May 12,

RESOURCE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Percy Barrett, MHA for

Bellevue, replaces Gerry Reid, MHA for Twillingate & Fogo; Clyde Jackman,

MHA for Burin-Placentia West, replaces Charlene Johnson, MHA for Trinity-Bay de

Verde; Kathy Goudie, MHA for Humber Valley, replaces Kevin O'Brien, MHA for

Gander; Anna Thistle, MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans, replaces Judy Foote, MHA for

Grand Bank; and Wallace Young, MHA for St. Barbe, replaces Ray Hunter, MHA for

Windsor-Springdale.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Mr. Harding): I would like to welcome everyone here this evening

as we debate the Estimates for the Department of Environment and Conservation.

I just want to mention a couple of points at the beginning for any new

members who are here. Normal procedure is for the minister to begin with fifteen

minutes to speak about the estimates in his department, and then for the critic,

or the vice-chair if he is here, to respond, and they will have fifteen minutes

as well. From then on, we try to alternate between the government members and

Opposition members until we go through everyone, ten minutes each. That does not

always happen, but we will see that as we go through.

I would like to ask the members who are on the committee to try to confine

their comments to the departmental estimates that we are talking about and to

try to be as brief as possible. Right now I would like to ask the members on the

Resource Committee to introduce themselves and to state the district that they

represent.

MR. BARRETT: Percy Barrett, the Member for Bellevue, the critic for

Environment, and also, I guess, Acting Vice-Chair of the Committee.

MS THISTLE: Anna Thistle, MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans, critic for

Finance, Treasury Board and Post Secondary Education. I am standing in for Judy

Foote.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. JACKMAN: Clyde Jackman. I am the representative for Burin-Placentia

West.

MR. YOUNG: Wallace Young, MHA for the District of St. Barbe, sitting in

for Ray Hunter.

MR. JOYCE: Eddie Joyce, MHA for the Bay of Islands.

CHAIR: You can introduce yourself as well.

MR. LEWIS: I am Andy Lewis, I am with the Opposition, in research.

CHAIR: We just had a late arrival.

Kathy, you can introduce yourself and the district that you represent.

MS GOUDIE: Kathy Goudie, the MHA for Humber Valley.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I would also like to welcome the staff of the House of Assembly here again

this evening. Our Table Chair is Elizabeth Murphy.

Now I would like to ask the minister to introduce his staff who he has here.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom Osborne, Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

Mr. Chairman, it is, indeed, a pleasure to be here this evening to discuss

the first budget for the Department of Environment and Conservation. As most are

aware, one of the strong pillars of government's agenda is sustainable

development. Earlier this year, when government restructured a number of

services and functions of other departments, they brought together the

Department of Environment and Conservation and brought with it services such as

environmental management, water resources management, wildlife management,

natural areas management, provincial parks and Crown lands. While these

activities have been co-ordinated over the past number of years, the -

CHAIR: Excuse me, Tom. Would you mind introducing your people for us?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I will.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I did not know if you were using up your fifteen minutes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The management of these areas collectively, by one

department, should lead to a stronger, more efficient sustainable development

approach to our economy.

I will introduce my officials. To my immediate left is Paul Dean, Deputy

Minister; to his left is Bill Parrot, ADM. for Lands; to his left is Bob Warren,

ADM. for Natural Heritage; directly behind me is Ken Dominie, ADM. for

Environment; to his left is Mr. Ewen Jones; and to his left is Gerry Crocker.

Gerry is Director of Financial and General Operations.

CHAIR: Thank you, Sir.

Just one more comment now, if I may. Proceedings here this evening are being

recorded by Hansard, so for the officials of your department, if you call on

them anytime to answer a question or anything, I would appreciate it if they

would identify themselves for the convenience of the recordings.

Now, I would like to call on the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 1.1.01. Environment and Conservation is on page 103.

Mr. Minister, you can proceed.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize. I thought I was into my fifteen minutes. Out of the corner and

on with the gloves.

For the 2004-2005 fiscal year, a gross budget in the amount of $24,197,000 is

included in the Estimates to cover departmental costs for the protection and

enhancement of environment and management and regulatory protection of the

Province's Provincial parks, ecological reserves, natural areas, wildlife,

water and Crown land resources. To offset a portion of the costs, related

revenue of $6,044,700 is budgeted which results in an estimated net current

expenditure of $18,152,300.

The gross budget for the department's five main programs are as follows:

Executive and Support Services, $2,053,500; Environmental Management and

Control, $6,751,300; Lands, $5,244,800; Parks and Natural Areas, $3,383,400; and

Wildlife and Natural Heritage research is $6,764,000.

As indicated in the department's estimates, the Department of Environment

and Conservation functions include: controlling air, water and soil pollution by

developing and implementing appropriate water resource and land management

policies; coordinating environmental impact assessments of proposed development

projects; addressing waste disposal issues; and regulating and controlling

hazardous material storage, use, transportation and disposal.

The Department of Environment and Conservation will continue to pursue a

variety of initiatives for 2004-2005. I will briefly outline a number of these

in each branch of my department.

The Environment branch will carry out chemical water sampling in

municipalities; offer onsite and centralized training sessions for operators of

municipal water and sewer systems; manage environmental assessments of large

projects such as phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; continue with the

Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board in conjunction with the federal

government, the Innu Nation of Labrador and the Labrador Inuit Association; work

with major industries in the Province to develop certificates of approval and

compliance agreements for their activities; continue to work on a climate change

plan for the Province; continue to work with all stakeholders on the

implementation of a provincial waste management strategy; and conduct

remediation of government owned contaminated sites, including the $1.5 million

that has been allocated in this year's budget to remediate the former military

site at St. Anthony.

The Lands Branch will operate the Surveys and Mapping division, Lands

Management Division and Crown Lands Division, with regional offices in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Corner Brook, Gander, Clarenville and St. John's, process

approximately 3,377 requests for Crown Lands and issue 2,515 titles, produce

maps of the provincial and co-ordinate government computer based mapping

systems, operate Crown Land's registry which stores and maintains Crown Land

titles and records for the Province for public access, develop cottage lots for

sale in an environmentally sustainable manner where lots are allocated on a

public trial basis, and continue the activities and processes necessary to

manage the Crown Land resource which is approximately 95 per cent of the land in

the Province.

The Natural Heritage Branch will operate the system of provincial parks,

wilderness and ecological reserves, and the Trailway, provide services to

provincial parks, administer the big game licence draw, continue wildlife based

education including the Salmonier Nature Park, manage wildlife populations and

habitat, conduct scientific research to support wildlife management and natural

areas protection planning, and continue partnership arrangements for cooperative

ventures aimed at wildlife ecosystem planning, as well as protect endangered

species.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment and Conservation

has a variety of activities which all fit into the government's sustainable

development agenda. As I have stated earlier, I am very pleased that many

similar initiatives are now contained in the one department which will enable

the sustainable development agenda to be more readily advanced.

I would be pleased now to open the floor to comments and questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Sir.

The Critic, Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for his explanatory notes. I could get into a

long-winded fifteen minute address but I do not want to do that. I do not think

people are interested in that, in hearing what I have to say in that area. We

are much more interested in getting into the meat of the Estimates and to see if

the Estimates reflect the policy of the department and whether the minister has

enough money to be able to implement the programs that he just outlined and the

areas that he would like to carry out in his role as minister. We will see if

the Minister of Finance has given him enough money to be able to carry out his

mandate.

We will get into detailed questions on each one of the account centres, so

that he can give us some explanations for the increases, decreases, and the

shuffling around of money from the various account centres. If there seems to be

some kind of hidden agenda here, we will reveal it at the end, after we have

done the detailed analysis.

We will start right off at 1.1.01, Minister's Office. We notice that there

is a decrease in Salaries in Minister's Office. I know you had two departments

last year, because you were the Minister of Labour as well as the Minister of

Environment, but there is a significant decrease in Salaries in the Minister's

Office. Can you explain why?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The salaries that are outlined there, I guess, show the

salaries for both departments under the 2003-2004 budget, and this year's

budget reflects the salary of one department.

MR. BARRETT: Could you indicate which positions they are? I know it is

your salary and an Executive Assistant. How many positions are out of that

$197,900?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The salaries appropriation includes the expenses related

to the department vehicle allowance in addition to the salaries for myself, a

Constituency Assistant and an Executive Assistant.

MR. BARRETT: So, you have the minister's salary which is $40,000, plus

an Executive Assistant and a Constituency Assistant.

MR. T. OSBORNE: And the departmental secretary, as well.

MR. BARRETT: And the departmental secretary. So there are four positions?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There are four positions, as well as related expenses and

car allowance.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, an $8,000 car allowance plus the four positions.

There are no employee benefits under the Minister's Office. How come?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well the employee benefits last year-

MR. BARRETT: You do not deserve any? Is that the reason? On a lighter

note, is it because you do not think you are worthy of a benefit or what?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, I do not think I am worthy of robbing the public

purse.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. There are no employee benefits there at all. Last

year, it was $500. Obviously, the half year I was there I must have been worth

$500 or something.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That $500, Percy, was for registration to a conference. I

believe that was the appropriation for the $500 last year.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. There is an amount of $46,000 for Transportation and

Communications. How much of this is for transportation and how much is for

communications?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I think I will ask Gerry to elaborate on that, but I

believe that $46,000 that is there is for a combination of transportation and

communications, as needed. That is the amount that is budgeted for both items

within the department, to be appropriated as needed. Gerry?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, the $46,000 is for travel. The phone costs are budgeted

under Administrative Support. There may be some small charges there under

communications, for cellphones and some courier services, that type of

expenditure, which will also be charged under Transportation and Communications.

MR. BARRETT: It is interesting, in the Minister's Office you have the

expenditures or the salaries listed in terms of a combination of both

departments. Then when we get down to the other Executive Support you do not

have the same breakdown. Is there a reason for this?

MR. CROCKER: Basically, what we have would have been restated from the

previous year. So for this year, under Executive Support, we have one Deputy

Minister and there are three ADMs, one Executive Director, a Director of

Communications and three Executive Secretary positions.

MR. BARRETT: The Director of Communications now is under Executive

Support rather than under the Minister's Office.

MR. CROCKER: Yes, that is right. It was restated from the Minister's

Office to Executive Support.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the reason why there is an increase of $44,700 in

the Executive Support Salaries over and above last year?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, it is related to that. Basically, where there were two

directors - we had two departments, so there is restatement for half of the

salaries. Also, there are some step progressions and annualized increases that

are also included there.

MR. BARRETT: The only extra position is the Communications?

MR. CROCKER: I am sorry?

MR. BARRETT: The extra salary is for Communications?

MR. CROCKER: Basically, what it relates to is the comparison from the

previous year's budget. It was restated for half of the year, I guess,

basically, or half between the two departments. That is a little bit low;

$626,000 is low for the restated budget for last year and that is why it is up

$44,000 for next year, $670,700.

MR. BARRETT: In the realignment of the department, when it was the

Department of Environment, how many ADM positions were there in the department?

Because you realize now that Crown Lands has transferred from Government

Services and Lands.

MR. DEAN: (Inaudible) which was Mr. Dominie's position in the previous

Department of Environment and then, as Mr. Crocker has said, we have added two

ADMs, plus the Executive Director in Wildlife, Mr. Mahoney, who is added into

this.

MR. BARRETT: So there is an Executive Director in Wildlife?

MR. DEAN: Yes, there is an Executive Director position in Wildlife.

Correct me, Gerry, is it budgeted here or is it budgeted in Wildlife?

MR. CROCKER: It is budgeted under (inaudible).

MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. BARRETT: It is budgeted where?

MR. DEAN: In Executive Support.

