CHAIR (Manning): Order, please!

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to our second session for the Government Services Committee in dealing with the Department of Transportation and Works, and Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. We are going to do Aboriginal Affairs first, but before we do that I need a motion to adopt the two sets of minutes from the Wednesday, May 19 meetings dealing with the Department of Transportation and Works and the Department of Government Services.

Could I have a motion to adopt those minutes?

MR. SKINNER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Ms Jones.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: With that, we will move into Aboriginal Affairs.

The first thing I would like to do is, they have asked us from downstairs to go through everybody and introduce yourselves and your position again, just for the record, and to remind everybody that if you are asked a question, or if your are asking a question, before you answer or ask, that your red light be turned on in front of you, because that gives the signal for downstairs where they are doing the recording. The cameras are not on; it is just an audio recording. Apart from - the minister we do not mind, but if anybody else is answering the question then we would ask you to identify yourselves before you answer the question so that the people downstairs can keep track of who is who.

With that, I am going to start with Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

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

MR. LEWIS: Andy Lewis, Research.

MR. SKINNER: Shawn Skinner, MHA for St. John's Centre.

MR. RIDGLEY: Bob Ridgley, MHA for St. John's North.

MR. DUTTON: Sean Dutton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Tom Rideout, Minister.

MR. OSMOND: Don Osmond, Deputy Minister, Transportation and Works.

MR. MERCER: Cluney Mercer, ADM, Transportation.

MS OATES: Lori Lee Oates, Director of Communications, Department of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. MOORES: Weldon Moores, ADM, Works, Department of Transportation and Works.

MR. TILLER: Gary Tiller, Director of Human Resources, Transportation and Works.

MR. BYRNE: John Byrne, Manager of Budgeting, Transportation and Works.

MS HANRAHAN: Denise Hanrahan, Director of Financial Operations, Transportation and Works.

CHAIR: Thank you.

My name is Fabian Manning, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's and Chairperson of the Government Services Committee.

I want to call the heads. As we have done before, we will open the section of Aboriginal Affairs and, instead of taking one head at a time, we will leave the whole section open for questioning to move things along.

I will call the heads 1.1.01 to 2.1.03. We will open the floor for questions.

Ms Jones, do you want to -

MS JONES: The minister did not have any comments, did he?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I made an introductory statement at our last meeting, so I don't think I will have anything further to say.

MS JONES: First of all, I would like to acknowledge the fact that my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, is unable to be here this evening. He may show up later this evening, but, as you know, there is a vote ongoing today in Labrador with regard to the Labrador Inuit Association, and he has been very much involved in that. Normally he would be here as the critic for Aboriginal Affairs. I just wanted to note that for the record.

A couple of questions, Minister. First of all, I would like to start off with some questions as they relate to the Labrador Metis Nation. Back in October, I guess, when the election was ongoing, your Premier did an assessment of a ruling, the Powley ruling that was issued by the Supreme Court, and looked at what rights would accrue to Metis people in - I do not know if it was in the country in general or if it was just with regard to a specific case. Anyway, at the time, he made a commitment in writing to the Labrador Metis people that he felt, indeed, the ruling of the Powley decision would apply to them. Subsequent to that, in February, I believe it was, you yourself informed the Labrador Metis Nation that such would not be the case and that, in fact, it would not be recognized as part of the ruling of the Powley decision.

It was my understanding after that, that there was an agreement reached by the Labrador Metis Nation and the provincial government - and, primarily, with the Premier - that there would be a decision, or there would be a deadline of a decision, by April 12 awarded to the Metis people. Now, I realize that there was a strike ongoing at that time, and I think the Labrador Metis Association - I had met with the president during that time and they were being very flexible with the time frame, simply because there was a public sector strike and that government's attention had been diverted to that. Can you give me an update today on where the Powley decision rests in regard to the Labrador Metis Nation, please?

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some of the observations that the hon. member makes are correct. There was, in fact, a meeting with some of the executive members of the Labrador Metis Nation and there was an agreement that both sides, the provincial government and the LMN and their legal advisers, would meet and exchange research information. That, in fact, did take place before the date that both sides had agreed to. There has been no followup meeting since. Now, I do not say that in the sense of blaming anybody. There have been many other things on the go with the LMN themselves, in terms of other areas that they have been working on, forestry agreements, a whole bunch of things, but there has not been a followup meeting from the original meeting that took place back in - I think it was April, was it Sean?

MR. DUTTON: The solicitors met in March.

MR. RIDEOUT: March, okay, and there hasn't been a followup meeting since?

MR. DUTTON: No. The lawyers for the two sides have been trying to get in touch with each other to arrange a meeting but, I guess, both of their schedules have been such that they have not been able to arrange it.

MR. RIDEOUT: But it is still ongoing. Nothing has transpired in any negative sense. In fact, I think there probably will be some announcements on some advances over the next day or so, as far as the LMN is concerned.

MS JONES: Okay. Can you tell me what the legal advisers were tasked to do on government's behalf?

MR. RIDEOUT: We had agreed that we would exchange our research, the research that the Province had conducted into the Aboriginal claim of the Labrador Metis. The LMN had agreed that they would exchange the results of their research with us, and it is my understanding that was what was agreed to. We also agreed that we would not precipitate any further legal advances while that was taking place, that perhaps we might look at the possibility of rather than proceeding to court on the basis of getting some further jurisprudence on the whole Labrador Metis issue, that we would explore the possibility of proceeding along the lines of looking for a declaration from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland rather than on the lines of proceeding on charges.

These were some of the legal issues that were discussed at this meeting with the Premier and the LMN, myself and others, and it was left to our legal advisers to follow through on that. As Shawn indicated, it is still being worked on but it has not been advanced much beyond what it was at that point in time, as far as I know.

MS JONES: Have you, or anyone in your department, made representation to the federal government since you took office in November with regard to the Labrador Metis land claim?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. In fact, I had a meeting personally with the previous Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Robert Nault, in Corner Brook back within a month or so of us being sworn in. At that time, I encouraged the federal government to make a decision on whether or not it was their view that the LMN had a claim. As you know, that is the first step in the process. If the federal government, after their assessment, agrees that there is a claim, then there is a process of negotiations put in place, and it goes on from there to the point of where we are with the LIA today.

There has been no decision made, as far as I know, by the federal government. In addition to my meetings with Mr. Nault, after Mr. Mitchell became the minister, I wrote him on a number of Aboriginal issues relative to our Province encouraging him, again, to have a decision made on whether or not there was a basis for a land claim by the LMN. That has not happened to this date. In fact, I had two meetings arranged with Mr. Mitchell in the course of this past spring: one to advance orally or to have discussions with him on those issues. One of them went down during the strike and the other one went down since the election was called, because I believe it was for the twenty-first, really, so it went down since the election writ was dropped.

The answer is yes on both cases, both with Mr. Nault and Mr. Mitchell.

MS JONES: Okay.

Also, when the Metis - they were negotiating a MOU on forestry with the government. Can you give me an update as to where that is?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. I think I can say that there has been substantial agreement on that matter and I would not be surprised that perhaps over the next day or two there would not perhaps be a public announcement regarding it.

MS JONES: That sounds final, sounds finalized.

MR. RIDEOUT: I think you could draw that conclusion.

MS JONES: Okay.

With regard to the Innu, has the reserve status been granted to the Innu at this point?

MR. RIDEOUT: Reserve status has been granted in Natuashish and, in fact, it was granted before the end of the calendar year, I do believe. It has not been granted yet in Sheshatshiu. There have been particular complications in Sheshatshiu as regarding land title and so on because, you know, it is not like Natuashish, a new community created where the title to the land was Crown before we got into individual ownership and so on, but I think it is fair to say that both levels of government and the Band Council are working towards finalization of the reserve status for Sheshatshiu, and we are expecting that it will happen during this calendar year, but it is difficult to put a time frame on when it might happen. We were trying - and I guess the previous Administration was - to do both of them at the same time, but Sheshatshiu, for the reasons I just referred to, fell off the table and did not get done, but we are proceeding to try to do it as quickly as we can reach an agreement on land title.

MS JONES: Okay.

The transfer for health services for the Innu communities, does that go directly to the Innu Nation or the Band Councils, or does it go to the Province? I am not really sure.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am going to ask Sean to respond to that one, if you don't mind.

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

In terms of non-insured health benefits, those funds are provided directly by the federal government to the Innu and they administer that program themselves through their health commissions. We do receive some funding from the federal government to help the Labrador corporation for child and family services in both communities, which we have been getting since June, 2002. That goes directly to Health Labrador.

In terms of other health programs, primary health care is still provided by Health Labrador. We are hopeful that we will be able to reach an agreement with the federal government that they will assume the cost of the nursing station at Natuashish, which they do pay for on other isolated reserves everywhere else in Canada, except in Natuashish, for some reason, so we are still working on that one. Health Canada also provides some direct health programing in the Innu communities as well, particularly in the area of addictions and mental health and so on.

MS JONES: In the Estimates, under Aboriginal Affairs, will you guys be laying off your negotiators now that the Inuit agreement has been finalized and all that piece has gone to a vote?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that will not happen immediately for sure. We are all optimistic that there will be a positive vote tonight, but the process is not over until ratification by this Legislature and by the Parliament of Canada takes place.

