the Innu because we have

not reached that stage yet, whether or not they will want to go along with that

piece or it will be negotiated, whether we will end up with that piece or

whether or not there will be co-management, that sort of thing, you know. We are

working through that. We would hope to see some conclusion to that by the end of

the year, so that we can firm up where we are starting to go.

What they have done with their royalties, the land that they are going to

own, they want to put that out to the public before we do the AIP. That is

starting to be finalized now, so they will put it out. It is quite substantially

different from what you saw last year, from what I saw last year, because what

we saw last year was unacceptable.

CHAIR: Just a quick procedural question, more than anything. I just put

this forward as a possibility in terms of relevance in staying with the

Estimates. As Chair I would be more than willing to stay for the duration of the

time that we have. Is the Committee comfortable with moving the actual Estimates

so that the estimate portion is dealt with and then we could stay, if the

minister so desired, and carry on what seems to be settling into more of a

general discussion than it does with the actual numbers themselves? (Inaudible)

the question about to be asked again. I understand, in terms of the general

context of the conversation that is taking place and the exchange of

information, that it could easily take place on Question Period. This is a more

relaxed atmosphere and I guess it is a more relaxed area in which to ask those

question. I ask that question to see if that would be acceptable or if the

committee wishes to proceed as we are going now.

Tom.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chair, if we are going to stay to ask some general

questions, that may lead into a question on an Estimates item, it may generate

some further questions on Estimates items, and I think maybe it would be prudent

to keep the meeting going until such time that all present are ready to vote on

Estimates.

CHAIR: The Chair welcomes your comments and welcomes you back to the

meeting as well. I am only going on a direction that I was asked to put forward,

and I am doing that. Are there any other discussions?

MR. BUTLER: The only comment I was going to make: When it comes to the

Estimates, I thought the hon. gentleman, who is also a member on the Committee,

had finished, pertaining to the Estimates. I think you touched on it there, that

all the other questions, as important as they are, can be done through Question

Period or another forum. I am sure the minister will only be too glad to met

with the hon. gentleman on those, and that is the only reason that we mentioned

this in the interim.

CHAIR: Is there any other discussion or is the Chair now entertaining the

question?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am only a guest, but may I make a comment, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: The Chair welcomes the comments, even though the question may be

answered.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Certainly since I have been here, since 1996, these

meetings have always been an opportunity for Members of the House, those on the

Committee, those who may not necessarily be on the Committee, but any member who

has an interest, whether it be a critic area, or in the case of the Member for

Labrador West - he is here obviously as a Labrador MHA. I do not know why we

have to deviate from the norm. There are questions here from members, regardless

of the reason why they are here. The Minister is here with his deputy. It seems

to me, just as an observation, that we should just continue with questions until

any member who is present, who is here legitimately - I guess we are all here

for that reason, until the questions are exhausted and then we conclude.

CHAIR: The Chair appreciates the comment. But, in your own words, you

probably tell me exactly where I sit in terms of legitimacy. The other member

for this Committee representing the Opposition was gone. The other members felt

that, if we are dealing with Estimates, perhaps it was time to call the

question. So, the Chair, trying to appreciate that we have now two guests and

voting members of the Committee, felt that perhaps if we dealt with the

Estimates as they are, that the Chair would be willing to stay for the sake of

the conversation that will proceed. If you wish to go for the full three hours,

which is minimum, the Chair had no problem with that. It was simply that the

question had been asked. The Chair, in trying to have some balance here -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would suggest we move on (inaudible) continue.

CHAIR: Well, you know, the question has been asked, and the Chair has to

deal with the question, again trying to allow our guests to carry on. The House

of Assembly has the same situation. If there is no quorum, I guess, there are no

questions. If Question Period is over, Question Period is over. If the question

is asked, the question is asked. So, I am trying to allow, if you wish, a

wide-ranging conversation, which any member has a right to came and participate

in. The Committee is still the master of its own destiny as the House would be.

MR. ANDERSEN: We are here for the Estimates and the reason why the

colleague here asked the question is that we, as members, come here to vote on

the Estimates. The Opposition, if you can so call them, can go and come at will.

They can send one, two, or three members. Obviously they do not even have three

here this morning. It is a question for them to come and go at will, but we are

here to do our duty. Again, it is the Estimates Committee and we do not mind

people asking questions in turn on the Estimates and then asking other

questions, but when it comes down to a short period of time and there are no

questions asked on the Estimates, and yet there are questions which I am sure

they are entitled to ask - that is the reason why the gentleman here called the

question in the first place. We have no (inaudible) with the minister.

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I think we are setting a precedent here, Mr. Chair,

because I remember our Vice-Chair, only the day before yesterday, stating that

two members of our committee were unable to make it today, and it was

recommended to him, I believe, by yourself, that we find replacements. While Mr.

Collins is not a member of the Official Opposition he is still a member of the

Opposition and can act as a replacement, as can my colleague from St. John's

East. If I am to understand that these are not suitable replacements, maybe in

the future, when two members have to be out of town, we should postpone the

meeting.