MR. BARRETT: In Executive Support. So there are more positions now in the

Department of Environment than there ever was before in the Executive Support?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I do not think you are comparing apples with apples.

There are an equal number of positions for the divisions that are within the

Department of Environment and Conservation as there were last year.

MR. BARRETT: What I am saying is that there is an increase in the

Executive Support in the Department of Environment over what it was last year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. That is the question I was asking, how many positions

there were in Executive Support over and above what was here in the old

department. There are two positions more than there was before?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Three.

MR. BARRETT: I am trying to get at the savings that was by wiping out the

departments.

The next account center I would like to have a look at is 1.2.02,

Administrative Support. There is $125,000 budgeted for Transportation and

Communications. Can you explain this expenditure?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Those are for travel costs for executive support, public

relations staff, also our executive communication services, freight and courier

costs.

MR. BARRETT: You have Salaries of $280,500. There must be one position -

who is going to travel and spend $125,000?

MR. DEAN: There are a lot of department-wide costs that are in here. A

lot of costs - such as telephone and administration - are costs associated with

all the department's activities.

MR. CROCKER: The phone costs and the postage costs for the full

department are included under Administrative Support, Transportation and

Communications.

MR. BARRETT: You say all of that is telephone and no transportation?

MR. CROCKER: The total budget for Administrative Support: postage is

$50,000; travel is $5,300; relocation, $2,000, and the phone costs under

Communications is $67,700.

MR. BARRETT: You have a division of Administrative Support? I find this

to be confusing because you have Executive Support, which has Transportation and

Communications and all the other Supplies and Purchased Services, and then you

have a heading called: Administrative Support, General Administration. Who is

paid the $28,500? Is there one position?

MR. CROCKER: That is only an allocation there for temporary staff. The

Salaries portion of Administrative Support is budgeted in Tourism, Culture and

Recreation. It is a consolidated unit that we do the administrative services for

Tourism, Culture and Recreation and also Environment and Conservation.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. So the administrative function is not provided by the

department itself but you have related costs to it because the employees are in

another department.

MR. CROCKER: The salaries were not split between two departments. The

salaries were all budgeted in one department under Tourism, Culture and

Recreation but the costs that we can attribute directly to Environment and

Conservation - such as: telephone, postage, office supplies, purchased services,

furniture and equipment - is all budgeted under Administrative Support in

Environment and Conservation.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, so that would include - would there be an equivalent

in Transportation and Communications in Tourism, Culture in the other

departments?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, there would also be an allocation for Administrative

Support under Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

Purchased Services, what kind of expenditure would be entailed under

Purchased Services there?

MR. CROCKER: That would include advertising and promotion, printing, the

lease of office space. That is about it.

MR. BARRETT: Purchased Services would be to put the minister's picture

in the paper. Is that - and advertise the minister? That would not be the cost

(inaudible) there. I thought that would be back at the Minister's Office,

Purchased Services?

MR. CROCKER: No. Actually, most of the advertising we try to put under

Executive Support because the Director of Communications is budgeted there and

most of the advertising would go through her office.

MR. BARRETT: Executive Support?

MR. CROCKER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: There is $17,000 allocated for Purchased Services there.

MR. CROCKER: That is right.

MR. BARRETT: And you have $109,300 for advertising within Administrative

Support.

MR. CROCKER: No, it is not all advertising.

MR. BARRETT: That is for the lease of space too, is it?

MR. CROCKER: What was that?

MR. BARRETT: That is for the lease of space?

MR. CROCKER: That is for the lease of space also.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

You have another one there, Grants and Subsidies, $38,000. Who is the grants

and subsidies paid to?

MR. CROCKER: Most of that would be for CCME, the Canadian Council of

Ministers of the Environment. They would get approximately $28,000, and there

would be a small amount for, unallocated, in case there were certain

miscellaneous grants that might be required during the year.

MR. BARRETT: The Council of Ministers of the Environment costs us $28,000

a year?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, approximately.

MR. BARRETT: Is that normal in every department that we have to pay these

fees to be part of -

MR. DEAN: The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, I think

there are two Canadian councils of ministers like this. Education, I believe, is

the other council and environment. They have a full-time staff and secretariat.

Each province contributes on a pro rata basis to the cost of running the staff

and secretariat of the council. For instance, we would pay $28,000, Ontario

might pay $300,000 to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

because it is based on the relative population of the provinces.

MR. BARRETT: There is an actual bureaucracy for the Council of Ministers

of Environment which we were contributing $28,000 for?

MR. DEAN: Yes, there is.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Only the Council and Ministers' of Education and the

Council of the Minister of the Environment have that? Normally, in terms of the

other departments, is that each province would look after the meeting and the

discussions of each department. The federal minister and everybody else who is

involved in - and federal intergovernmental affairs would provide the

translations and all the other things that would be necessary to call

federal-provincial conferences but the Council of Ministers of Environment cost

the taxpayers of Newfoundland $28,000 a year?

MR. DEAN: Yes, that is correct. I would just say to you, that is good

value for us. For instance, the Canadian Council does such things as setting

Canada-wide environmental standards for a variety of contaminates. If we had to

generate that work ourselves it would cost us much more than $28,000 a year.

Generally, we adopt a standard for our regulations in this Province so that we

are in harmony with other provinces and jurisdictions. Our view of this is that

we get good value for that $28,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is a working body. They do a great deal of research,

so it saves the Province. Each province pays based on population. They do a

great deal of research Canada-wide and each province will then benefit from that

research. Even for the larger provinces it is a good value, but in particular

for ours because we get the advantage of having that research for a very nominal

amount of money.

MR. BARRETT: Where is this located, in Toronto or Ottawa?

MR. DEAN: It is based in Winnipeg.

MR. BARRETT: In Winnipeg?

MR. DEAN: It is headquartered in Winnipeg.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

CHAIR: Excuse me now, Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Is my time up?

CHAIR: You have gone beyond your time, but you have plenty of time after.

MR. BARRETT: Time flies when you are having fun.

CHAIR: Yes, but just to give benefit to the government members on the

Committee, if they would like to ask a question at this point in time, you are

certainly free to do so.

No questions? Okay, we can come back to your colleagues to see if they would

like to give you a break or you can carry on, whatever you decide.

MR. JOYCE: I will ask a few questions.

Can I just get something clarified in subhead 1.2.02? We just discussed it.

There is a part-time person there, $28,500 - Transportation and Communications

$125,000 - for someone who is not in that division. Can someone explain? I mean,

I just miss it because - Gerry, if it is for someone else in another division,

why isn't the money put in that division instead of a subhead where there is

no person?

MR. CROCKER: The $125,000 covers postage costs and phone costs for the

whole department, basically. There would not be any phone costs or postage costs

under Policy and Development or under Pollution Prevention or Water Resource

Management. The whole works is budgeted under Administrative Support and you

will find that would be consistent with the approach in most departments. You

may be able to zero in on certain areas. If it is a unique requirement for some

postage it may be budgeted in that particular division, but the general postage

costs and the phone costs are usually budgeted under Administrative Support. So,

the position is, basically, only an allocation for temporaries.

MR. JOYCE: Pardon me?

MR. CROCKER: The position is only an allocation - the $28,500 - for

temporary staff and students.

MR. JOYCE: Is there someone in that position now?

MR. CROCKER: No, there is not.

MR. JOYCE: There is $28,000 there in the budget, which he has for

Salaries, for which no one is hired?

MR. CROCKER: Well, there will be some students hired shortly.

MR. JOYCE: Okay. If you go down to the next subhead, you mentioned that

$125,000 is for phones and postage, or whatever. If you go down to the next

subhead, 1.2.03, you have Transportation and Communications, $41,000. Surely,

that cannot be phones and postage also?

MR. CROCKER: In subhead 1.2.03, Policy -

MR. JOYCE: Yes.

MR. CROCKER: The $41,000 there is for travel.

MR. JOYCE: So, it is not for phones and -

MR. CROCKER: No. Well, cellphones. Cellphones are usually budgeted at the

divisional level but the travel costs would be for staff of that particular

division.

MR. JOYCE: I am just confused. I am not (inaudible) for my own

information. The transportation costs in 1.2.02, under Transportation and

Communications, is for the whole department for postage and phones?

MR. CROCKER: For postage and phones and -

MR. JOYCE: For the whole department?

MR. CROCKER: For the whole department, yes. Unless there is a unique -

there may be a small amount budgeted under Wildlife for the mail outs of big

game applications, but that would be for a particular purpose. Mostly general

postage and phone costs are all under Administrative Support.

MR. JOYCE: Okay. Under the same heading, 1.2.02.10, Grants and Subsidies,

I think someone just mentioned that this is in conjunction with the Department

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. CROCKER: No. Grants and Subsidies, $38,000, that is for CCME. That is

the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, but the administration was for both departments, the

administration part.

MR. CROCKER: No, there would only be the costs that are attributed to

Environment and Conservation. The costs that are associated with Tourism,

Culture and Recreation are budgeted in Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. JOYCE: I just cannot understand it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I could just say something?

MR. JOYCE: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: This is the way the accounting has been done in the

Department of Environment for a number of years. I have been critic for over six

years, and now minister, and this is the way the accounting is done. As a

cost-savings measure, the human resources for that department is operated - I

think there were three departments: Environment, Labour, and Tourism; the human

resources and probably youth services. I mean the human resources for all

departments was covered under one department but the cost for rental, postage,

telephones for each particular department, the budget appropriations came from

that particular department. Therefore, there is no salary allotment for human

resources for Environment and Conservation because that is covered under

Tourism, but the costs for operating the department are budgeted to the

department.

MR. JOYCE: Okay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have not changed the way that accounting is done.

MR. JOYCE: It could be just me, I was never an accountant.

Just go to 2.1.01, Pollution Prevention. The Salaries there are on par with

last year. Are there any positions that have been laid off in that division?

Obviously not.

MR. T. OSBORNE: There was one position eliminated in that.

MR. JOYCE: Purchased Services, $1,514,000. What kind of -

MR. T. OSBORNE: That $1.5 million is for the clean up of St. Anthony, the

military site at St. Anthony.

MR. JOYCE: Okay. How much is that going to cost? How much is the

estimation, I should say, because you never know until you get in there?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, the full $1.5 million is what is appropriated for

the St. Anthony clean up. We are estimating that it is going to cost somewhere

between $1.5 million and $2 million. We have appropriated $1.5 million. We are

certainly hoping that will cover it.

MR. JOYCE: Can I just ask a few generic questions? How many did we hear

lately about some layoffs? How many people have been laid off in the department,

in your full department right now?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There were a number of temporary positions that were laid

off. I will ask Mr. Dean to answer to the specifics. Permanent positions, there

are none. There were a number of vacant positions that are not being refilled.

MR. JOYCE: How many? I do not know if Mr. Dean has it.

MR. DEAN: I think there are approximately five layoffs of temporary.

MR. JOYCE: Five temporary?

MR. DEAN: Five temporary people.

MR. JOYCE: What positions were they, Mr. Dean?

MR. DEAN: One of them was in Pollution Prevention, which the minister

just mentioned. It was an acid rain monitor position. I believe the other four

were in the Lands branch.

There were eight vacant positions we decided not to fill. There were six

retirements, or pending retirements, and there were three resignations or

temporary assignments to other positions.

MR. JOYCE: Are all these vacant positions that are not being filled and

five temporaries, are they all reflected in the budget itself as not being

filled, or are they in there as funds as positions that are already there?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, they are accounted for in the budget. They are -

MR. JOYCE: Okay, because this morning we had Industry, Trade and Rural

Development, what they had was funds in the budget for twelve positions that

they were hoping to get hired.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have some vacant positions. Those vacant positions

have been vacant for quite some time so they have just been eliminated. They

have not been filled for quite some time. I think there are still a couple of

vacant positions within the department that we have not eliminated which

eventually we hope to fill.