What is the long-term plan, Sean? I don't think I have asked the question, to be honest with you.

MR. DUTTON: We did have a position of Director of Land Claims that has been vacant since that individual was promoted to Assistant Deputy Minister of Wildlife, so we have one less person on the land claims since, I guess July or August, than we had previously.

There are, as you mentioned, a number of things to do to get through the provincial ratification side. Even after the agreement comes into effect, there will still be a need for some negotiating resources because under self-government the agreement provides that the Inuit can take over programs like education, income support, some justice programing, and so on, but there will have to be specific agreements negotiated for each of those service areas. I would anticipate that over the next number of years, in the early part of the claim being implemented, we will still be relatively active on negotiations. It is just that they will have a different focus and more of them will be on the social programing side and probably less activity on resource related negotiations.

MS JONES: Winston White is working up in Aboriginal Affairs now. What is he doing up there?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am sorry, I missed the first part.

MS JONES: Winston White.

MR. RIDEOUT: Winston White has been hired as Executive Assistant to the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, so he is actually doing executive assistant work for both Minister Taylor and myself.

MS JONES: Would that be in these estimates here?

MR. RIDEOUT: There is a vote in here somewhere that he would be paid from. Can you tell us where it is?

MR. DUTTON: I believe he has been hired on a six-month contract and we were to find savings in the department to cover the cost, so there would be no net increase in our budget. We have one secretarial position that is permanently vacant and we have another that is temporarily vacant while the individual is off on long-term sick leave. As a result of those vacancies, we have those savings to cover the cost of that salary for that period.

MS JONES: Those two vacancies would have been budgeted for under section 1.2.01?

MR. DUTTON: One would be under Labrador Affairs and the other under Aboriginal Affairs.

MS JONES: So, one under 1.2.01, I am assuming, is it? Okay, one under 2.1.01 and 2.1.02.

MR. DUTTON: Under 2.1.01 and 2.1.02.

MS JONES: How many positions are vacant in the department right now that are budgeted for here?

MR. DUTTON: In terms of funded positions, they would be the two.

MS JONES: That is the only two that are budgeted for that are vacant?

MR. DUTTON: Well, we did have, as I mentioned earlier, a Director of Land Claims and that position - there is still a PCN number. It still exists but, at this point, we do not have the funding resources to fill the position. It wasn't considered to be a priority, given where the land claim negotiations had advanced at that point in time.

MS JONES: Were there any positions cut in this budget for your department?

MR. DUTTON: In Aboriginal Affairs, or throughout the department?

MS JONES: No, Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. DUTTON: In Aboriginal Affairs we had one contractual employee whose contract was not renewed after the end of March. It was a policy analyst.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms Jones, your fifteen minutes has expired. I am going to ask anyone else if they have a question and go back to you again.

Mr. Skinner.

MR. SKINNER: No.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, for my own interest, how does you office operate the office of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs? Where does the split take place with responsibilities between -

MR. RIDEOUT: The Labrador Affairs side of the department, the political responsibility for that is Minister Taylor and the Aboriginal Affairs side of the department, I have the political responsibility for. In other words, I deal with the Aboriginal communities in Labrador and on the Island. As you know, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the Mi'kmaw Indians in Conne River, and the Labrador Aboriginal community. So, my title is just as it says, Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. Now, I guess the line is fine, because quite often on Labrador issues in general, people in groups will copy me, and just as often on Aboriginal Affairs, I guess, they copy Minister Taylor, but the ministerial responsibilities split along the lines as I have explained.

MR. SWEENEY: Do you operate out of the same office?

MR. RIDEOUT: Of course, I operate more time, I guess it is fair to say, out of Transportation and Works than I do anywhere else, but at the same time, there is a minister's office on the sixth floor of this block; that was the office of the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I use that office on a frequent basis. When I am over meeting with officials or meeting with Aboriginal groups, I use the boardroom on that floor. My understanding is - I cannot answer it to be certain - that Minister Taylor does the same. When he is working on Labrador Affairs matters, he quite frequently uses that office and the boardroom and so on. I think in the absence of us using it, when he is in town the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labrador Affairs uses it as well.

MR. SWEENEY: Who is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Member for Lake Melville.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

There is an expenditure there of $89,700. I notice there is a salary of $62,000 there. What is that for? Whose salary is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: You are in the Minister's Office now, are you, Mr. Sweeney?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Salaries in the Minister's Office is $62,900. Last year it was budgeted at $204,000 and it was revised at $179,500. There are temporary and other employees budgeted at $60,700, and overtime earnings are budgeted at $2,200, which gives you your $62,900. The parliamentary secretary and an assistant is covered in those salaries. I only draw one salary, obviously, as a minister, and Minister Taylor only draws one salary as a minister. I think our salaries are actually voted in Transportation and Works, my salary is, and Minister Taylor's in Fisheries and Aquaculture. The salary you see here is Parliamentary Secretary and an Assistant to the Parliamentary Secretary - correct, Sean? -

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: - and a $2,200 allotment for overtime and other earnings, which makes up the total of $62,900.

MR. SWEENEY: Can you tell me more about the Assistant to the Parliamentary Secretary?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, all of our political assistants are charged to our departments. As far as I know, it was the same when you were the government. When I was here previously there was a time, I understand, when the constituency assistant vote was actually in the House of Assembly, but my understanding is that some years ago, under your Administration, those votes were taken from the House of Assembly for the minister's constituency assistant and put in the department where the minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was, so that they do not actually show up in the House of Assembly vote anymore.

I have a constituency assistant and I have an executive assistant, which you people have the same thing. Those votes now show up in our departments. That is my understanding of the way it is portioned out. Am I on the right line, Sean?

MR. DUTTON: Well, when the Parliamentary Secretary positions were created, their assistants were, in the last fiscal year, charged to the House of Assembly, and for this fiscal year all of the Parliamentary Secretaries' assistants are charged to their departments.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is consistent with the explanation that I just gave. The same thing happened to ministers some years back. When I was an Opposition Member for Lewisporte, my constituency assistance was paid by the House of Assembly. The day I became Minister of Transportation and Works, the salary of that person had to come out of the Department of Transportation and Works. That is an administrative thing that happened some years ago.

MR. SWEENEY: Your executive assistant and your constituency assistant?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, both.

MR. SWEENEY: Both assistants.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. In fact, I remember making the argument, Mr. Sweeney, that I thought it was quite unfair, in a way, in terms of the departmental salary estimates. I thought that the constituency assistants, all of them, should be funded through the House of Assembly, because they were the assistant to you as an MHA for some district or other.

The executive assistant, I can see, quite fine. That is political help for the minister, and you have that in your right as a minister, but the other position, I think, was more district oriented and I thought it was unfair that it became a charge of the department; but I was advised, when I made some inquiries to people we all know, like Bill Murray and so on, that this was done some years ago.

MR. SWEENEY: Transportation and Communications, under the Minister's Office, there is a fair decrease in the expenditure there, actually, by $47,500. Can you give me some breakdown on this?

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year it was budgeted at $90,000, revised at $70,000, and this year we are budgeting $22,500.

When I travel on Aboriginal Affairs business, I have my expenses billed to the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I am assuming - but I cannot speak for him - that Minister Taylor does the same.

The bulk of my travel, obviously, is Transportation and Works, so the larger travel vote would appear in that department. This is based on our experience from November, I guess, until the end of March, that this would be adequate to cover that side of our travel requirements.

Am I missing anything, Sean?

MR. DUTTON: No, I guess you are combining those amounts. The vote was there for 2003-2004 on the assumption of a full-time minister dedicated to that department, and it has been reduced because of having two ministers who already have a full travel vote in their other departments.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the explanation, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to skip back to Salaries again, you mentioned some part-time positions. What would that be in the Minister's Office?

MR. RIDEOUT: Part-time (inaudible) temporary and other employees?

MR. SWEENEY: Temporary.

MR. RIDEOUT: That, we indicated, was the Parliamentary Secretary and his assistant.

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I have been advised by Mr. Dutton that temporary assistants could include perhaps a summer student. I believe there was a summer student in the department last year doing work on Aboriginal Affairs matters, with research. Whether that person or somebody similar will be here this year or not, I don't know.

MR. SWEENEY: Moving on to Executive Support, 1.2.01.

MR. RIDEOUT: 1.2.01, Executive Support.

MR. SWEENEY: Salaries are down there by $77,200. What would that mean? What jobs would be lost there or what services have we lost? Certainly, jobs it is, salaries.

MR. RIDEOUT: I understand there is an ADM position vacant in Labrador, and there was a vacant secretary position in Labrador as well. So, that accounts for the lower - in fact, it was down from budget to revised, as you can see, and down again to estimates for this year.

Sean, do you want to add to that, to make sure that we have all the information?

MR. DUTTON: Yes. The ADM position was eliminated in February as part of the reorganization of government at that time, and there was a vacant secretary position that was funded but never filled. It was attached to that position and that was eliminated at the same time.

MR. SWEENEY: So, those positions are gone for the duration of this government, anyway, are they? They are not anticipated to be filled?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not at the present time anyway, unless there is a requirement that can be demonstrated.