CHAIR: Procedurally, in terms of the operation of the House of Assembly,

your House Leader would provide, through the Clerk, a prescribed form that says,

the following individual will replace an individual. That is the procedure that

has operated since forever and a day in terms of parliamentary procedure. That

is what we have done and that is what would happen. I asked the Clerk and I

understand that we have one form. In the introductions in the beginning we had

one member substituting for a member who was sick, and the prescribed forms were

here at the beginning of the meeting. So, your colleagues are here as guests of

the committee. They are not here as substitutes for committee members.

Again I go back and say, that the conversation can continue in terms of the

dialogue that is taking place. In terms of the actual numbers, the question has

been asked.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I have been on a number of committees in the last

three years at this stage, and at every committee meeting that I have attended

yet there have always been discussions that took place surrounding and regarding

the department. Never before have I seen it being objected to, the matter of

questions of interest being raised. The other committee members might be here

because they have been appointed to the committee by their leader. I am here

this morning out of interest of what is happening in Labrador. As I said, at

other department meetings I have attended throughout the last three years, this

has been quite normal and accepted.

I do not know why this morning the Member for Baie Verte would have a problem

with this length of time. This meeting was only going an hour when they started

to interject, and I do not see what the problem is. It is quite normal for

questions of this nature to be asked, and some of the questions that you ask may

turn up as an item that you refer back to in the Budget. I do not know what the

problem is. I do not think that we are being belligerent, I do not think that we

are being unnecessarily rigorous with the minister. These are simple questions

and the answers were coming back..

CHAIR: So I can answer again, from a procedural point of view: The

problem that the Chair has is that I have three members of the Committee who are

here. I had four at the beginning. One member of the Committee left, is gone,

and we are now down to two guests and the members of the Committee. A question

was asked. If the question was asked in the House of Assembly - and we are all

here - the Chair or the Speaker deals with the question. At that time, your

comments are correct, there was no member of this Committee asking questions.

There were guests of this Committee asking questions, and they are entitled to.

MR. COLLINS: So why didn't the Chair automatically adjourn the Hearing?

CHAIR: Because I had a quorum, and you do not adjourn if you have a

quorum. I had no Opposition members of the Committee, but I did have government

members, and I did have a quorum. If I was less a quorum, then I would have to

adjourn the meeting, but the quorum still is in place.

MR. COLLINS: So justice could be denied because of a technicality?

CHAIR: No, justice is not denied because the House of Assembly offers a

number of purviews for this to take place. The questions that are being asked

here legitimately can be asked during Question Period, and the Chair agreed to

stay, assuming that the minister would stay, so the questions being asked could

be, and that the answers given would be satisfactory. It was simply that there

were no longer any questions with respect to the Estimates. The numbers that we

are looking at had been covered and the Committee members present wish to move

the Estimates. The Chair said: That is fine, we can move the Estimates, have

them approved, which is going to happen in the next hour-and-a-half or two hours

anyway. But the Chair was willing to stay for the questions to continue.

The Chair saw nothing wrong with that, giving the guests, who are now here,

an opportunity to carry on, but at the same time, not holding back all the

Committee members for the sake of having to be here, when the Estimates

Committees are there as much for all members, but indeed the Opposition members,

to probe the Budget. We were without an Opposition member. So, the Chair is more

than willing to stay to allow the line of questioning to take place with the

Estimates being approved.

MR. COLLINS: I do not have anything further to say here.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chair, on behalf of the three members sitting here, we

are willing to withdraw the question if that is the obstacle, the fact that the

question was called. I think it was called from where I sat and what I heard. It

did not seem like there was another question coming, so that is why the question

was called. We three here have just discussed it and we are willing to withdraw

the question and let the line of questioning, whether it is regarding the

Estimates or general questioning, continue. We are fine with that.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I have to interject there. It was not as the

member just pointed out. I was in the middle of a question. It was not as if

they were wondering if there was another question coming. I was smack dab in the

middle of a question when the question was called from the government members on

this Committee. I want to make that clear.

CHAIR: That may have been the first question, the Chair is now dealing

with the second question. I guess we are moving on, if the Chair has not heard

the question.

MR. ANDERSEN: Just a point of clarification. The Member for Labrador

West, when he singled out Mr. Sweeney, referred to him as the member for Baie

Verte. Mr. Sweeney is the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

CHAIR: The Chair did hear Baie Verte, but I think I understood what you

were saying and I went on.

Are we back where we were?

WITNESSES: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Then you have no questions?

WITNESS: No, I am finished.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins, as a guest you are finished? Mr. Osborne?

There being no other questions, the Chair will move the question.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 2.1.03. carried.

On motion, Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, total heads,

carried.

CHAIR: Bearing in mind that the numbers have been approved, the Chair,

once again, thanks all members for attending. However, the Chair is still

willing to stay. The Estimates have been approved, but if there is a line of

questioning that the members would like to carry on with, the Chair is more than

willing to sit and act as a Chair for any additional questions that members of

the House may wish to ask.

There being no desire to ask any additional questions, the Chair will, once

again, say that I am more than willing to stay.

No further questions?

On motion, Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2025-02-04
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga44_rs02-04-25.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ae761138a0f9c9594d06c68a9ac6bbabe12b44cd

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