MR. JOYCE: Are the funds in here for those vacant positions?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No.

MR. JOYCE: They are not. Nowhere in the budget?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Nowhere.

MR. JOYCE: Okay.

Before I go line to line, the other thing I was going to - the

Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, do you guys have a list of approvals that

were made since November of last year? You might not have it with you but can

you supply me with that list?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, we can certainly supply it.

MR. JOYCE: I knew you would not have it.

Who is the Executive Director, and how much is he getting paid right now?

MR. T. OSBORNE: John Scott is the Chair and CEO of the Multi-Materials

Stewardship Board and he is being paid at a Deputy Minister salary.

MR. JOYCE: Which is?

MR. T. OSBORNE: One hundred and twenty-four thousand.

MR. JOYCE: Is that reflected in the budget here?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, it is.

MR. JOYCE: Can you just show me where, or Mr. Dean?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Page 104, Policy Development and Planning.

MR. JOYCE: How many people are in that 1.2.03?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Subhead 1.2.03, yes.

MR. JOYCE: How many people are in the $408,000? How many people are

there?

MR. CROCKER: Under Policy Development and Planning there are three

permanent positions: a Director of Policy and Planning, a senior Policy and

Planning research analyst, a secretary, and the Chair of the MMSB is also

budgeted there as a contractual position.

MR. JOYCE: So there are four people?

MR. CROCKER: Yes.

MR. DEAN: Just for clarification, Mr. Joyce, there is also a revenue if

you look at 1.2.03. Mr. Scott's salary, even though it is budgeted here, the

MMSB reimburses the department for that salary. So it is 100 per cent

recoverable from the MMSB.

MR. JOYCE: So, they are paying his salary?

MR. DEAN: They are paying his salary. It is budgeted here but -

MR. JOYCE: The recycling program is paying $124,000 a year?

MR. DEAN: Yes, that is exactly right.

MR. JOYCE: Does he have secretarial support? I am sure he must.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No.

MR. JOYCE: So, we have a person at $124,000 a year in an executive level

and there is no executive support to help him?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There is support at the MMSB that is existing, that has

been there. There has been no new hires at the MMSB, other than Mr. Scott.

MR. JOYCE: Where is the support for MMSB? Where is it in this budget?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Out of the MMSB budget itself. That does not show in the

department's budget.

MR. JOYCE: It doesn't?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, the MMSB has its own financing.

MR. JOYCE: My question - and I guess to me it is kind of important. If

all the support staff is taken out of MMSB, why isn't his salary taken out of

that also?

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is.

MR. JOYCE: But why is it under here? Why is it not under the - if he is

over with a full time position?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, his salary is reimbursed back to the department.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, I know that. I understand that totally, but why is it

under Policy and Development when he is not under Policy Development and

Planning he is over with the MMSB?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, we consider Mr. Scott, I guess, basically, an

employee of the Department of Environment. He is Chair and CEO of the MMSB. The

department pays his salary but it is fully recoverable from the MMSB.

MR. JOYCE: How much was paid last year for that position?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Last year there were two positions. The Chief Executive

Officer was paid approximately $80,000, plus there was Gordon Seabright who was

paid approximately $15,000.

MR. JOYCE: The Chief Executive Officer now, the person with $80,000, he

or she is not there anymore?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is precisely right, yes.

MR. JOYCE: This clean up in St. Anthony, are there any funds going to be

obtained from the federal government for this, this $1.5 million?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, unfortunately not. Our federal government has been

released of all responsibility for that particular site, I believe. A number of

years ago, they did provide some funding for that particular site but that has

been exhausted back in the 1980s, I guess, Paul, 1980s or early 1990s? That

funding was exhausted and now that site is the total responsibility of the

Province.

MR. JOYCE: I just want to get something straight that you said earlier,

Mr. Minister, that in your office you have an Executive Assistant, which is a

minister's right. You also have a Constituency Assistant paid out of the

minister's salary, and also a departmental secretary?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. JOYCE: Okay. That is fine, Mr. Chairman, for now.

CHAIR: Thank you, sir. Now we will-

MR. T. OSBORNE: I should add, that is no different than what has been the

practice. If you ask your two colleagues, you have a Constituency Assistant, as

well. All Members of the House of Assembly have a Constituency Assistant.

Ministers have an Executive Assistant in addition to that, and the departmental

secretary has been an employee of the department for over twenty years as a

departmental secretary.

MR. JOYCE: And a good one at that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I will give the opportunity to the government members now, if they would like

to ask questions. No questions? We will go back to the Opposition. Ms Thistle.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Harding.

I would like to continue on, but before I get into real questions I just want

to look at some of your financial situation here. If we could move on to 2.2.01,

Water Resources Management. We have an increase in Salaries here of $20,000 for

starters. What would that be?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, 2.2.01 01, Salaries?

The funds provide for permanent salaries, temporary staff and other

employees, overtime and other earnings.

MS THISTLE: What did you say? Temporary staff?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, permanent salaries, temporary staff, as well as

other employees.

MS THISTLE: Are you expecting to hire more people, when you just laid

people off?

MR. DEAN: There have been no layoffs in this particular division in the

department. I guess all of the employees who are currently in that division will

remain. We occasionally hire, for instance, Engineering Co-op students to help

out with the water program during the winter months. There will also probably be

some step increases for the newer employees in that division.

MS THISTLE: So, you are looking at step increases and probably some co-op

students for engineering in the winter. How many co-op students do you expect to

hire?

MR. DEAN: I think we traditionally hire three or four, on an annual

basis.

MS THISTLE: Are they already hired?

MR. DEAN: No, they are not.

MS THISTLE: How long will they be working once they are hired?

MR. DEAN: Mr. Dominie may be better to answer that.

MR. DOMINIE: Thank you.

We traditional hire the co-op students for the January work term. That is

when they are needed in the field for safety reasons. We do not sent our

officers out by themselves in the wintertime, so we have some assistants. We

normally hire those people for a three-month period beginning in about January,

that work term period.

MS THISTLE: You are going to use this money for next January, are you?

MR. DOMINIE: That is traditionally went we hire the students, yes.

MS THISTLE: You do not hire anybody in the summer?

MR. DOMINIE: Not professional co-op students, no.

MS THISTLE: How much do you pay them when you hire them?

MR. DOMINIE: There is a scale at Memorial that depends on their work

term. I think the Engineering students, traditionally, have to go through about

five work terms, and it is depending on which work term they are eligible for at

that particular time how much we pay them. It is a set scale by the government.

There is a set scale for co-op students.

MS THISTLE: Do you take any co-op students from the College of the North

Atlantic?

MR. DOMINIE: Traditionally, we have hired from the Engineering Faculty at

Memorial.

MS THISTLE: The only students that you hire are from MUN, are they?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes. We look for Engineering students, and the only program

that has engineering co-op students is at Memorial.

MS THISTLE: Do you use co-op students for any other part of Environment

and Conservation?

MR. DOMINIE: Not co-op students, but we do have students - I apologize, I

am speaking for the Environment branch here - but we traditionally use other

types of students, a general co-op student allocation, but our professional

co-op students are all from Memorial.

MS THISTLE: The other students that you use, how are they hired and how

much do you pay them?

MR. DEAN: Again, I would just say I think the Lands Branch also hires

co-op students from the College of the North Atlantic. Mr. Parrott?

MR. PARROTT: Yes. We have a partnership agreement with the College of the

North Atlantic, the Geomatics Program which used to be called surveying. We

partner with them and hire usually about three Geomatics students a year, and

they are paid on the same set standard, depending on which work term they are

assigned to.

MS THISTLE: You would have those in the summer, would you?

MR. PARROTT: No, they are usually in the fall or the winter semester.

MS THISTLE: So, you have no students working this summer in Environment

and Conservation this year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I think we have some students at the Salmonier Nature

Park who traditionally fill the rolls there. With the closure of the provincial

parks in 1997, student positions in the parks were cut out in order to hire the

parks employees from the other parks as opposed to laying them off, which was a

decision made by the government back at that time. We probably have half a

dozen, maybe ten students in total, who will be hired through Environment.

MS THISTLE: Forget about the parks, provincial parks are different. In

your entire department, Environment and Conservation -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I just answered about that.

MS THISTLE: - this summer you will hire about ten students. Is that

within the provincial park system or just within your main Department of

Environment and Conservation?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is throughout the Department of Environment and

Conservation.

MS THISTLE: Including the parks?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: Exclusive of the parks, how many students will you hire

through Environment and Conservation?

MR. T. OSBORNE: About ten.

MS THISTLE: About ten and they will cover all areas. Are they hired yet?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Not as of yet, no.

MS THISTLE: What will you pay them?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The regular scale that is paid to students that, I think,

has been traditionally paid, as was paid by the administration under which you

served. I think that it is approximately $1,100 or $1,200 a month

MS THISTLE: So, you will be paying the students this summer. Will they be

hired for all over, in branch offices as well as the Confederation Building?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I do not think we have actually gotten to the point that

we have determined where those hirings will be. As I said, I anticipate there

will be three or four at the Salmonier Nature Park, but other than that we have

not yet determined where those students will be.

MS THISTLE: I notice that one of your officials just verified, under

1.2.02, the temporary employment of students was $28,500, so you must be

intending to hire a goodly number of students.

MR. T. OSBORNE: At $1,200 a month for two-and-one-half months per

student, I guess you can do the math on that.

MS THISTLE: Yes, but you told me that you hired ten students. Are you

going to use up your $28,500 for student employment under subhead 1.2.02?

MR. DEAN: Yes, I would think so. The typical student earns $3,000 over

the summer, so $28,000 would not give us ten students.

MS THISTLE: It is quite unusual, because other departments that had their

Estimates Committees have not allocated any funds specifically for student

employment, but your department has. Thank you, on that one.

We will continue on under 2.2.01. I would like to know why there is an

increase of $35,700 in Transportation and Communications, 2.2.01.03?

MR. CROCKER: Sorry, 2.1.03?

MS THISTLE: 2.2.01.03, page 106..

MR. CROCKER: Yes, the amount budgeted there was $180,700, and the revised

figure is $119,300 for a savings of $61,400. There is less travel and there is

some reallocation within the division. For next year, there is $155,000 in

there. That is a reduction of $35,700 which relates to our expenditure reduction

option.

MS THISTLE: I do not know if it is a reduction. I look at it as an

increase, because the actual budget came in at $119,000. It was budgeted for

$180,000 but it came in at $119,000 and now you have increased it to $155,000.

MR. CROCKER: The original budget last year was $180,000.

MS THISTLE: Correct.

MR. CROCKER: For this year we have reduced it to $155,000. There was some

savings last year. The requirement for travel was a little less and there was

some reallocation to cover some other spending.

MS THISTLE: I do not know how you look at that as being a decrease. I

look at that as being a increase. What it tells me is that although there was

$180,000 budgeted, you did not need that money, you came in at $119,000. What

you have chosen to do is go midway now and budget $155,000. When you know that

last year it only cost you $119,000, now you are going to increase it to

$155,000.

MR. CROCKER: I guess each year the circumstances change. We usually start

off with the same figure, when we proceed during the budget process, so the

amount that would be budgeted there ordinarily would be $180,000. There was a

reduction option put in place to reduce it down to $155,000, regardless of what

was spent in 2003-2004.

MS THISTLE: The same thing goes for Professional Services. Why are we

seeing an increase of $59,000 there from your original budget last year?

MR. DOMINIE: Do you mind if I answer that question?