MR. SWEENEY: Employee Benefits, this is an interesting one here. I thought it kind of striking that Employee Benefits would be $500 when we have Salaries of $342,000. Why is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, membership and conference registration fees is normally what is paid out of this. It was $4,000. It was budgeted at $500 last year and went to $4,000. The revised was higher than budget because of increased attendance at conferences and seminars, is the note I am given. Do you want to add -

MR. DUTTON: Voisey's Bay and Beyond Conference.

MR. RIDEOUT: Voisey's Bay and Beyond Conference and things of that nature, but the budget last year, Mr. Sweeney, as you can see, was $500. It is a minimal budget that you have there as a line item that you could, if you need it - as was done last year - obviously, transfer funds from some other line to that line if you had the funds available for transfer.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney, I have to interrupt for a moment. Your eleven minutes are up now.

I will go to Mr. Ridgley.

MR. RIDGLEY: Just back, minister, on that. I agree with you, it makes more sense to take the constituency salary from the House of Assembly. So, would there be thought of going back to that system or not?

MR. RIDEOUT: I really do not know, Mr. Ridgley. I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other in one respect. The House vote for salaries would obviously be higher if thirteen ministers had thirteen - and the Leader of the Opposition too, I guess - had thirteen constituency assistants - that would be fourteen constituency assistants appear in the salary vote of the House. Whether they appear in the department that the minister is responsible for and the salary vote of that department is higher, I am not sure that it makes much difference. It is an administrative item that was changed some years ago. My view of it was that we had distinct responsibilities as MHAs and as ministers. Our parliamentary privileges, and office space and office support and so on, was the responsibility of the House. I felt, as one member, that that should stay with the House, with Bill Murray and his staff.

MR. RIDGLEY: I agree with that, putting it with the House indicates what work is being done and what the responsibility -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, but that is not the way it is now. Whether or not we, as a government, and Treasury Board and as a Cabinet might revert to that because that is the way it used to be when I was here last.

MR. RIDGLEY: It makes more sense.

CHAIR: Will that be all, Mr. Ridgley?

MR. RIDGLEY: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Oram?

MR. ORAM: No.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question with regard to the postal rates in Northern Labrador. I know it is a federal issue, and it is one that I know my colleague, when he was the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and when he was MHA, made representation to the federal government on several times. I think they are on what is called an air-stage rate for postal services. I do not know if your department has had any correspondence with the federal government on that in the past few months or if representation is continuing to be made on behalf of the Inuit people and the Innu people in Northern Labrador.

MR. RIDEOUT: I cannot recall any correspondence, Ms Jones, under my signature. I do not know, and I cannot speak for Labrador Affairs or Minister Taylor, but I cannot - to be frank with you, other than having the issue raised briefly in his introductory remarks when we met last time, I believe it is the first time the issue has been drawn to my attention.

MS JONES: Just to make another point on that, because the federal government did a rate review on postal rates back a few years ago -and at that time myself and my colleague for Torngat Mountains did make representation to the federal government - as a result of it, I guess, my district did get converted from an air stage rate to a road stage rate, which saw the rates in Southern Labrador come down on par with most other people in the Province, but the North Coast still stayed the same. I guess, since that time, they have not changed their mind or changed their decision. I guess the Member for Torngat Mountains will raise it with you again at another time.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is certainly something we will take under advisement and be prepared to receive representation on, and make representation on, to the appropriate authorities federally.

MS JONES: Under section 2.1.03., Grant and Subsidies, $4.7 million, what is that money used for?

MR. RIDEOUT: Where are we now?

MS JONES: Page 55, section 2.1.03.10.

MR. RIDEOUT: Section 2.1.03?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: My pages are not numbered.

Sean, if you happen to have the answer right in front of you, go ahead.

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

Under the Inuit Communities Agreement, we have a federal-provincial agreement. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provides funding for municipal projects like water and sewer, housing, the Torngat Recreation Commission, as well as education funding for the Inuit communities, targeted at Inuit education programming and supports. Some of that money is voted through Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, and there is also some of the money that is administered through the Department of Education and through Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I think, for the coming year, we are expecting about $9.4 million in federal funding and the Province provides about $1.2 million in matching funds and administrative support, so the grants and subsidies issued there are issued to the five North Coast communities and to Torngat Housing Authority for use for those types of projects.

MS JONES: Okay.

Do you guys decide where the money is spent, or do the Inuit decide that?

MR. DUTTON: There is a management committee that is co-chaired by an official in our department and an official in Indian and Northern Affairs, but each of the five Inuit communities have a representative on that board and the communities basically set the priorities for spending within the amounts of money provided and within the categories for spending that are set out in the agreement.

MS JONES: Okay.

In the Blue Book, Minister, there were several commitments made with regard to Aboriginal Affairs, Aboriginal communities, and one was to increase the participation and success of Aboriginal People in post-secondary education and training.

I am well aware of programs that currently exist for Aboriginal People in Labrador, and many people in my district access them on a regular basis. Those programs are funded by the federal government, and most of the curricula that are designed are designed using money from those programs, whether it be the LIA training initiative, which is a Pathways Program, or some other training program such as the regular HRDC.

Are you guys looking at bringing in another training program in addition to that, or is there some other kind of support that you are looking to provide to Aboriginal communities wanting to do post-secondary education and training?

MR. RIDEOUT: We have been attempting to continue on the work with the Aboriginal groups in curriculum development and training. For example, I think only last fall we participated in an Aboriginal religious curriculum development program that saw consultation with the Aboriginal community in developing that somewhat further. We are involved with the landless band concept with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, and those negotiations are still ongoing. The former federal minister, Marc Lalonde is involved in those, as the member may know, and with the LMN, in access to programs and services.

It is an ongoing affair, where we participate with the Aboriginal communities and the Aboriginal groups in helping them access further funding for post-secondary and training and also in curriculum development in a couple of the areas that I have mentioned. That will be ongoing and will continue.

MS JONES: You said you are working with the LMN to access programs and services.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: I took from your earlier comments that you also support a land claim for the LMN.

MR. RIDEOUT: Support a land claim?

MS JONES: Support a land claim.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, what we support at the present time is encouraging the federal government to make the first determination: Is there a basis for the claim? If the federal government says, yes, there is, well then you go to the next step, which involves beginning the negotiating process, but it is the Government of Canada who has to do the analysis and decide whether there is a basis for the claim. That is not the role of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS JONES: Also, in your Blue Book you talked about establishing a plan that would include public sector internships to insure that Aboriginal people would acquire the knowledge and skills required for effective government of their own communities. Is that a specific program that you are launching through Aboriginal Affairs or through the public service, or is it just part of the land claim negotiation?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, in terms of the LIA, if the agreement is ratified tonight and then a final ratification takes place -

MS JONES: It is in the land claim.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

- some months down the road, it is going to come to the front burner sooner rather than later because, as you know, there is a self-government regime part of that settlement and I am sure there will have to be training as part of that. So, we would see it evolving that way for sure, as far as the LIA is concerned, and as and when we move further into settlements with the Innu or the LMN or the FNI, there could be requirements, depending on what each individual agreement contains of course. I mean, the FNI, you might not envision - I do not what would be envisioned. It probably would not be a self-government component because they are living in many communities throughout the Province. But the Innu would, very likely, have had a similar component as the LIA. So, that would be the kind of approach to it and we would build on what is there already as necessary.

MS JONES: So, it would not be a separate program? It would be what is negotiated as part of their land claim?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the way we would envision it for now, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. I do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Instead of going back and forth, if you want to continue on with Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs questions, because (inaudible) any questions from the back. So just -

MR. RIDEOUT: I think she has indicated she is finished.

MS JONES: I am finished my questions with regard to the Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Sweeney, do you have any on Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, I do.

CHAIR: Okay, go ahead.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, education - as Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs - do you have any input into the education system, say for instance, in Natuashish?

MR. RIDEOUT: We have some input. I mean, we have funded programming that assist in the development of Aboriginal educational curriculum, for example, in Conne River and in Labrador. But, I think there is an agreement - isn't there, Sean, and you can fill in the details here - where the Labrador School Board is still involved, and whether or not the Sheshatshiu or the Innu are actually delivering their own, primarily or not, you can speak to.

MR. DUTTON: In terms of education on reserve is a federal responsibility, and because a reserve has been created at Natuashish the federal government agreed to pay for the cost of education in that community. There is neither reserve yet in Natuashish, so they are not paying for education there, but in both cases the Labrador School Board is providing the service and it is under an agreement with the federal government. So the school board is basically a contractor for Indian Affairs to provide education services to provincial standards in Natuashish.

The interims of the education system; we have also been working through a main table on registration and reserve creation which involves the federal government, the Province and the Innu on ways to try to improve the education system for the Innu. One of the things we have been doing at that table is with the federal funding. They have contracted Memorial University to do an assessment of all the Innu students in both communities, both attending school in those communities and attending other schools in the area, and also students who are not attending school. The intention is to do a full assessment so that they can determine what the needs are and how they could tailor a new program for the Innu children that would be more effective.

Over the last year or so we have also been negotiating with the feds and the Innu to, hopefully, arrange for the Innu to take over the administration of schools in their communities. Those negotiations are not yet complete and it does not appear likely that will happen this September, but the dialogue is still ongoing. I believe that the Innu are seeking some additional federal funding assistance to try to complete the preparations to be able to take over those schools in an effective way.

MR. SWEENEY: The point I was trying to get to - I understand that part of it. There has been some difficulty in Natuashish over the past winter months regarding housing, teachers being hired and sent up there and housing not ready, and then the teachers themselves having to pay rent or whatever you want to call it, a living allowance to the - is a band council the proper term there in Natuashish? That sort of thing has been causing some problems there, and I guess in some ways some pressure is being applied to teachers to sign leases to go into another year. I am just wondering what role, if any, your department plays in conciliating some of the problems and difficulties that may arise between the Band Council and the school board, because ultimately the school board very likely gets a cheque from the federal government and that is the end of it. As long as there are teachers in there and programs administered, that would constitute their part of the deal; but the other part of the deal is: What happens when we have teachers in there who run into difficulties, and is the department tuned into those difficulties?

I know the week before last there were some other difficulties up there. From what I understand, there was a blockade or a protest around the teachers' accommodations and so on, so I am just wondering what involvement you have there in that.

MR. RIDEOUT: First of all, let me say this: This is the first year in a long time that there has been a full complement of teachers in Natuashish, and up until a few weeks ago it looked relatively certain that the vast majority of them were going to be returning.

Now, the hon. member did make some reference to some internal difficulties that transpired with an individual teacher and an individual student, I guess, that led to some activity within the community in terms of closing the school and so on, but that was handled by the Labrador School Board, as I understand it, without any involvement from our departments.

In terms of housing matters that surface in those communities - particularly Natuashish, as you are referring to now - I am not aware that we would have any involvement in those. Again, if it is relative to teachers it would be handled by the school board; if it is relative to the RCMP, it would be handled by their personnel.

There were housing pressures in Natuashish anyway, because there weren't enough houses for the number of people who were moving from Davis Inlet, as the hon. member knows, but these are not day-to-day matters that we are involved with on a day-to-day basis.

Sean, do you want to add to that?

MR. DUTTON: Just to say that we have certainly been monitoring the situation there over the last few weeks and there have been a number of reports, as the member indicated. Our intention is to meet with the Department of Education over the next couple of days to do a full assessment of the situation and determine if there are things that the Province can do to try to help assist the situation.

Certainly, the school board has been trying to deal with it themselves, but they have become somewhat frustrated with the difficulties they have encountered in the last few weeks. I guess, as the minister mentioned, it has been a relatively recent development and we are hoping to try to get that sorted out before too long so that they can proceed with filling the positions for teachers for the next school year.

MR. SWEENEY: You hit the nail right on the head. The point I was getting to is that there was, this year, for the first time in a number of years, a full complement of teachers there. Unfortunately, I think what is after happening in the past little while - the reports I am getting, anyway - is that next year the staffing levels may be jeopardized because of the instances that happened this year, and only in the past month or so.

MR. RIDEOUT: I can confirm, Mr. Chairman, that is a concern - a concern for us and a concern for the Department of Education - and it is that concern that we will be attempting to collectively address fairly shortly; but up until very recently it looked as if we were going to have a very small turnover, which was great news, but now, as a result of what has transpired, it may well be that the turnover will be significantly greater.

MR. SWEENEY: Just a few more questions here.

The gas situation on the -

MR. RIDEOUT: Rigolet?

MR. SWEENEY: In Rigolet, and Postville, I think, is it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Just Rigolet, I think.

MR. SWEENEY: Just Rigolet? Okay. Is there any resolve to that in the near future?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not at the moment, as far as I know. Again, that is a matter that is being handed by Minister Taylor, as a Labrador Affairs matter more so than an Aboriginal matter that I have been handling on a day-to-day basis. Was it raised in Committee the last time you did Labrador Affairs?

MR. DUTTON: I think, in that session, Minister Taylor and Mr. Andersen alluded to some discussions they were having outside of the communal proceedings.

MR. RIDEOUT: I know there have been discussions back and forth between the community and the department - the Labrador Affairs side of the department - in terms of trying to reach some long-term solution to the gas. The problem is, the community doesn't want to do it any more, and an independent supplier doesn't want to come back in, I guess. That is about it, in a nutshell, and they were looking for some financial assistance, the last thing I recall, in terms of relocation of the outlet, and that is where it stands at the moment.

Have I left out anything?

MR. DUTTON: Just that our staff in Happy Valley-Goose Bay have been attempting to talk to some other potential suppliers, commercial operators who might be prepared to come in. I think the key, as you mentioned, is whether the existing tanks could be relocated to a more appropriate location. They have had some difficulties with fuel spills and so on at that particular site and they need to physically move the tanks to another part of the community.

We have asked the community for a cost estimate on what that might require, to do that, and that has just recently been received so that is under review at this time.

MR. SWEENEY: Is your department involved in any activities regarding negotiations with the native groups regarding, say, for instance, the Lower Churchill, logging rights, or -

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, yes, we have been party to the negotiations between the Labrador Metis Nation and the Department of Natural Resources in terms of a forestry agreement, or the renewal up there, because there was an agreement that - what, ran out the last of March? - or had been extended. I think ran out and was then extended to the last of March.

Mr. Sweeney, our department would be consulted in those types of negotiations. I was not here when the benefits agreements were negotiated between the, say, the LIA and the Innu in terms of Voisey's Bay, but I would assume that the department facilitated those negotiations and helped them out, moved them along and gave advice and so on. So, we are involved in a daily way on those kinds of negotiations.

Health, education matters; the view of our department is sought to try to get some consistency across the whole spectrum of government as it relates to Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. SWEENEY: So, there is no activity anymore with the Lower Churchill in your department? That is pretty well -

MR. RIDEOUT: Not at the moment, is there?

DUTTON: No, we have basically - discussions with the Innu Nation were put on hold in the fall of 2002, at the same time as the project discussions were put on hold, and until such time as they are to be revisited, then that will be the point at which we will have to revisit discussions with the Innu Nation again.

MR. SWEENEY: Aboriginal Affairs, that is 2.1.01. Let's go back to some salary details now until I get another thought on something else here.

In 2.1.01, Salaries are down by $31,400. What is the breakdown on that? What happened?

MR. RIDEOUT: Revised are lower than the budget due to employee turnover, so my note tells me. Do you want some detail on that?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes. What vacancy would that, or vacancies would that -

MR. RIDEOUT: And the estimates are lower than budget, the overall general government restraint - that was the policy analyst position that Mr. Dutton referred to earlier, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: The Transportation and Communications budget is up by $50,000 from last years. What would cause that increase, considering that in the Minister's Office it was down on the other end of it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year the budget figure was actually $330,000 and $200,000 got spend, and this year the estimate is $250,000. So, the amount budgeted this year is a bit lower. It is related to travel related expenses and telecommunications costs. The revised are lower because travel related expenses respecting land claim negotiations were lower than originally anticipated, as the majority of the meetings were held in St. John's. That will hopefully keep our spending in check again this year. We will try our best, but if it goes beyond that I guess it goes beyond that, but there should be less requirement for, certainly from the LIA perspective, perhaps on land claim expenses this year than past.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. That extra $50,000, where did that come from? Did that come from - is that new money or was it taken from other areas in the department?

MR. RIDEOUT: You mean the $250,000?

MR. SWEENEY: Well, the extra $50,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, it was $330,000 last year. So there was a savings of $130,000 from your budgeted to your revised.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: This year we are budgeting $250,000. I mean, that is $250,000 approved by Treasury Board during the budgetary process for that line.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. When I look at budgets I always look at what was spent the year before.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is the revised.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, but regardless of what it was, that is what was spent.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, but you budgeted $330,000. So you actually had a saving of $130,000 that you could either not spend or transfer and spend somewhere else, I guess. I don't know what you did with it.

MR. SWEENEY: It is a good argument, yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Sometimes it gets transferred into other heads altogether, as you require it.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay, yes.

Professional Services, I guess probably you are going to tell me the same thing on that one, but last year $85,000 was spent and this year it is $150,000 spent. There is an extra $65,000 there.

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year you actually budgeted to spend $193,000, but you did not require it. We spent $85,000, between you and us, and this year we are budgeting $150,000. That is consultation and specialized research on native issues, including land claims, library and archival research, translation services, academic research and interpretation, is generally the things that are paid for out of that.

The Revised is lower than the Budget. In other words, you budgeted $193,000 but spent $85,000. That happened because expenses related to land claim negotiations, such as translation contracts, started later than originally anticipated.

MR. SWEENEY: I hope you are going to show all these figures to the Premier, so that he won't be getting on with how we drove her right to the wall last year, you know; we actually saved money.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, there are lots of other areas where you didn't.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, I am sure, and I guess next year we will talk about some of those too.

MR. RIDEOUT: Next year we will have a full twelve months to answer for. This year we don't.

MR. SWEENEY: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: No, we haven't found any here yet, where we drove her.

Purchased Services, again we will go through the same rationale, I am sure, from what was budgeted and what was spent, and where we have gone this year. I always felt that what we spend one year is a good benchmark for what we spend the next year.

MR. RIDEOUT: I think, generally speaking, that is correct.

MR. SWEENEY: We are up $123,000, so where would....?

MR. RIDEOUT: You budgeted to spend $213,000 -

MR. SWEENEY: But we never.