MS THISTLE: Sure.

MR. DOMINIE: We enter into a number of agreements with various people,

like Voisey's Bay Nickel, CF(L)Co and Deer Lake Power, to run hydrometric

stations on their behalf. I think we have picked up an extra one this year. If

you look down below, there is a revenue associated with that. They are run fully

on a cost-recovery basis. We have picked up some additional revenue, from

$416,000 to $434,000, so that would just represent that we might have had

another station at the request of Voisey's Bay Nickel or something like that.

It is a very minor adjustment to the program.

MS THISTLE: If you move on to Water Quality Agreement, 2.2.02, I note

that you have a reduction in your Salaries there. Have you downsized there? What

are you doing there?

MR. DOMINIE: We are making an adjustment in the number of people we have

in water quality programs. We have six people now involved in water quality

throughout the Province, and because we were asked to achieve some savings, we

will reduce by one position. However, we have been able to manage our budget to

date and we have not had to issue a layoff for that position. We have a salary

reduction here, but with adjustments in other areas, some people retiring, we

are managing to keep that position, keep that person on, but essentially that

will be a reduction.

What we have in that area, we have been collecting water samples throughout

the Province for about thirty years now and we have a really good base of

information, so we feel we wouldn't be sacrificing much in the way of new

information. We still have five people associated with that instead of six. If

we have to, we will let a person go, but, as of now, we are managing our budget

as such that we think we may be able to keep that person on, through some

savings, perhaps, in other areas and adjustments in budgets.

MS THISTLE: I would say to the minister, it is interesting that you are

able to cut one person out of water quality. When you were in Opposition, you

constantly harped on the fact that government should employ more water quality

people throughout our Province. Water quality was your biggest issue when you

were in Opposition and now you are ready to reduce one.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is still one of my biggest issues, and the position

that was cut was the ambient water quality, not drinking water quality.

MS THISTLE: Are these water quality control people mobile? They are going

all over the Province, aren't they?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The water training people are, yes. The position that was

cut was ambient water quality. That person would test the quality of water in

rivers and streams and that type of thing. It has nothing to do with drinking

water at all.

MS THISTLE: I guess things change with fifteen feet between us. I would

like to -

MR. T. OSBORNE: When we start feeding people water from streams, we will

make sure we have the appropriate ambient drinking water quality.

MS THISTLE: Water from streams ends up to be water in your tap depending

on where the water flows, let me tell you that. You know that yourself.

There is an increase of $59,000 there for Professional and Purchased

Services. What would that be about?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Purchased Services?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Those funds provide for the cost of laboratory analysis,

repairs, maintenance of vehicles, maintenance of equipment, advertising notices

and printing under the water quality monitoring agreement.

MS THISTLE: Why the increase? Are you doing anything special this year?

MR. CROCKER: (Inaudible) capital assets for an adjustment from last year

that increased the budget from $26,900 to $47,900. There was some money

transferred last year to purchase a vehicle but it is not budgeted under

tangible capital assets this year, so it is transferred back into the account.

MS THISTLE: Under subhead 2.3.01, Environmental Assessment, I am looking

here at your Salaries reduced by $69,900, but your Employee Benefits are

increased by $700. Are you reducing your staff under that group?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes, we are making an adjustment in that position and it is

being handled through a retirement. We have a person leaving the department

around the end of June. The Employee Benefits basically stay the same. We have

about ten people in that group and we will have nine there, because one person

is retiring the end of June.

You asked a question about the Employee Benefits?

MS THISTLE: I did, yes.

MR. DOMINIE: What employee benefits is, is for going to conferences,

registration at various courses, and whatever, and that can vary from year to

year. Essentially, instead of having ten employees, we have nine. We have $800

available for the people who wish to attend courses or a conference to upgrade

their skills. In a given year, it could be an expensive conference or not an

expensive conference. It is not a real big amount of money and sometimes that

only gets one or maybe two conferences at the price of conferences today.

MS THISTLE: Tom, how many people in your department will be leaving your

department this year by attrition? Do you know that offhand?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I do not, but I can get back to you with that, Anna.

MS THISTLE: Okay. It appears that the person you are referring to here,

this will be attrition. It is a retirement, a position that you do not intend to

fill. What is that position's name? Not the person's name, but the position's

name.

MR. DOMINIE: It is the Environmental Biologist in the Environmental

Assessment Division. What that position does is, when registrations are received

it evaluates what the environmental requirements will be. We feel that because

that program is mature and the rules are well established, that most people come

in our nowadays with good information and we are able to assess those

applications a lot easier than we could, say, ten years ago. That is what we

have done, and that area, perhaps, is one where the adjustment in personnel

would not impact us a whole lot.

MS THISTLE: That person is located here in St. John's?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: In that same request, looking for, in your department, how

many people will not be replaced through attrition, can you also give me the

breakdown as to where these positions are now located, in what part of the

Province?

I notice, as well, Transportation and Communication is up about $10,000. Are

there any unusual activities that will happen this year under that heading?

MR. DOMINIE: There was $40,000 budgeted last year, and we only spent

$20,000. There was less travel to Labrador in connection with the Voisey's Bay

project. For next year, the $40,000 has been reduced to $30,000.

MS THISTLE: Okay. If we move on to 2.3.02, Voisey's Bay, I notice that

Transportation and Communications is up in this one as well. Would you explain

that?

MR. CROCKER: We have a new full-time Chair at the Voisey's Bay

Environmental Management Board. There has been a number of adjustments for next

year's budget. The total is still $450,000, cost-shared with the federal

government, but the allocations have changed because the new Chair has presented

what he feels will be - the proper allocations are provided now under the main

objects of expenditure. That is why, there were a number of reallocations within

the division last year. Under travel, there is probably a little bit less board

travel and less honorariums under Professional Services,

whereas next year we

have, probably, a better estimate of the costs in those particular main objects

of expenditure.

MS THISTLE: In terms of that federal-provincial arrangement, is that year

to year or is it done two or three years in advance, or how does it go?

MR. CROCKER: There is $450,000 budgeted each year for five years. There

is an MOU in place with the federal government, the Innu Nation, the Inuit, and

the provincial government.

MS THISTLE: When is the expiry on that agreement?

MR. CROCKER: Five years.

MR. DOMINIE: It is five years. We are in the second year.

MS THISTLE: Of the five?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: How long has this new Chair been in place.

MR. DOMINIE: It is hard to remember the date now, but it would be

less than a year.

MS THISTLE: Less than a year?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: Where is this person located?

MR. DOMINIE: He is located in St. John's.

MS THISTLE: Working out of where?

MR. DOMINIE: Actually, right now he is working out of his home.

MS THISTLE: Out of his home?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: What is the cost, overall, to the department, even though it

is shared with the federal government?

MR. DOMINIE: It costs $225,000. It is a fifty-fifty arrangement.

MS THISTLE: What makes up that $225,000? Can you break down those costs?

MR. DOMINIE: If you notice the breakdown here, there is a

full-time administrator working in Goose Bay and some employee benefits, again,

that are used for any conferences, any professional development, things like

that.

In Transportation and Communications there is $97,000. That is for travel for

board members. There are nine people on this board, essentially, two from the

federal government, two from the provincial government, two from the Innu

Nation, two from the Labrador Inuit Association, plus the chair. There are

meetings from time to time, sometimes here in St. John's, sometimes in

Labrador, and travel to the Voisey's Bay site. That is a significant chunk of

money.

Supplies: Again it is supplies that would be needed to run the office.

MS THISTLE: The office in Labrador?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes, we have an office in Labrador, so there are

supplies, normal office supplies. to run that office.

MS THISTLE: Does the chairperson have any executive support here in St.

John's.

MR. DOMINIE: No.

MS THISTLE: Is it a male? The person who is employed, that person works

out of their home?

MR. DOMINIE: That is correct.

MS THISTLE: And has been for several months?

MR. DOMINIE: He did have an office, but they felt with the amount

of rent they were paying - they thought they would need the office for people

who were dropping by and doing business, but the number of people who would need

to do business with this chairman in St. John's was very, very minimal, so we

thought it was cheaper for him to work out of his home. He had a six-month

office lease, and it was felt that was not the most efficient use of funds. He

just recently made a move back to his home from his office space.

MS THISTLE: Most of the activity centres around Goose Bay, does it?

MR. DOMINIE: Actually, quite a bit of this work is being done just

by video conference and teleconference. The meetings have been substantially

reduced recently. We have used a lot of video conferences through Memorial. The

University has that type of facility. The number of face-to-face meetings of the

full board are really, really limited now, down to, I would say, no more than

three a year.

MS THISTLE: What scale was this person hired under?

MR. DOMINIE: I do believe there is a contract of about $85,000 a year.

MS THISTLE: Plus expenses?

MR. DOMINIE: Travel expenses, obviously. That is total compensation,

including whatever benefits there would be.

MS THISTLE: I would like to move on to Crown Lands, if I could. I notice

there is another salary decrease right there in Crown Lands. Does that mean

somebody else has left that part of your department?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The positions that we outlined for your earlier, Anna,

some of those positions were in Crown Lands. Four of those positions were

temporary positions. You will pick it up in Crown Lands as well as Land

Management and Development, I believe, in the Lands Division.

MS THISTLE: Are there any vacant positions in this

section of Crown Lands

that you do not plan on filling, or is it known at this point?

MR. PARROTT: There are vacant positions in Crown Lands that will not be

filled this year.

MS THISTLE: Have you identified the number?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, we have. There are seven.

MS THISTLE: Seven vacant positions. Were those positions filled last

year?

MR. PARROTT: Not all of them. Some of them were.

MS THISTLE: Are any salaries allocated for those positions?

MR. PARROTT: No, there are not.

MS THISTLE: There are not. You don't intend to fill any of those seven

positions. Will they be taken off your roster, or are you going to leave them

open with the possibility of hiring again in the future?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, we are.

MS THISTLE: You are not going to look at them as being obsolete?

MR. PARROTT: No, they are not. We just do not have the funding to fill

them this year.

MS THISTLE: What kind of positions are they?

MR. PARROTT: Land surveyor, land management specialist, and clerk typist

III.

MS THISTLE: That is three, is it?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS THISTLE: How about the other four?

MR. PARROTT: The other four are a second survey position, two survey

positions, and an air photo technician. That is it.

MS THISTLE: I notice that your Purchased Services has decreased by

$24,300. What were you doing last year that you are not going to do this year?

MR. PARROTT: Purchased Services has decreased. That is anticipated

savings in the department.

MS THISTLE: I guess it depends on how your look at it. You budgeted for

$126,000, you came in at $161,000, now this year you think you will only spend

$137,000. I guess it depends on how you look at it. You have a work plan looked

at that is going to take into account that you feel you are going to spend

$137,000?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, we do.

MS THISTLE: You do! You are not going to fill those seven vacant

positions, but you are going to spend $137,000?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS THISTLE: Okay.

Subhead 3.1.02, Land Management and Development: How many people are gone

from that sector?

MR. PARROTT: There are two positions there, a land use planner and a

cartographic technician.

MS THISTLE: The salaries total up to $231,000 for those two positions?

MR. PARROTT: No, they do not total that much in those two positions.

MS THISTLE: What were those positions again?

MR. PARROTT: Land use planner.

MS THISTLE: Land use planner.

MR. PARROTT: And, a cartographic technician.

MS THISTLE: Two less, okay. You have decreased your Salaries by $231,800.

What would make up the difference besides those two individuals?

MR. PARROTT: Some of that money was in another part of the department in

Crown Lands that was moved around, in vacant positions in Crown Lands that I

mentioned earlier. The numbers I mentioned earlier in Crown Lands add up to

greater than the amount of decrease in Crown Lands positions.