MR. RIDEOUT: - and you actually spent $50,000 and now we are budgeting $173,000 this year. Purchased Services are meeting room rentals and all related expenses associated with land claim negotiations, photocopier charges, printing costs, repairs and maintenance of office furniture and equipment, professional training, ergonomic assessments, shredding services, office facilities and renovations. Again, the lower amount spent than actually budgeted was because there was less than originally anticipated, again because most of the land claim negotiations were held in St. John's and we had government buildings here, and government offices here, and you didn't have to.... Lots of times, when those meetings are held in Halifax, or in Amherst, Nova Scotia, or in Montreal - sometimes, I know, the Inuit meetings are - or in Ottawa, you have to lease meeting space and the backup office requirements that are necessary. As we said, most of them were held here last year so we didn't have to do that.

MR. SWEENEY: One final question on Aboriginal Affairs, seeing my colleague from Torngat is not here yet. He is on a flight, I think, somewhere between Goose Bay and St. John's.

MR. RIDEOUT: Is he actually coming back tonight? I thought he was staying for the vote.

MR. SWEENEY: He called this afternoon and said he was hoping to get back tonight.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.

MR. SWEENEY: Then again, maybe at the last minute he may have changed his mind. That was the last communication I had.

Grants and Subsidies, there is none budgeted, there was $250,000 spent, and there was none budgeted this year. Who is going to suffer on that one? If there was a need last year to spend $250,000....

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised reflects a grant that was made to the Labrador Inuit Association as the Province's contribution to its 50 per cent share of the cost of the ratification of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims and the Self-Government Agreement. The funding was redirected from other areas in the Aboriginal Affairs Department.

Sean, do you want to add anything further to the briefing note?

MR. DUTTON: Just that, in the final agreement with the Inuit, it was agreed that the federal and provincial governments would cost share the ratification process, and that required the appointment of a committee with appointees from the Province, the federal government, and the LIA, an impartial Chair. They are basically the Chief Electoral Officer for this vote. They have compiled the voting list and they are overseeing the running of the voting process itself, and it was agreed that we would cost share that.

Since we didn't initial the agreement until August, we didn't know for certain when that might occur, how we would administer the money, and a decision was made at that point in time to transfer the funds to LIA for the purpose of administering the grant to the committee, so those funds did come from the savings in Professional and Purchased Services that you see there, to cover that cost. It is a one-time cost.

MR. SWEENEY: A one-time deal.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay, that is it for me, on Aboriginal Affairs.

MS JONES: Just one thing, if I could.

CHAIR: Go ahead.

MS JONES: This more for Sean than for the minister, I guess, because it is a Labrador Affairs piece. The Voisey's Bay monitor that was announced last week, it said that the duties would be taken on by someone in the department. Have the duties been assigned to someone in your department now?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MS JONES: If so, is it in Goose Bay or St. John's?

MR. DUTTON: Goose Bay.

MS JONES: What is the title of the position that was used to assume those responsibilities?

MR. DUTTON: The individual is a senior analyst in our Happy Valley-Goose Bay office.

MS JONES: Okay.

What about in Labrador City, Labrador West?

MR. DUTTON: It is an employee of the Department of Natural Resources. I believe it is a Mineral Analyst.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is a Natural Resources employee, I know that.

MS JONES: Okay.

The only one I know, I think, is on maternity leave, aren't they? I am not sure.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am sorry?

MS JONES: I am thinking that position was filled by someone who is on maternity leave.

MR. RIDEOUT: In Labrador West, or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

MS JONES: Labrador West.

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't know.

MS JONES: Okay.

That is it for me.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Jones.

The Estimates of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs were carried by another Committee. The Resource Committee carried them, so I don't need anything. We can go right into Transportation and Works.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, before you do, if we are finished with Aboriginal Affairs and there is no anticipation that we will be coming back to it, I wouldn't mind allowing Mr. Dutton to move on, if that is acceptable to the Committee.

CHAIR: That is fine.

MS JONES: Sure.

MR. RIDEOUT: I need him to do some checking for me on the vote, and a few other things.

CHAIR: Yes.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Dutton.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you.

MR. DUTTON: Thank you.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Sean.

CHAIR: We will continue into Transportation and Works, if Mr. Mercer would like to move up front.

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

CHAIR: I am going to ask Mr. Mercer to move up front.

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, I would not propose to make any statement other than the statement that we made last time, and I guess the Committee can pick up there wherever they want, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Just to remind people (inaudible) who are new to the seats, if you have to answer a question, please identify yourself for the people recording.

With that, I open the floor for questions, Ms Jones.

MS JONES: I am going to start my estimates on page 89, Marine Operations, section 4.2.01.

MR. RIDEOUT: Page 89. Okay, I have the page.

CHAIR: Go ahead, Ms Jones. (Inaudible) starting again.

MS JONES: All right. Page 89, the Marine Operations, section 4.2.01. Under section .01, Salaries have increased by $167,900 over last year's budgeted amounts. Can you tell me what the increase is for?

MR. RIDEOUT: The estimates are up due to salary reallocation from other activities in the Marine administration division, and the revised is up due to the cost of temporary employees, specifically technical marine engineering and project management staff. That is .01, right?

MS JONES: Yes. The salary reallocation, where would that have come from?

MR. RIDEOUT: Salary reallocation - go ahead, Don.

CHAIR: Is your light on, Mr. Osmond?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it is not.

CHAIR: Could I have Mr. Osmond's light turned on, please?

MR. OSMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The additional monies actually came from within the department. There was at least one position within that branch which had been previously - underfunded would be the way to put it, I guess, and we have been trying over the last couple of years to keep things even keel there in that area. So, this estimate in 2004-05 finally recognizes that and assigns the money in that branch.

MS JONES: What position was unfunded, that you would have made an increase to? What is the title?

MR. OSMOND: I am sorry, I could not give you the title but it is as the minister had related, in terms of technical and project management staff.

MS JONES: The rest of the $167,000 is temporary employees, I understand?

MR. RIDEOUT: There were additional costs for temporary employees, specifically the technical marine engineering and project management staff.

MS JONES: Would they be people working on the boats, ferries, or in the department?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, they would be people working on the boats. Yes, I am advised that is the case, Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Under that same heading, .05 Professional Services, you budgeted $8,000 the same as was budgeted last year, although there was only $2,000 spent. Can you tell me what you would use that for, what special services you would be requiring?

MS HANRAHAN: That would be for technical surveys. Those types of outside services we would get from a professional engineering firm, something like that.

MS JONES: Technical surveys?

MS HANRAHAN: Related to marine specs, design, things for Transport Canada, and I would assume this year we did probably more in-house or did not require as much out of house.

MS JONES: Section 4.2.02. The budget has decreased for Salaries, .01, by $1.150 million, somewhere around that ballpark. Can you tell me what the decline is? What positions have been vacated or terminated?

MR. RIDEOUT: There are no positions vacated or terminated, but the estimates are down due to expenditure reduction initiatives. Like, for example, a half million dollar savings in overtime costs. Then, of course, less the annualization of prior year salary increases. The revised is up due to increased salary costs related to the marine collective agreement, ferry workers and captains.

Denise, do you need to add anything else to that?

MS HANRAHAN: The revised figure versus the estimate, I think that is the million or so you were speaking of. The true change is probably the half million dollar reduction in overtime, less some annualization, which works out to be about $350,000 to $375,000 for year-over-year change in budget.

MS JONES: Okay. So you are saying that last year it rose to $10 million because of marine contracts with workers but this year it declined because you are taking out three hundred and something thousand in overtime -

MR. RIDEOUT: Five hundred in overtime.

MS JONES: Five hundred in overtime, so what about those contracts? They don't have to be honoured this year? There is no payout on them this year, or...?

MS HANRAHAN: Some of the salary increases are directly related to the operating time of the vessels, so any changes in the scheduling for vessels - if it is a reduced number of hours or if it is more accurately into the collectively agreement - would, in fact, be a salary saving.

The marine collective agreements for captains and for workers states that once they get outside, for example, their twelve-hour schedule, they earn overtime and other benefits, and that drives the cost substantially. When a schedule is extended beyond an employee's twelve-hour shift, you will see the cost go up. So part of the expenditure reduction in the reduction of overtime, obviously, is looking at schedules as well.

MS JONES: Have you changed schedules on many of your routes this year, your ferry routes?

MR. RIDEOUT: I understand that the answer is none, to this point in time.

MS JONES: So you haven't changed any schedules on any of your ferry routes yet this year?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, that is what I am advised.

MS JONES: But you are expecting to make savings of several hundred thousand dollars simply by changing your schedules. I don't understand.

MS HANRAHAN: (Inaudible). There is fueling, there are fire drills, things like that, so if those were scheduled differently, obviously there would be savings from employees. The schedules don't necessarily involve the public. It is your own operational schedules of when you do stuff with what boats.

MS JONES: So, you intend to make the savings in overtime and so on by adjusting your operational schedules?

MS HANRAHAN: To be more efficient.

MS JONES: Okay.

Also under that section, Purchased Services are reduced from last year. Can you tell me what kinds of services that would be?

MR. RIDEOUT: Are you looking at 06. Purchased Services?

MS JONES: Yes, I am.

MR. RIDEOUT: Seven point two was budgeted and something over seven was spent, and this year it is estimated at six point eight?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is down due to reduced outside repairs and refits, but as to exactly what it was spent on, is it all repair and outfitting?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is, all repair and outfitting of our fleet, I say to the hon. member, Mr. Chair.

MS JONES: I am sorry, I didn't get what you said.

MR. RIDEOUT: Repair and refitting of the fleet.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what those amounts are spent on.

MS JONES: So, I guess you are not anticipating to have to do as much refit this year; is that why the number is down?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is down due to reduced outside repairs and refits. We had substantial repairs last year on what, the Bond and the Ranger?

OFFICIAL: Yes, and we had some mid-life refits.

MR. RIDEOUT: And we had some mid-life refits that won't be necessary again for some period of time. They will be necessary again at some point, but, you are right, the overall budget should be significantly less than what it was last year for that particular line.

MS JONES: Debt Expenses, I cannot recall right now what that line is. Do you want to tell me what that is?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, the estimates are down to reflect the reduced interest cost on the purchase of the Gallipoli and the Beaumont Hamel. These vessels were lease-purchased over x number of years and, I guess, with falling interest rates and so on like that, there was some reduction in the amount of interest paid.

Those vessels, I think, are getting fairly close to being paid off now, aren't they? That is what that line is, Mr. Chairman.

MS JONES: Okay.

Section 4.2.03. Coastal Labrador Ferry Operations.

MR. RIDEOUT: Right.

MS JONES: Transportation and Communications is up to $3.227 million. Last year there was $945,000 budgeted and it was revised at $2.6 million and a bit. Can you explain to me why the increase this year?

MR. RIDEOUT: I will explain two things. First of all, the Revised was up from last year from the Budget to the actual spending of $2.6 million due to unforseen costs related to freight handling, which became the responsibility of the Province with the new contracts, so I am advised, and the estimates are up this year to reflect the anticipated cost of the 2004-2005 season.

MS JONES: When you say the cost of freight handling, what are you referring to? Do you want to explain that to me?

MR. RIDEOUT: All of the freight handling service that was provided last year -

MS JONES: Dockside service?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. I am not talking about trucking costs.

MS JONES: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am talking about marine costs.

MS JONES: Yes, loading and offloading the boats, and maintaining the port and all that stuff.

MR. RIDEOUT: Exactly, yes.

MS JONES: So that was removed from the new contract and that expense was then taken on by the department is what you are telling me?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is correct.

CHAIR: Ms Jones, you have gone past your time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

CHAIR: Do you want to continue?

MS JONES: If it is okay with the Committee, I would like to finish 4.2.03. and then I will pass it along to my colleague.

CHAIR: To finish that section? Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Can I just have one more word before you move on?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Previous to last year, I guess you would know this, the revenue was collected by the contractor.

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: And that changed in the new contract. So, while there is an increase in our cost here, somewhere along the line you will also see a revenue source that has some offsetting effect on that because we obviously get the revenue now. That is down in Revenue-Provincial, where you will see the difference between what was budgeted last year, $18 million, and what was actually revised to be $20 million, and it is around $20 million again this year. So, there is some offsetting effect here when you look at two different columns.

MS JONES: The supply cost here, is that where your fuel cost is incurred?

MR. RIDEOUT: Supplies?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I am advised that is a fact.

MS JONES: I notice that your fuel cost is down this year to what you budgeted it last year, up a little bit to what you have revised, but you are running the Sir Robert Bond this year into Lewisporte. Where would the extra fuel costs be budgeted for that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Where would it be budgeted? I don't understand. Could I just have a second?

I am advised, I say to the Committee, Mr. Chair, that you are running the vessels the same number of days and the same distances, approximately. So your fuel costs are not going to be - so my officials tell me - marginally different from what they would have been last year. Now, that is not to say there will not be any, but it should not be much different. For example, there was some talk of - not talk. There was a significant amount of pressure, for example, to run the Trans Gulf on a fourteen day turnaround out of Lewisporte as it was last year, rather than a seven day turnaround out of Cartwright. In investigating that possibility, I am told by my officials that there would be no appreciable cost in the cost of fuel on either one of those options because the distance travelled is approximately the same when you add it together. That is the advice I have been tendered.

MS JONES: I would tend to agree, with the exception of the fact that the announcement that you made said we would not see a decline in service on the Sir Robert Bond by moving the boat to Lewisporte. So, if there is no decline in service, it means the boat is going to have to run more hours to accommodate the new schedule.

My question is going to be: How much fuel does the Sir Robert Bond burn in an hour? I can do my own calculations based on that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I cannot provide you that but the officials can have - a thousand litres an hour, is what I am told.

MS JONES: So, that is 24,000 litres of fuel each way between Cartwright and Goose Bay. That is 50,000 litres of fuel that will be made each trip that was not consumed last year, but there is no money in the budget for the fuel cost.

MR. RIDEOUT: There is money in the budget for the operations.

MS JONES: Well, there is no extra money budgeted to cover the extra 50,000 litres of fuel that will be consumed on each of those crossings.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, go ahead, Don.

MR. OSMOND: Hopefully, this might add a little bit of clarity to it. Included in that line item of Supplies, it is not only fuel but also some of the expenses we incur to maintain and refit the vessels. Certainly, in preparing for last year there were some significant costs to refit the Bond and the Ranger that we do not anticipate incurring again this year. So, there is a sort of leveling out here.

MS JONES: That came out of your Supplies and not out of your Purchased Services?

MR. OSMOND: The parts would be coming out of Supplies.

MS JONES: Can you give me a breakdown of that, please?

MR. OSMOND: Not right now, but I could try to undertake to get it.

MS JONES: Can you provide it to me?

MR. OSMOND: Indeed.

MS JONES: I am aware that last year there was some damage to the Northern Ranger. I thought that was covered under the insurance policy, and not by the department.

MR. OSMOND: I would have to check that for you.

MS JONES: Can you tell me, then, what the refit damages would have been to the Northern Ranger last year?

MR. RIDEOUT: We should have those, as I have seen them. I know they were up significantly on both vessels last year.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The total refit figure?

MS HANRAHAN: For the Bond it was $1.95 million, and the Ranger was $960,000.

MS JONES: Where would that $1.95 million and the $960,000 have been budgeted for?

MS HANRAHAN: Purchased Services (inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay, that is the point I was trying to make.

MS HANRAHAN: If the parts were bought by the department, which we do sometimes in an effort to reduce costs, we may get a better price than, for example, the contractor would. They would come in under Supplies. If they were parts that were bought as part of the refit work, the total bill is treated as Purchased Services.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) trying to explain, I guess, there is some expense charged in both heads.

MS JONES: Yes, and I would like to have a breakdown, please, of the supplies: what would have been parts and what would have been fuel last year, and what is being budgeted for this year. I would also like to have a breakdown of the Purchased Services.

It is my understanding that, other than the work done on the Ranger and the Bond last year, there were other one-time costs incurred by the department. I am looking at the fact that the work on the Bond last year was a one-time cost, the $1.95 million. Isn't that accurate?

MS HANRAHAN: There are annual refits, but probably not to the same extent in (inaudible).

MS JONES: Well, last year, wasn't the hull redone on the Bond, extensive work done on the Bond last year and the year before that would, in my mind, not have to be re done this year? I wouldn't think so. Anybody at all.

MR. OSMOND: You are correct, in that there was a certain amount of work that was deferred over several years in anticipation of retiring the Bond, and when the decision was made not to retire it, but to continue it in service, there was a significant amount of deferred work that had to be done in order to carry on into the future with it. So there is a blip, if you will, last year or during last winter, an area of last year, to account for that increased refit cost.

MS JONES: Okay.

Do you have any estimation on what the refit was this year? Because the refit would have been done now, I guess, in anticipation of the boat getting ready to sail.

MS HANRAHAN: The estimate I have - I don't know, Cluney, if you would know the actual figure. I doubt - the bill may not even be in yet. The Bond refit was estimated at $1.35 million, and the Ranger refit was estimated at $675,000.

MR. MERCER: My understanding is that the refit on the Bond this year will come in a little over a million dollars.

MS JONES: That is what she just said.

MR. MERCER: Yes.

MS JONES: Other one-time costs last year, there was a lease of the Astron to run freight into Northern Labrador. Where would that have been in the Estimates here, under the Coastal Ferry Operations? Under Purchased Services? Can you tell me how much that was?

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't remember it off the top of my head, but I do remember seeing the figure.

MS HANRAHAN: The total cost for the Astron, including the fuel, supplies, and the additional days of the contract, were just shy of $300,000.

MS JONES: That would all be under Purchased Services?

MS HANRAHAN: Yes, because it would have been a bill from the contractor. Fuel may have come in under Supplies.

MS JONES: How many days did you say it was?

MS HANRAHAN: I am not positive on the number of days.

MR. OSMOND: I thought it was fourteen, but don't hold us to that, okay?

MS JONES: I am not sure either; that is why I am asking.

I also know there was a one-time cost last year of lease for one of Berkshire's boats to take containers out of Makkovik plant, I think, and maybe Black Tickle plant.