MS THISTLE: It seems that the Lands division has taken quite a hit when

it comes to staff. Is that division not as important as it was five years ago?

Do you still have many people wanting things done through Crown Lands? I would

expect you do.

MR. T. OSBORNE: There are the four positions, the temporary positions. A

number of the vacant positions have been vacant for quite some time but in

analyzing the staff that are available to us through the Lands branch and what

was required of the staff, we feel that the work that has to be done can be done

sufficiently with the staff that are there.

MS THISTLE: I do not know, from what I hear from constituents calling me,

they are telling me that it takes an enormous amount of time to get land

registered and so on through Crown Lands and there are all kinds of activities

that need to be done. You feel that you are not going to fill your seven vacant

positions and you also described four others that you do not think you need. So,

really that is eleven people that you do not think you need for your Crown Lands

Branch.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, a number of those vacancies have been vacant for

quite some time.

MS THISTLE: They were utilized last summer.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Not all of them, no.

MS THISTLE: The majority of them.

MR. PARROTT: No, the minister is correct, a number of those positions

have been vacant for three or greater years.

MS THISTLE: They are used only occasionally as a call-in?

MR. PARROTT: No, they were not used at all. They are vacant positions

that, for various reasons, have not been filled for a number of years.

MS THISTLE: Although you have previously said that you are not ready to

take them off your roster as being important, in case you may need to use them

again.

MR. PARROTT: The money is gone from the budget but the position and the

position descriptions are there if it is required to fill a vacancy had that

position description to go forward to ask for funding in.

MS THISTLE: 3.1.03, Surveying and Mapping. You have a decrease in

Salaries there which leads me to believe that you must have a halftime person

who has been laid off or a temporary. What is the situation there?

MR. PARROTT: There was a temporary employee who was laid off.

MS THISTLE: Is that temporary someone who has been there for five years

or longer in a temporary position?

MR. PARROTT: I do not think it was five years, I think it might be three

years.

MS THISTLE: Would that be a seasonal position?

MR. PARROTT: No, it was a long-term temporary.

MS THISTLE: Long-term temporary. Is that position located here in St.

John's?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, it is.

MS THISTLE: You are saying that you are generating roughly $90,000 in

revenue, would you just explain where that comes from? I have an idea, but would

you just tell me?

MR. PARROTT: Revenue in Surveying and Mapping is from the sale of maps,

hard copy paper maps, as well as digital files for use on computers; as well as

information pertaining to the Crown Land monument system throughout the Province

that gives information to surveyors, engineers, planners, et cetera on

elevations and the precise coordinates on the ground.

MS THISTLE: Why was there less interest in that last year? You only sold

$45,000 worth.

MR. PARROTT: The revenue fluctuates from year to year, depending on the

needs of the public and industry. One of the reasons revenue was down last year

is one of the items that we sell is a map book of the Province, or the Island of

Newfoundland, and that is now - we have exhausted our supplies and we hope to

republish it again this year.

MS THISTLE: So you did not have the product ready to sell, in other

words. Is that what you are saying?

MR. PARROTT: That is what I am saying, yes.

MS THISTLE: Geomatics Agreements, nobody works there, do they? Under

3.1.04.

MR. PARROTT: Nobody works in the Geomatics Agreements. People who work in

the Surveying and Mapping division implement the Geomatics Agreements. Geomatics

Agreements are a series of agreements that the Province enters into with the

federal government, as well as industry and municipalities to obtain and produce

digital-based maps.

MS THISTLE: Last year you did not spend any money on Professional

Services but this year you are going to spend $125,000. Can you tell me what

that will entail?

MR. PARROT: The money for Professional Services is to hire professional

engineering companies and surveying companies, mainly, to collect data and

process data in association with the various contracts that we administer on

behalf of the federal government in cost-shared agreements.

MS THISTLE: Where will those contracts be this year?

MR. PARROTT: Where will they be?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: We are doing some work in Northern Labrador with the

Canadian Hydrographic Service. We are doing some air photo in Northern Labrador.

We are doing some air photo and mapping work in Central Newfoundland and we are

doing a lot of work related to geomatics in tying data bases together throughout

the Province in various provincial and federal departments.

MS THISTLE: So, you did not engage in any of that activity last year?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, we did.

MS THISTLE: You did? Where did you get the money?

MR. PARROTT: Last year a lot of the money was put in just the

Professional Services subhead. Gerry, correct me if I am right there. I believe

it was broken out this year to more accurately reflect the breakdown in what was

spent, so that anybody looking at the budget would clearly know where it was.

MS THISTLE: You are going to have a lot of money spent this year in

Purchased Services. Can you tell me what that will be?

MR. PARROTT: A lot of it will be for the collection of data. One of the

contracts we have is with the federal Natural Resources Canada to collect the

centre line data for the roads, the roadmap work for the Province in digital

format, and there will be contracts for companies to precisely determine using

GPS receivers in tracking with the satellites the exact location of all the

roads throughout the Province. This work has been done and we have entered into

an agreement with the federal government. So we will keep it updated.

MS THISTLE: You are deploying people in your own department for all these

activities?

MR. PARROTT: No, our people will monitor the contracts.

MS THISTLE: You are just going to monitor the contracts?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, the main work will be done by contract to the various

companies.

MS THISTLE: And it will be totally 50-50 cost-shared by the federal

government is it, or entirely?

MR. PARROTT: Some of the contracts are 50-50, some of the mapping

contracts. A lot of the agreements we have with the federal government are as

high as 85-15, where the Province pays fifteen cents on the dollar.

MS THISTLE: Of course the Province then becomes the holder of that

information in the end, do they?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, the data becomes provincial data and is managed and

stored in the provincial air photo map library, and it can be accessed then by

people throughout the Province.

MS THISTLE: Do you then sell it if people are interested in that

information?

MR. PARROTT: Some of it is sold and some of it is distributed free of

charge.

MS THISTLE: Maybe your minister might be interested in that as a new

source of revenue.

Thank you. I am going to pass over the mike now to my colleague.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get into the parks and the natural areas as part of the department

which is, to me, a very important part of the department.

4.1.01, Provincial and National Parks and Natural Areas. We see a decrease in

Salaries of $152,500. Can you explain what is going on there? How many positions

are being eliminated?

MR. CROCKER: The budget last year, $2,178, 200, we over expended by

$174,000 because we did not achieve our planned savings, plus the cost for

temporaries and other staff had increased. Next year we had $2,200,000. So there

is a small variance there of $21,000 for step increases.

MR. BARRETT: How many positions are being eliminated here?

MR. CROCKER: There are no positions being eliminated there.

MR. BARRETT: But you said that you overspent last year.

MR. CROCKER: We did not achieve our planned savings last year. There are

some planned savings under parks. There was about $100,000 in planned savings,

but we did not achieve that. The budget ended up coming in at $2,352,000 and we

only had $2,178,000. So that is a variance of $174,000.

MR. BARRETT: So there is no reduction of any positions in this area at

all?

MR. CROCKER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Transportation and Communications has increased by $22,800.

Why is that?

MR. CROCKER: The revised figure is $144,000, for a savings of $22,800.

That was due to less travel in connection with regionalization. We have the same

budget for next year, $167,600.

MR. BARRETT: Regards to what? Regionalization?

MR. CROCKER: Regionalization. The headquarters is now in Deer Lake, more

centrally located, so there will be less travel costs.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. So that is one of the advantages of the

decentralization of the public service, was it? We saved money by doing that.

MR. CROCKER: Exactly.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. That is nice to know, seeing we got so much criticism

for it when we did it.

Supplies have decreased by $52,900.

MR. CROCKER: Actually, our Supplies, we over expended by - it went from

$202,700 to $269,600, a variance of $66,900. Due to increased visitation, our

supply costs went up there for gas and that type of consumable item that you

need. Now we are back to our original - well, we are up slightly. We have

reallocated some funds there because we anticipate we will need some additional

dollars next year, so it is $216,700.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. That would be another reason, because you are more

centralized the supplies would have gone down in terms of gasoline?

MR. CROCKER: No, the supplies actually went up. It was up from $202,000

to $269,000. That would be directly related to the amount of the increased

visitation.

MR. BARRETT: Your Purchased Services decreased by $77,100.

MR. CROCKER: Actually, I looked at that as an increase again. We went

from $341,000 up to $405,000, so we actually over-expended because we had to

lease a number of vehicles. For next year we are down to $327,000, a decrease of

$14,000. That was a reallocation, actually, from our supply account.

MR. BARRETT: You are leasing vehicles and not purchasing?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, in the short term.

MR. BARRETT: Is it more cost-effective to lease? Is that rent-a-car or is

it actual long-term leases?

MR. CROCKER: Actually, we are waiting for a decision to do a review of

the number of vehicles in the fleet. Right now we have to request Treasury Board

authority to lease vehicles or to purchase. For last year we had to go with some

short-term rentals just to meet our requirements.

MR. BARRETT: That was a daily rental type cost, rather than a long-term

lease?

MR. CROCKER: No, I think they were leased for a month at a time.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. So the cost for them would have been much higher than

if it was a lease on a yearly basis?

MR. CROCKER: I do not have the figures to compare it but it would seem,

perhaps obvious, that you could get a better deal, yes.

MR. BARRETT: Usually Treasury Board is penny-wise and pound foolish, is

it? I will not ask you to comment. You are a public servant and I admire that

you are not supposed to respond to that.

These costs go up sometimes because we look at - you hear this criticism that

all these government vehicles - I sat over there at one time and was listening

to the people who were over here saying that we were wasting money, and all

these vehicles we have out in the system, all of that sort of thing, and it is

more cost-effective to go out and buy the vehicles than it is to go out and rent

them on a daily basis. The term I use is penny-wise and pound foolish.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On that, Percy, those were decisions that took place last

summer.

MR. BARRETT: I am just saying that Treasury - I was not criticizing. I

was saying that Treasury Board sometimes look at things in terms of penny-wise

and pound foolish. Mr. Minister, I was not being critical of you. I was being

critical as to sometimes how they look at the global thing in terms of - you

hear this comment lots and lots of times. All these government vehicles on the

go and all this sort of thing. I went through it as a public servant, I have

gone through it as a politician and I have gone through it as a Cabinet

Minister. Sometimes we look at the short term, which costs a lot, instead of

looking at the long term; in terms of investments in buying things rather than

going out and paying exorbitant prices to lease something or to rent something

because we cannot say we cannot purchase it, we cannot increase our capital

costs and all that sort of thing.

I realize the importance and how valuable the public employees are in this

department in terms of monitoring and providing services to the people. You hear

lots of criticisms of employees in terms of government vehicles and all of that

sort of thing, but I can assure you that most of the time it is being utilized

in the most cost-effective way possible. It is in no way a reflection on the

employees within the department. I am just saying that sometimes the

administrative nightmare that we have to go through costs a lot more money than

if employees and the departmental people were given the leeway of being able to

go out and purchase things rather than going through the cumbersome way of the

way we do things sometimes in terms of rental and lease agreements rather than

outright purchasing.

In terms of Park Development, 4.1.02, Salaries decreased by $55,000. Is that

another case of over-expenditure?

MR. CROCKER: Each year we have $250,000 allocated for park development.

It really depends, I guess, on what way we choose to do some of our projects,

depending on if we are upgrading a park in a certain area, such as a comfort

station. Certain years we may hire more staff. Next year we are trying to get by

with $65,000 worth of salaries for staff. We will, hopefully, be able to do more

projects that way instead of spending $100,000 on salaries like we did last

year. Basically, it is a reallocation of the $250,000 throughout the main

objects of expenditure. Hopefully, this year we will be able to get more bang

for the buck.