MR. OSMOND: While Denise may have some figures, that is true. At the beginning of the year, I forget the name of the vessel - it was a fairly small vessel - was chartered for a very short period of time, a number of days, maybe a week. I don't recall it having been chartered again during the year, though; I think it was just at the beginning of the year.

MS JONES: How much was that?

MS HANRAHAN: I don't have it.

MR. OSMOND: I am sorry, we don't have that figure here.

MR. RIDEOUT: We will have to undertake to get it for you.

MS JONES: Don, can you get that number for me?

MR. OSMOND: I will, yes.

MS JONES: Can you tell me what other one-time cost was incurred last year that would have come out of Purchased Services or Supplies?

MR. RIDEOUT: The additional operating, that is for the Appollo. That would have been in one of those. Was there anywhere else?

MS JONES: That would have been around $300,000, $350,000?

MR. RIDEOUT: I will have to depend on the officials for that.

It was only extended for - what was it extended for? Three or four days, four or five days?

MR. OSMOND: That is about $18,000 a day.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is about $18,000 a day, yes.

MS JONES: Yes, the ice was in last year. She did not get on early, maybe about six or seven days.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is kind of about $18,000 a day - $17,000 and a bit, I think.

MS JONES: Okay. Was there any other one-time cost?

MR. RIDEOUT: I cannot recall any other one-time costs on vessels, the Astron, the Appollo.

MS JONES: Okay, getting back to Supplies again. I guess I am going to have to ask for a full breakdown of the fuel cost under Supplies because I do not see where you have budgeted any fuel costs for the Sir Robert Bond to go to Lewisporte. I know there are going to be a number of trips lost out of Goose Bay, but those trips are only twelve hours. They are much shorter. The Lewisporte one is twenty-four hours. So you would still be looking at consuming an additional $24,000 litres of fuel each way. I would like to get a breakdown of that, and because the figure is down, I am assuming that you would have obviously budgeted for increased fuel costs this year. I mean, the fuel is going up and I don't see how that was budgeted for either. So, my guess is, the Supplies number is low in comparison to the configuration that you have outlined.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I don't think there is any doubt about that, that there will be some additional fuel costs, no question. I think though, what is fair to say is there will very likely be some changes to those revised, as there were changes to many of the revised last year, and I guess for other years as well.

Fuel costs are going up. The configuration I don't think had been - I don't even know if the configuration had been announced when the Budget documents were put together, to be honest with you. The revised next year will probably need some adjustment, but we certainly will provide a breakdown of what we anticipate the cost to be.

MS JONES: The money that was used last year to do the renovations in Cartwright, was that under Purchased Services under Coastal Labrador Ferry Operations?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is under Ferry Terminals, 4.2.04.

MS JONES: Okay, well I will leave it until I get there. I am just making sure I have covered all the stuff that is under the Purchased Services as one-time costs.

MR. RIDEOUT: So, you don't want us to answer that. You are going to go with that a little later, are you?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, okay.

MS JONES: Transportation and Communications, under that same head, .03. What is that money for?

MS HANRAHAN: (Inaudible) shore based facilities, including some freight handling.

MS JONES: Oh, yes, that is the one you already told me.

MS HANRAHAN: Right.

MS JONES: Sorry about that. I get that confused.

The contract for the ferry service into Williams Harbour and Norman Bay. How much is that contract, and where is that paid out to?

MR. OSMOND: The value of that contract is approximately $300,000 per annum. It is $271,000, to be exact.

OFFICIAL: That is last year's (inaudible).

MR. OSMOND: Which subhead does it come out of?

OFFICIAL: That would be Purchased Services (inaudible) supplies.

MR. OSMOND: The bulk of that would come out of Purchased Services, 4.2.03.06.

MS JONES: Are the rates going to be adjusted on that service this year?

MR. OSMOND: There is a 10 per cent increase on ferry rates across the board throughout the Province.

MS JONES: The problem last year - and it probably should have gotten fixed last year; however, it didn't because it was late in the season when it came to my attention - when the boat was put in service, the rates were not adjusted for the area. The rates were still based on the old coastal boat rates, when the freight boats used to come out of Lewisporte, and they weren't necessarily adjusted to a ferry rate.

It was raised in the department probably in September of last year and it was at the end of the season and nothing got done with it, so I didn't know if the adjustments were going to be made for this year or not.

MR. OSMOND: I am sorry, I don't have recall of that. The best I can do is offer to check that for you.

MS JONES: If you could have a look at it, I would appreciate it because I think the rates were relatively very high, especially for individual passengers just walking on the boat, because it doesn't carry vehicles anyway.

All the cost of operating the Lewisporte terminal and all of that will come out of section 4.2.04. also, for the Labrador-based ferry.

MR. RIDEOUT: I think that is correct, yes. That is the note here on that.

MS JONES: Was there any extra money budgeted this year for the Apollo, to extend the service at all beyond January 3, or for earlier start-up dates?

MR. RIDEOUT: There is normally no money budgeted for that anyway, in any year, as far as I understand, in past practices. You do it on an ad hoc basis and if you know well in advance that it looks like it is going to be possible because of conditions, then you will seek Treasury Board approval to do it and hopefully you will have countervailing savings somewhere else to offset the additional cost of it, but it my understanding that is the way it has been handled in the past.

MS JONES: Okay, I am going to turn it over to my colleague for a minute and then I will come back to section 4.2.04.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, section 3.2.02., I think, is where I left off the last day.

MR. RIDEOUT: Section 3.2.02. Page 86?

MR. SWEENEY: Page 82 in the book here.

MR. RIDEOUT: Page 82, section 3.2.02., yes.

MR. SWEENEY: I notice that Transportation and Communications in Pre-Engineering, there was $12,000 spent last year and it is up to $75,000 this year. That is basically a perceived increase, anyway, of $63,000, while there is no staff in that division. How would that come about?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Section 3.2.02.03.

MR. RIDEOUT: It was the same budget as last year. There was $75,000 budgeted and $12,000 spent, and we are budgeting the same amount this year. My understanding is that these have been historic amounts and we budget them pretty well the same year over year. If more is required, it gets spent; if it is not required, then that funding will be used for some other purpose or it goes back into savings or whatever, but we do budget approximately the same historic amount year over year.

MR. SWEENEY: With no staff? Forgive my ignorance, because this is the first time I have done the Transportation and Works part of this.

MR. RIDEOUT: What do you mean, no staff?

MR. SWEENEY: Well, there are no salaries for staff there. I am just wondering how Transportation and Communications could be used without staff members.

MR. MERCER: Actually, the salaries are a part of - I think I explained the last time - a pool of salaries that is recharged to projects, even pre-engineering projects which would be future projects that we do survey work, pre-engineering work, on; those salaries would be charged off against the main salary pool. That is a part of the program. Actually, you will see that on item 19. Voted in Other Divisions.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

MR. MERCER: That is what that is; it is $450,000 in salaries. That is for pre-engineering.

MR. SWEENEY: So we charge off the salaries - or recharge is the magic word here that I am learning - we recharge the salaries off but we would not recharge the transportation and communications expenses, the other expenses associated with that?

MR. MERCER: That is correct, and the primary reason for that is, it is an administrative reason, I guess, that all salaries are in one large pool for all of the capital work, including pre-engineering, so it is not separated out into two salary pools.

MS HANRAHAN: (Inaudible) a little bit more. It is easier to allocate the admin support costs for each of the different opportunities - pre-engineering, admin support, and the different programs - whereas the salaries, a particular engineer could work on four different projects which would be then recoded out to those four. The transportation and communications costs, those types of things are easily attributable to an individual activity. That is why you will find they are coded directly.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

All of the rest of those there, as you say, are traditional numbers used over the years.

MR. RIDEOUT: Historic numbers.

MR. SWEENEY: Historic numbers, yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the code word.

MR. SWEENEY: I am getting some smart - recharge and historic numbers.

MR. RIDEOUT: It's a learning curve for me, too, I will tell you.

MR. SWEENEY: I have never been involved with this department before, so I am learning quickly, or trying to.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am having the same experience, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: We are doing it together, then.

Under 3.2.03., let's see now. Oh, I finally have one where the Budget amount, the Revised amount, and this year's Estimates are different. Transportation and Communications again, 3.2.03., there is an estimate of $350,000 versus the $100,000 that was budgeted. What accounts for that increase?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is attributable to the larger capital program that we are planning for this year. We are planning a $30 million capital program this year, and last year it was $23 million, I guess, somewhere in that neighbourhood anyway. That is basically what that is attributable to, I understand from my officials.

MR. SWEENEY: Seeing we are on that, when will that list be released for the works (inaudible)?

MR. RIDEOUT: The capital?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, for this year.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I am hoping practically any day. I am working on finalizing it now, and looking for Cabinet approval on it. I think we are in the same ballpark, generally speaking, that we have been in the past number of years, if I recall correctly, somewhere around the end of May or the first part of June, so I am optimistic that it will be released within the next few days.

MR. SWEENEY: Supplies have increased by $25,000. What would constitute that increase?

MR. RIDEOUT: Supplies, Denise, can you help us out on that? There was $155,000 budgeted last year, we spent an additional $10,000, and this year we are budgeting $180,000.

MS HANRAHAN: Once again, it is related to the scope of the program. You will find all the costs the same way.