MR. BARRETT: But there are no layoffs?

MR. CROCKER: No. There are no layoffs as such, no.

MR. BARRETT: Purchased Services, I guess, decreased because you are doing

less maintenance.

MR. CROCKER: It is just a case of depending on which projects we decide

to do. Last year the $250,000 was spent and there were some purchased services

involved over and above the $80,000 that was budgeted but we are back to the

original budget for next year.

MR. BARRETT: Wildlife and Natural Heritage, Administration- Endangered

Species and Conservation Services. Salaries are showing a decrease of $146,200.

MR. WARREN: In actual fact, you have to look at the Wildlife and research

budget as a whole because we did some reallocation between the various

components of Wildlife. We are actually running a slight surplus overall in

salaries

What is interesting, however, is that in the past when we reorganized as a

department we also consolidated the Science Division with Wildlife. So, for the

last few weeks we have been doing a reintegration and review and we are doing a

restructuring so that in the final analysis we might deploy some of the salaries

figures, for example, from Management Planning over to Conservation and

vise-versa. We have to do some back and forth adjusting with the salaries

figures.

MR. BARRETT: That is in the administration, so there are no positions

being eliminated here?

MR. WARREN: There are absolutely no positions being eliminated

whatsoever.

MR. BARRETT: Transportation and Communications decreased also by

$140,400, so if you have no positions going -

MR. WARREN: Well, we are planning to reallocate Salaries from one unit to

another unit. That is reflective of the fact that we have also advisory councils

for endangered species which, as a committee, has to travel and has to give

advice to the department on how best to manage endangered species. So, while it

is not directly attributable to actual staff, it does apply to our special

advisory council.

MR. BARRETT: Supplies increased by $58,600, your Purchased Services

increased by $47,000, your Salaries decreased by $146,200 and your

Transportation decreased. So if you are going to transfer it all, doesn't some

of these programs you say you are transferring around, wouldn't it also - if

you are going to take the salaries out of it, wouldn't you also be taking out

some of the other stuff? You are reducing the salary budget but you are

increasing Transportation and Communications, and Supplies are being increased.

MR. CROCKER: You say the Supplies have increased, but we had the same

budget for Supplies, $162,800. There were some savings there last year, $58,600.

We have the same budget there.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but it is still being increased.

MR. CROCKER: Well, it increased from the revised but it did not increase

from the original budget for the previous year. We chose not to spend some of

the money there. We needed to reallocate it to another area last year so we only

spent $104,000 in -

MR. BARRETT: What kind of supplies would you be talking about there?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is books, uniforms, clothing, tools, gasoline,

construction materials, film, camping supplies, climbing and rescue equipment,

training aids, firearms.

MR. BARRETT: They have learned to fly now have they, or what?

MS THISTLE: Firearms.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, firearms, okay. I thought they learned to fly.

MR. T. OSBORNE: But the bullets do fly, Percy.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. I thought you reduced the salaries and the people who

stayed on learned how to fly.

The next one I want to look at is the Salmonier Nature Park. You are

increasing the salaries there. Is that to protect The Wilds?

MR. CROCKER: The $6,600 in Salaries, going from $379,000 up to $386,000,

that would just be the annualization of salary increases and step progressions.

MR. BARRETT: Step progressions are $24,300 on $380,000?

MR. CROCKER: No, I am sorry. The variance there on the budget - it went

from $379,000 up to $386,000 - is a $6,600 variance.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. You spent less last year than you budgeted?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, there were some savings there due to temporary staff.

Some of that staff is gone.

MR. BARRETT: Did you close the park earlier last year?

MR. CROCKER: Pardon?

MR. BARRETT: Did you close the park after October 21 or something?

MR. CROCKER: Not that I am aware of.

MR. BARRETT: I thought you might have closed it after October 21.

5.1.03 - anyway, it looks like Crown Lands lost the money and Management

Planning got it in Wildlife and Natural Heritage. Salaries increased by

$202,300. How many new positions are we creating here or did we take it from the

Endangered Species and Conservation Services and we got it into Management

Planning?

MR. WARREN: Again, it goes back to this idea of reallocating; based on

the reallocation we had to find last year. We are not eliminating positions. In

fact, we have a considerable number of vacant positions which arose as a result

of relocation a number of years ago, difficult positions to fill, and then

basically running the salaries - not having enough money to fill the vacant

positions.

Again, you should look at the salary figures, not by each individual program

but right across the board for Wildlife. The net effect is to be a modest salary

surplus, which we hope to manage between the various units because we are going

through a restructuring. So, while you see Management Planning with a Salaries

figure of $622,000, in actual fact, after restructuring, you might find some of

the Management Planning shifted over to Endangered Species and Conservation and

that type of arrangement. There are no positions being - well, there are vacant

positions we hope to fill, put it that way, but there are no people being laid

off whatsoever.

MR. BARRETT: Probably if somebody can explain to me, because I do not

know what you are talking about here. Endangered Species and Conservation

Services, can you tell me what the people in that division do?

MR. WARREN: Yes, there are a number of things. Under Conservation we have

the firearms safety program and the hunter education program. Generally, it is

our public outreach program where we actually teach trainers in the various

colleges to teach hunters and provide information literature to hunters as well.

Under the Endangered Species program - we actually have legislation, the

Endangered Species Act, whereby the minister is required to take action if a

species is considered to be designated as either endangered or threatened. Under

that legislation we have an advisory council as well that has to be designed to

provide advice to government. It is a council made up of a number of various

scientific fields and represented by scientists and the general public.

MR. BARRETT: So what you are doing actually is taking money from the

Endangered Species and Conservation Services and you are transferring it to

Management Planning?

MR. WARREN: No. Actually, not necessarily at all.

MR. BARRETT: Well you just - I mean Salaries decreased by $146,200 and

Management Planning increased by $202,300. Either you are taking it from one and

giving it to the other or - something is happening here.

MR. WARREN: The $475,000 in Administration reflects what the current

salary figure was last year. However, we did have some vacant positions. The

Management Planning position, $622,000 reflects what the entire staff complement

would be if all the positions were filled. Through our restructuring exercise we

hope to move positions around so that we could provide a better service under

Endangered Species and Conservation and still meet our requirements under

Management Planning, which is primarily big game, small game management.

MR. BARRETT: You tell me that you are transferring to the Endangered

Species and Conservation Services. You are reducing the Salaries by $146,200 but

increasing the Management Planning by $202,300.

MR. WARREN: I am sorry, I might be confusing on this one.

What I am saying is -

MR. BARRETT: Either it is late and I am confused or something.

MR. WARREN: The $475,000 is reflective of what it actually cost us last

year, but it does not show you that we had actually some critical vacant

positions which we could not fill, we did not fill. The $622,000 in Management

Planning is basically - which would reflect what would - if we had all of the

positions filled that is what it would cost us, but not all the positions are

required to be filled so we are going to be shifting them over to, we think we

are anyway, to Administration - Endangered Species and Conservation. The net

effect is that there is, overall, no reduction in salaries. There is a modest

increase and we will place those salary dollars in the most critical positions.

MR. BARRETT: Under Wildlife and Natural Heritage Research, Salaries are

increasing by $346,800, again from Crown Lands, I guess. There seems to be a

substantial increase in some areas. If you go down to Wildlife Ecosystems

Monitoring, which, I guess, is where we monitor the wildlife in the Province, it

has decreased by $173,300. We are not even looking after our wildlife at all,

all we are doing is talking about it and managing it, is it? The actual

supervision of it is gone?

MR. CROCKER: If I could respond to the first question there on 5.1.04,

Wildlife and Natural Heritage Research, we had $1.4 million and only spent

$852,000. That is due to the number of vacant positions that were not hired, so

we had some savings last year in the area of roughly $557,000. For next year, we

have $1,199,000 and that includes a reduction option of around $200,000. There

is no actual positions being laid off. There are five vacancies there that will

not be filled.

MR. BARRETT: You are increasing it, you said. It has been increased by

$346,800, but you tell me that you are not hiring anybody.

MR. CROCKER: You are comparing the revised, $852,000. We had $1.4 million

in the budget in the previous year, and for next year we have $1,199,000. The

reduction option that has been presented is - we are going from $1.4 million

down to $1.2 million almost, so you have a reduction option of around $210,000.

It is actually five vacant positions that will not be filled.

As Bob Warren mentioned earlier, there will be some reallocation among the

various activities under Wildlife and Natural Heritage because the whole

division is being reorganized.

MR. BARRETT: The Wildlife Ecosystems Monitoring, right?

MR. CROCKER: Yes. With regard to your question there on 5.1.05, each year

we have the $766,000. Basically, the expenditure there is directly related to

the number of projects and partnerships that we arrange with the federal

government and other agencies. The expenditure this year of $366,000 basically

reflects cash flow on the projects that were approved. For next year, there is a

small decrease of $10,000 there, but, basically, we have our full budget back

again of $756,000

MR. BARRETT: I guess one general question in

summary: How many less

positions will there be in the Department of Environment and Conservation this

year than there were last year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Paul outlined that for you at the outset of the questions

here tonight. We can run through them again.

MR. BARRETT: Right snappy now. This is at the end of the program. I just

want you to give me the snappy answers. How many positions less will there be in

the Department of Environment and Conservation this year than there were last

year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There are six retirements.

MR. BARRETT: I just asked you: How many positions less are there going to

be?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, I will do that. There are six retirements, eight

vacant positions that will not be refilled, three resignations, and there are

five layoffs of temporary positions.

MR. BARRETT: You are saying that there will be twenty-two positions less

within the department than there were last year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is correct.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

I want to get back to the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. I know my

colleague did ask some questions on that, in that the salary is provided for in

the department and the money comes through the Multi-Materials Stewardship

Board. The revenue this year is up considerably over last year. You said that

last year there were some expenditures that were recovered within the

department. Last year it was roughly around $70,000 and this year it is well up

over $150,000, $160,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You are on Policy Development and Planning, Percy?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, what was your question?

MR. BARRETT: You said the related revenue was coming from the

Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, and the related revenues there this year are

up considerably.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is to cover the cost of the salary for John Scott.

MR. BARRETT: So that was a part-time position before?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Pardon me?

MR. BARRETT: That was a part-time position?

MR. T. OSBORNE: It was a combination of a part-time Chair and a full-time

Executive Officer.

MR. BARRETT: But the increased cost on it is roughly $80,000 or $90,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, $124,000 is the salary for John Scott.

MR. BARRETT: Well, $124,000 is the direct salary for John Scott, but we

all know that $124,000 means more than $124,000.

I am trying to find the policy part of it here now, policy and development.

The related revenue from provincial is $188,300, and last year it was budgeted

at $63,800. That is an increase of $125,000 charged to the board from last year.

So, John Scott is costing the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board and extra

$125,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, that is not correct.

MR. BARRETT: We are telling the kids out there, you have to pay an extra

cent or two on your soft drink or your can of juice or your little container of

juice to pay an overpaid public servant, redundant Deputy Minister, who wasshuffled

off and looked after by the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, Mr. Minister.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, that is not quite-

MR. BARRETT: It is accurate. That is what the figures say here.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. BARRETT: How can you justify - I am asking you the question now.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am trying to answer it.

MR. BARRETT: I am just asking you the question: How can you justify

spending $123,000 or $124,000 from the little deposit that our kids pay on their

soft drinks and their juices to pay a part-time position $150,000 or $160,000 a

year, that was done by a part-time chairperson?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The executive position, which was not paid through the

Department of Environment, but was paid directly through MMSB so the money was

not funneled through the Department of Environment, was approximately $80,000.

Gordon Seabright, who was the Chair of the board, who was part-time, was paid

approximately $15,000. That is approximately -

MR. BARRETT: Treasury Board had a limit of $10,000 on the chairman.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Was it $10,000 or $15,000, Paul?

MR. DEAN: I think it was $15,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It was $15,000, I am sure, Percy. That is $95,000. The

difference is $95,000 to $124,000, so you are looking at approximately $30,000.

One of the decisions that was made by the MMSB, which saved the MMSB $4

million, was to publicly tender the beverage container recycling, which was

something that was grandfathered to the previous proponent for a number of years

when it should have been publicly tendered. In actual fact, if you are looking

at $30,000, the savings to the MMSB is about $4 million because of the proper

tendering of that contract.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying that the contract came in this year at $4

million cheaper than it was last year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Over the life of the contract, it is approximately $4

million.

MR. BARRETT: What is the life of the contract?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Three years, I believe.

OFFICIAL: Five years.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, five years, Percy.

MR. BARRETT: Five years. So it is $4 million over five years less than

the previous contract.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is correct.

MR. BARRETT: Was the other contract tendered?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, it was not.

MR. BARRETT: Were there quotes gotten on it?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, there were not.

MR. BARRETT: This time it was a public tender?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I cannot answer that question for you, either, because I

asked of the previous administration several times, why it had not gone to

public tender, but it has gone to public tender and the fact is, it is $4

million cheaper over five years.

MR. BARRETT: That still do not answer the question, why are we paying a

full-time salary to a part-time position.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Scott is full-time.

MR. BARRETT: He is full-time because you had to find a full-time position

for him, but the chairman of the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board was a

part-time position and now you are paying him a full-time salary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: He replaces two positions, one was part-time and one was

full-time.

MR. BARRETT: Who was the person that he replaced.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am not going to get into the individual's name, but

she was the executive officer.

MR. BARRETT: I do not want to get into the names, but where is that

person now.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The position is gone.

MR. BARRETT: Is the person laid off?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The person has left the employment of the MMSB, yes.

MR. BARRETT: So, the person is no longer employed by the Multi-Materials

Stewardship Board?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is correct.

MR. BARRETT: John Scott is filling - you were paying that person,

obviously, $63,800.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, the $63,800 is being paid to an individual who is

working with the Department of Environment. That is being paid for out of the

MMSB.

MR. BARRETT: Hold on now. There is another position within the department

other than John Scott.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is correct.

MR. BARRETT: Yet there is $63,800.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is correct, yes.

MR. BARRETT: What is that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is a position that was hired by the previous

Minister of Environment. That person is still working with the department.

MR. BARRETT: It does not matter to me who hired them, I am asking you the

question. You are the minister right now. There is a position within the

department that the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board - what type of position is

that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Paul.

MR. DEAN: I think he is called the waste management advisor.

MR. BARRETT: The waste management advisor position, okay.

The full-time position that was there, John Scott is filling the full-time

position. Why aren't we paying John Scott, or why did we not fill the position

that became vacant, at the salary that was paid to the previous employee?

MR. T. OSBORNE: John Scott is Deputy Minister. He is being paid at a

Deputy Minister's salary. We felt it was important to have a Deputy Minister

at the MMSB to bring the thinking of the MMSB, and the operation of the MMSB,

more in line with government operations, for example, the tendering of the

beverage container contract that the department felt should have been done and

the MMSB felt should have been done. There are efficiencies that can be made at

the MMSB to bring forward the waste management strategy.

MR. BARRETT: Did the MMSB contravene the Public Tender Act?

MR. T. OSBORNE: My guess, Percy, when I was critic, I said they did. I

said that -

MR. BARRETT: No, no. You are the minister now. I am asking you a

question. As the minister, answer the question. Did the Multi-Material

Stewardship Board previously contravene the Public Tender Act?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I believe so.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. There is no believing, either it was - you are

indicating to me that the Multi-Material Stewardship Board did something that

they should not have done.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, the Auditor General's report for, I believe, 2002,

pointed out that the Multi-Material Stewardship Board should have brought the

contract to public tender and it was believed at that time that it was because

of political influence that it was not. The tender was let, it has been filled,

and it is $4 million cheaper.

MR. BARRETT: Is the tender now to the same person who had it before?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The tender is to Scotia Recycling who was bought by - it

is, essentially, I guess, the same company under new management, but the tender

had gone to the same company, yes.

MR. BARRETT: The company now has changed political stripe?

MR. T. OSBORNE: You will have to ask the company.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. You said it was done because of political reasons,

but now you are telling me it was the same company.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The same company tendered and bid less than what they

were performing for. It is under new management.

MR. BARRETT: You said, the reason it was done - you made the allegation

and said it was done for political reasons.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I was surmising what the Auditor General had said in

2002, yes.

MR. BARRETT: The Auditor General's report, itself, actually said that

the tender was awarded for political reasons?

MR. T. OSBORNE: It was not awarded, it was grandfathered. It was

continued beyond its original grandfather date of four years, I believe for an

additional three years, and the Auditor General had pointed out that there were

a number of political influences at the MMSB. That is part of what we wanted to

correct by putting a deputy minister in that position, to ensure that the -

MR. BARRETT: You are saying that the person who was being paid, you know,

the other salary - I worked in government and I was not paid $140,000 or

$150,000, but I managed a lot of money. You are telling me now, the ability to

be able to manage whether something should go to public tender or not is based

on whether you are a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister. You do not

have to be a deputy minister to be able to administer and enforce the

regulations in the Public Tender Act. You do not have to be at a deputy minister

level. You do not have to pay someone that level. As a matter of fact, most of

that is done down lines within the department, the deputy minister is probably

not even aware. He might give the policy direction on it, but the actual

administration of it is done by somebody else at the level.

When it was tendered this time around, how many people actually bid on the

contract?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I believe it was three.

MR. BARRETT: Where these three Newfoundland companies?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Three Newfoundland companies. Essentially, the same company

that got it this time was the company that was sold out to a group from Nova

Scotia?

MR. T. OSBORNE: They had the lowest bid, yes.

MR. BARRETT: The Newfoundland company that had the contract before was

bought out by a Nova Scotia company, so now it is a Nova Scotia company that has

operations in Newfoundland, that has the tender.

MR. T. OSBORNE: All of the operations and the employment are still in the

Province. The program is operating very much the same, I think, as what it was

operating before, other than the $ 4 million savings.

MR. BARRETT: One more question on that line. You said there was a

position within the department of a Waste Management Advisor. What does the

Waste Management Advisor do?

MR. DEAN: One of his key tasks is to be in contact with communities and

document their waste management practices at the present time, talking to

community councils, local service districts, and so on, to see how they manage

waste. As you would be aware, Mr. Barrett, the government's waste management

strategy is to consolidate waste, particularly on the Avalon Peninsula, into one

site and to close out 240. One of his significant tasks is to reach out to

communities and find out good data. Where we have incorporated municipalities

and they have professional staff, it is relatively easy to get good data on how

much waste is being generated in those communities and what it is costing them

to dispose of that waste. In local service districts and unincorporated areas

that data is incredibly difficult to get. His principal task is to put together

that data.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

This question was asked by my colleague next to me in Question Period the

other day, and I guess I am making a plea to the minister and your officials.

The policy that is now, in terms of the licences, before the small convenience

stores got them on a consignment basis and paid for them when they were sold,

the new policy of the government - I will not say the department - the new

policy of the government is that these small businesses have to put the money

up-front, purchase the licenses and get their money when they are sold. I am

getting a lot of calls from small business people in small rural Newfoundland

communities who see this as a bit of a hardship. Some of these stores - Mr. Dean

is well aware of this, in terms of rural Newfoundland communities, that the

stock in those stores is probably $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 maximum, and

now you are looking at them having to pay up-front for this service. The excuse

that you have given is that some people did not pay, they collected the money

and did not pay. You do not crucify all the people for the people who are

guilty. The honest people out there who paid their money and that sort of thing,

you could easily cut them off and say: You will never again be able to sell a

license for the government. There are vendors' licenses, 649 licenses and all

sorts of other things that could be vetoed from a lot of these businesses. You

are saying to the people, you have to buy them up-front, and it is creating

hardships.

I guess, I am saying to the minister: Can you reverse this decision, or can

you tell your colleague who sits to your right there to wake up and stop being

so crazy with these small business people? We are talking very small operations.

You are talking about a family business, a small rural convenience store - they

call them in St. John's convenience stores, in rural Newfoundland we call them

general stores - you are talking about the husband and the wife working,

probably, seventeen or eighteen hours a day, probably making, if you added them

up, less than the minimum wage. You are saying to these little small businesses,

you have to pay for your licenses up-front. Will you reverse the decision?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No.

MR. BARRETT: You will not reverse the decision? Why?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Any product that is purchased or sold in stores, for the

most part, whether it be a chocolate bar, a bag of chips, or a case of beer, the

stores generally purchase the products up-front. With the licenses, there is a

$3.00 commission to the stores.

MR. BARRETT: Big deal! The business person out there, who goes out and

buys chips or chocolates or anything else, has the flexibility to say, look, I

have to have a certain amount of markup to make it worthwhile, so that I can

work my butt off in this store and make the minimum wage. You are saying to

those people, regardless of the licence you are going to pay them $3 for ever

licence they sell.

Will you give them the flexibility now to say, I can put whatever markup I

want on it? It would probably be cheaper for somebody in one of those remote

communities to add another $10 or $15 on to their licence, I suppose, than drive

the small business person there cannot go out and purchase those licences, they

will be in Marystown. The Canadian Tires or someone else can do it, yes they can

do it, but a person is going to have to get in their car and drive probably two

or three hours and burn a half a tank of gas, pay $1 a litre for gas, to go and

buy a $12 or $14 or $15 licence. You are saying that they cannot buy it in their

community. To me that is an indication again that you are trying to wipe out

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Any of the stores that previously sold them, Percy, are

welcome to sell them again. We are not saying to stores that we are not going to

provide them. We are asking them to purchase them up front.

MR. BARRETT: That is the whole indication. You are asking these people to

purchase them up front, to tie up money. I do not know how much I have to say it

to beat it into somebody's brain. You are talking about a very, very small

operation, Mr. Minister. Wake up and smell the roses. It is not St. John's. We

are not talking about St. John's. We are talking about small communities in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador where you have very, very small businesses. At

least right now they can put the markup on a pack of chips or something like

that, but you are saying to these people that they have to go to the bank,

borrow the money and pay the government, and they, at the end of the day, will

get $3 on that licence. I do not know how you, as Cabinet, ever, ever approved

this kind of action. All I am asking you is to go back to your cabinet

colleagues and see if you can beat some sense into them. Are you prepared to

take it back?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No.

MR. BARRETT: You are not, okay.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Any further questioning now?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

CHAIR: Ms Thistle.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There was a question asked by Mr. Barrett, I think Mr. Warren might have

answered it, I would like to go back to that one if I could. It was under

5.1.03.

You indicated, at that time, that you were holding the allocation for some

hard-to-fill positions. These, I guess, were the positions that were specialized

and they were part of the regionalization. Is that correct?

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes.

I know, at the time it was difficult to fill, maybe, up to half a dozen of

those positions, particularly because of the location. The people who were

currently in those positions were not satisfied to move out of St. John's. You

have held those position, I guess, in your job bank here. Do you have any

intention of filling them at some later point, in the near future, and will they

now be located here in St. John's?

MR. WARREN: It depends on two things. One is the restructuring we are

going through right now, to see exactly what positions we are going to keep and

under what conditions. Secondly, I guess, it would depend upon the overall

Budget and how we are managing our salaries departmentally. Finally, to answer

your question, those positions will be in Corner Brook, the headquarter

operation in Corner Brook.

MS THISTLE: They will not be filled here in St.. John's when they are

filled, they will be attached to the Corner Brook location?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

MS THISTLE: I would like to ask you a couple of general questions, if I

could.

Your department in the past, and I guess you still do, monitored the spray

program for the paper companies. Have you received any applications yet this

year for a spray program?

MR. DEAN: Perhaps I can answer that.

I guess there are two categories of forest spray program, one that uses a

biological agent called Bt. Those kinds of spray programs are not registrable

under our environmental assessment process but they do get circulated inside

government for comments. I understand there is one such program being circulated

at the present time. If there are chemicals to be used they are registrable

under our environmental assessment process. So there is a notice to the public

and the environmental assessment legislation, essentially, kicks in. I do not

believe we have received a registration - I will ask Mr. Dominie to correct me -

to date for chemical spray or other sprays, other than the biological agent Bt.

MS THISTLE: Have the location of spray been made known yet at this point?

MR. DEAN: I believe perhaps to our officials on the biological spray, the

Bt spray. Yes, I think that area is known. It is not known to me personally.

MS THISTLE: I would like to know, is your department now engaged or would

that be the Department of Labour? We had a request - there is an ongoing request

for the Conservation and Protection Officers to carry firearms. Does that now

come under your department, the new department? If so, what is the status of it

right now?

MR. DEAN: No, Ms Thistle, the Conversation Officers are with the

Department of Natural Resources. They do work on our behalf, particularly in the

area of Wildlife, but they are actually part of the Department of Natural

Resources.

MS THISTLE: Are they salaried under your department?

MR. DEAN: No, they are salaried under the Department of Natural

Resources.

MS THISTLE: Okay. There has been so much movement it is hard to know

where anything is.

MR. DEAN: I understand.

MS THISTLE: There was a story on television tonight, as we all saw, about

the tire recycling. We have a huge problem in Grand Falls-Windsor with such a

stockpile of tires. I think it was stated at the time - by the minister tonight

- that you expect those stockpiles to be eliminated by the end of May and the

end of June in different locations. How is that going to take place?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The proponent, Newfoundland Envirotire Shreds, has given

assurances to the MMSB that the tires which were accumulated since the start of

the tire recycling program at the municipal depots will be looked after by,

approximately, the end of May. The proponent also gave us assurances that the

transportation depots throughout the Province, where those tires have

accumulated since the start of the program, should be looked after by the end of

June.

The stockpiles of tires that are at different municipalities, which have

accumulated prior to the start of the program, are not the responsibility of the

proponent. The MMSB are working on plans to have those stockpiles looked after

once the proponent has looked after the other stockpiles throughout the

Province, including those at Bull Arm, which should be looked after by the end

of October.

MS THISTLE: Well, that will be a wonderful thing because we have been

looking at them too long. I think that was one of your pet projects when you

were in the Opposition. We used to hear many questions on that. I am hoping that

before, especially, the warm weather comes - and, you know, the danger of

possible fires that will be eliminated.

I noticed, Mr. Minister, you recently announced a coyote management plan.

What will be the cost to your department of managing that plan? Is there any

rebate being paid to hunters for bounty on coyotes taken?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There was a bounty offered in the last hunting season.

There is a cost of $10 per coyote licence. I am not sure, Bob, if the bounty is

still being offered.

MR. WARREN: No, we do not offer a bounty per se. We do pay $25 a carcass

as a matter of normal process. We do not consider that a bounty though. In terms

of cost of the overall management of the coyotes, the current cost is absorbed

within our current budget. We do not expect any more financial needs to actually

manage it, certainly not over the short term. We do, of course, have money

within our scientific research budget to do some more research work on carriers

over the longer term but it is really too early to say exactly, over the long

term, what the implications might be.

MS THISTLE: Do you expect that hunt to be - of course, I know it depends,

I guess, on when you see a decrease in the actual number of coyotes but do you

see that ongoing as an annual hunt or do you expect that this year we will

actually be able to get rid of the extra coyotes here in this Province?

MR. WARREN: No, the purpose of the hunt is not in any way, shape or form

designed to eradicate coyotes from the Province or from the Island. I think we

have to accept the fact that coyotes are here to stay as long as there is food

they can prey on. The purpose of the hunt is to offer hunters a greater

opportunity to hunt, overall. That being said, some people feel that with an

increased hunting effort the numbers may decrease. Time will tell.

MS THISTLE: I think I am going to have one final question to you -

probably you will be relieved. I just want to know, what is the status now of

the moose count in our Province? Where is it, and what are the prospects of

actually getting some hard data on that?

MR. WARREN: We completed four surveys, I believe, this past winter. We

are planning to do more surveys in the future, of course.

MS THISTLE: Where were those surveys?

MR. WARREN: The surveys were spread. We did some on the Northern

Peninsula and some in Central Newfoundland. The counts showed, this year, that

the population of moose in some areas were down and in some areas were stable.

But it is too early to say or draw any conclusions to the overall health of the

moose population.

MS THISTLE: Is there any money allocated in your budget this year for a

continued moose count in the fall?

MR. WARREN: Yes, there is.

MS THISTLE: How much?

MR. WARREN: It is not a specific subject in the budget. It comes under

our research. We are planning to do at least another four areas this winter as

well.

MS THISTLE: I know that you have increased your moose licences here in

this Province. A lot of people are saying - that I hear from, being in a part of

moose country, Central Newfoundland - that it was unnecessary. You are certainly

taxing rural Newfoundland and Labrador again. Anybody who likes the great

outdoors, you are increasing the fee.

What are you going to do with this money that is generated in extra fees? Are

you going to be using this for conducting a moose count or is it going right

into the species or the animal that you are increasing the fee on for

management?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Much of the extra revenue that will be collected through

increased fees is needed revenue. The science requirements of the Wildlife

Division need the additional revenue. I guess in order to complete moose counts

and have proper science - not only on moose but on big game - to back up the

numbers of licences that are allocated in the different regions, we need to have

the proper science to know what numbers of allocations to provide.

MS THISTLE: I have heard it said from the Minister of Education that any

savings through school board consolidations is not going back into education.

Are you telling this Committee tonight that any revenues generated from the

increase in moose licences are going back into management, science and

conservation?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes. I mean there has been an increase in the science

budget over the past couple of years and part of the reason for that increase is

the much needed science on wildlife throughout the Province. In order to come up

with the increased allocations in the budget, we saw a need to increase the

licence fees.

MS THISTLE: So, you are saying that the money will be plowed back into

your department for that very requirement?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, the increase in science has already been allocated.

MS THISTLE: But are you saying that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The money has to come from somewhere.

MS THISTLE: That is not an answer. Are you saying that the increase in

moose fees is going to be plowed back into your department for scientific data

or management of wildlife?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The increases in expenditures are already there. We have

already increased the budget.

MS THISTLE: That is not the question I am asking you. I am asking you if

the money that you are going to generate from the increase in moose licences is

going to go back into your department for the very reason which will look after

management, scientific information, surveys of moose counts and whatever that is

required for management of moose?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There has already been an increase in the allocation. The

increase is already there. I guess it is -

MS THISTLE: Based on what you are going to generate this year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are not going to generate what the increase is. We are

going to generate additional revenues, but there has been a substantial increase

in the allocation for science.

MS THISTLE: You have not answered the question point blank.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, I guess it is the concept of build it and they will

come. The increases in science have already been allocated.

MS THISTLE: But you told me originally that was the reason for the

increase and that it would go back into that very division. Are you saying now

that it will, or will it go into general revenues?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The increases in allocations for science, Anna, have

already been made, and that revenue has to come from somewhere.

MS THISTLE: I am not asking you that question. I asked you a very simple

question. We are increasing fees -

MR. T. OSBORNE: I do not know Bob if you can explain it any clearer.

MS THISTLE: We are increasing 153 fees in our Province, and I am asking

you, the money generated from that, is it going back into the division where the

money is being generated?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Can you answer that any clearer than I can?

MR. WARREN: I will try.

During the budgetary process if we are, as a department, going to show any

increases in our budget we have to offset that by showing some correlation in

terms of revenue increases. This year we decided that by increasing the fees, in

terms of resident wildlife licences by an average of about 25 per cent - and

non-resident varies between 15 per cent and 10 per cent - we will generate

approximately $1.3 million. As a result of that, we can go forward with some

confidence in having our science and management budget increased as well, but it

is not a direct relationship that the fees are increasing. As the minster said,

our increases actually are greater than $1.3 million in terms of our ability to

manage.

MS THISTLE: But it will be left within your department, that $1.3 million

that you are going to generate (inaudible) the increases.

MR. WARREN: I am sorry, I did not hear your question.

MS THISTLE: You just told me you will generate $1.3 million in fee

increases for moose licences. That will be plowed back into your department?

MR. WARREN. No, it does not plow back directly into the department. It

goes into general consolidated revenue.

MS THISTLE: That is what I thought. You did not say that originally.

Thank you very much.

MR. WARREN: Thank you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I mean, to be perfectly clear, money for departments

comes from general revenue. There is an increase in the science budget. That

increase was put in the science budget and the revenue has to come from

somewhere. We are trying to generate additional revenues in Wildlife to help

offset the increases that are in the science budget. The fact of the matter is,

the increases and expenditures in science are far greater than what we are going

to take in, in increased fees and Wildlife.

As you know, you were President of Treasury Board, Wildlife licences go to

general revenue; those fees go to general revenue, but we have increased the

science budget. Basically, you are putting it into the hand of Paul and you are

taking it out of the hand of Paul to give it back to Peter again. The fact of

the matter is, the increase in the science budget is far greater than the amount

of revenue that will be generated as a result of the increase in fees.

MS THISTLE: That will be the end of my questioning.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: I just have a few questions for a little while. I was asked to

ask this one on behalf of a constituent. Is there any funding going for moose

celebrations in Howley this year from the department?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Not out of my department.

MR. JOYCE: Not from your department?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

Minister, you mentioned earlier the Beverage Container Control Program in the

Auditor General's report. It does not say in here that it was political

interference - in the conclusions. I have it here in front of me. If you want,

just to have it on record, because I could show you the recommendation. The

recommendation is: in delivering the Beverage Container Control Program the

board has entered into several contracts. The board did not always comply with

the Public Tender Act in awarding these contracts.

In the boards response: the board shall comply with the Public Tender Act;

did comply. The board does adhere to the Public Tender Act. Consultations with

the government purchasing agencies are undertaking, on a regular basis, to

ensure granting - proper protocol is being followed at all times. That is the

Auditor General's report on that. There is nothing there about -

MR. T. OSBORNE: For clarification on that, the MMSB did say that it was

their desire to put that to public tender. They wanted to put it to public

tender. If you read the entire Auditor General's report on that section, they

wanted and recommended putting that to public tender. That decision was

overturned.

MR. JOYCE: No, that is not in this report. I am just saying, there is

nothing there about political interference by the Auditor General. That is

(inaudible) you mentioned earlier.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, I will mark it down as

an act of God.

MR. JOYCE: No, you have to mark it down that you made an incorrect

statement because there are people - who may not be in here - who at some time

may read this and think there was political interference, that the Auditor

General said it was but the Auditor General did not say it. It is right here in

the report. It is 2.9 of the 2002 report. He did not say it. I just wanted to

put that on the record.

It was mentioned here earlier that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment - is that $26,000? Because last year - it was just mentioned by a

certain member that would be a trip to Spain, but actually that is the cost.

How many pesticide inspectors does the Province have now?

MR. T. OSBORNE: One.

MR. JOYCE: One. Is that enough? Because last year it was one-and-a-half

and, minister, you were saying that one-and-a-half is not enough.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I would certainl