MR. RIDEOUT: All the costs have (inaudible) increased accordingly -

MS HANRAHAN: Bumped, yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: - because of the additional money in the capital programs.

MR. SWEENEY: I am trying to ignore the comments coming from my colleagues here behind me about, there is going to be more money spent in the Tory districts this year.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, if you look at past years spending, Mr. Sweeney, I would suggest that would be a penetrating insight into the obvious.

MR. SWEENEY: Well, not always. I can take you through some of the lists and show you the other side of that.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have the historic list, so we can compare lists any day at all.

MR. SWEENEY: No, I am quite capable of doing that. That is all right.

Under Purchased Services, there is an increase there of $3,735,000. Is that more -

MR. RIDEOUT: More tenders, more work, more paving; additional work is what it reflects.

MR. SWEENEY: Contracting out?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, roadwork is contracted anyway, by and large. We do so much -

MR. SWEENEY: I heard on Open Line this morning - are the lines being contracted out, the relining of the pavement on the highways?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, we still have our own paint crews and so on.

MR. SWEENEY: They are doing better, Cluney, than they did last year, according to a caller on Open Line this morning while I was finding my way into the office. They said it is a sign already that contracting out is taking place; the roads are being done faster. Anyway, so much for the gospel of Open Line.

There is one here, Voted in Other Divisions, $2,400,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: This is the recharged stuff, this new language that we have learned, but I will ask Cluney to give you some detail on it, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. MERCER: This is a recharge again. That is the salaries associated with administering the contracts for paving projects. That is the salary part. As you will notice up in the other sections, 03 to10, there is no salary component there, so that is really the salary component of delivering that program.

MR. SWEENEY: Cluney, I believe you but there are probably millions out there who would not. You have me thrown for a loop with this recharge anyway, because we have gone all through the -

MR. RIDEOUT: I have not seen the Estimates of this department before, and neither has - well, Mr. Sweeney may have seen them but he did not go through them in detail as he is tonight. This is historically the way it has been done.

MR. MERCER: Yes, this is historic. I have been with the department for eighteen years and it has been like it for that long.

MR. RIDEOUT: I didn't want us to get into any magic numbers here.

MR. SWEENEY: To be truthful with you, I wouldn't know the difference when you start playing the recharge game.

Under 3.2.04., Administrative Support, Salaries are increased there by $391,800.

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, that reflects the increase in the scope of the program this year over last year.

MR. SWEENEY: There is our old buddy there - recharged - again.

MR. RIDEOUT: He comes up to bite you.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, every single time.

MR. MERCER: Just for a point of clarification, the $30 million provincial roads program this year - and I think I mentioned this in our previous meeting as well - has been broken down this time into: a part of that budget is actually current account, which goes into rehabilitating and resurfacing roads, and that was the section that we just discussed, 3.2.03. The section we are now looking at, 3.2.04., is actually the capital part of that $30 million. That is replacing capital assets or putting new capital infrastructure in place. It is all a part of the $30 million roads program but it is just broken down into two components, a current account component and a capital component, both of which have recharges and salaries, and both of which will have contracts issued to deliver that program.

MR. SWEENEY: Are the feds putting anything into that $30 million this year?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, not the $30 million. We have cost-shared programs with the Government of Canada under the infrastructure program that we inherited from your government. The piece of the Trans-Canada Highway, for example, out around Goobies is under SHIP, that is 50-50. That would reflect itself in here and other areas but the $30 million provincial program, Mr. Sweeney, has no federal input.

MR. SWEENEY: 3.2.05, again with Purchased Services, it is up over a million-and-a-half dollars.

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, that is more tendered contracts.

MR. SWEENEY: So, all the extra money, this is where it is being reflected to, either on the current side or the capital side in that $30 million pot?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MR. SWEENEY: The $500,000 Voted in Other Divisions, is that a transfer to other divisions or -

MR. RIDEOUT: That is those recharged salaries.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Give up. You do not want to know about it. She asked me did I get a breakdown of (inaudible). Give up, you do not want to know about it.

MR. RIDEOUT: I can give you a breakdown on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

MR. SWEENEY: Just getting recharged, that is all.

The Trans-Labrador Highway. Here we go. Let's get over to something that maybe Yvonne can get her teeth into. Transportation and Communications decreased by $615,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: Where are you now, George?

MR. SWEENEY: 3.2.08.03, Trans-Labrador Highway. Page 85 in my book here.

MR. RIDEOUT: Transportation and Communications, is that the one you are talking about?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, $615,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, I am not where you are. Yes, okay.

MR. SWEENEY: It was $1.615 million spent and now there is only $1 million budgeted. I was just wondering if that has had any affect on the division?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is up due to increased survey costs. That is why the Revised was up last year over Budget, and the $1 million this year reflects what we anticipate it to be.

MR. MERCER: The original Budget last year was based on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway proceeding. When it did not proceed, the decision of the department in government at the time was to move forward with some of the survey work. That is the reason why you have about $1 million increase there in Transportation and Communications, most of which was associated with helicopter time in getting crews in to get the line on the ground. You would normally do that in the context of when you are delivering the contract, when you have a contractor there, to get a jump, I guess, on the surveying work and pre-engineering work. That work was done last year in anticipation of Phase III getting the nod and the go ahead this year.

The $1 million in this year's 2004-2005 Estimate is based on what we estimate to be the Transportation and Communications costs associated with completing the little bit of work that is left on Phase II, as well as administering the new contracts for this fiscal year on Phase III. So, they will be less. You do not have to endure all that survey helicopter time all over again. That is already done and spent. That work is already performed.

MR. SWEENEY: Supplies have increased by $52,000. What was that -

MR. RIDEOUT: We actually budgeted, Mr. Sweeney, the same as we did last year, $250,000, but it was down last -

MR. SWEENEY: Historic numbers.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, there were project delays, as Cluney referred to earlier. The Revised amount was down slightly from the budgeted. Yes, you are right, we budgeted about the same amount again for this year.

MR. SWEENEY: Professional Services, .05, that is down from the historic number there. The Budget for last year was $300,000; it is down to $100,000; the actual spent last year was $580,000. So, there is a difference of $380,000. What work was done through these services?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Revised is up due to the costs associated with the EIS for Phase III. As you know, I guess, the ground has shifted now on the EIS situation because there has been an agreement that the government has accepted with all parties on the route, so it is not anticipated that you will have to go into a full-blown EIS situation this coming year. We budgeted $200,000 for that purpose and we are anticipating that will be sufficient.

There had to be additional work done on the EIS last year, I believe, which accounted for some of the additional costs as well. There were some additional studies that were demanded by certain departments and groups that had to be carried out. We are not anticipating that to be a problem this year.

MR. SWEENEY: Purchased Services, $21 million, what would that entail this year?

MR. RIDEOUT: That will be actual contract work, won't it?

OFFICIAL: Correct.

MR. SWEENEY: That will be the actual highway itself?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, roadwork, grading and clearing. Contract payments is what it will be on the three projects that we are hoping to get tendered shortly.

MS JONES: I am just going to pick up a couple of things under 3.2.08.

You have there Voted in Other Divisions, $1.5 million. What is that? Where does that come from, or where does it go?

MR. RIDEOUT: I think we may have answered this when you were absent, but Cluney can answer it again. It is not a long answer.

MR. MERCER: Ms Jones, that would be the cost of salaries for government employees to administer the contracts; for instance, survey crews that we would have on site to do layout for those contracts.

MS JONES: You would just bill it back to another division?

MR. MERCER: It is called Voted in Other Divisions; it is a recharge. The money exists within the program but it is in a pool of salaries, and as salaries are incurred against a project it is realigned or - recharged, I guess, is the accounting name - recharged against that particular program out of a large pot of salaries. It is a part of the overall program.

For instance, this year we have $24 million in the Trans-Labrador Highway program; $1.5 million of that is actually salaries used to administer contacts.

MS JONES: All of the expense connected with the Trans-Labrador Highway comes out of the Trans-Labrador highway fund?

MR. MERCER: That is correct.

MS JONES: Okay.

So, even if engineers who are salaried with the department work on this file, their time is billed back to that fund?

MR. MERCER: That is correct. If they work on that particular project, yes. The same thing as if they were working on a provincial project, out of the provincial roads program it would get recharged to that particular program; or, in the case of a federal-provincial cost-shared agreement, like under the strategic highway program, their salary would get charged to that program if, indeed, they are working on a project under that program for a period of time.

MR. RIDEOUT: That has historically, again, been the case forever.

MR. MERCER: That has been like that for decades, yes.

MS JONES: Revenue-Federal, what is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the CSIF, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. That is $11.4 million.

MS JONES: That is what you are hoping to get, right?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the stuff that is under agreement now, is it?

MR. MERCER: No, that is a part (inaudible) CSIF.

MS JONES: That is part of the $24 million, is it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay, but that is not signed off yet.

MS JONES: Yes, but that is what you are hoping for?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay, and the provincial share is the Trans-Labrador Highway initiative fund, and if you do not get what you have on the wish list for the feds, you will take the other $11.4 million out of that highway fund as well, the Trans-Labrador Highway fund?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the plan, yes.

MS JONES: The $21 million that you are going to spend this year, is the environmental assessment completed on that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, I think we might have just touched on -

MS JONES: No, I was here but you did not say if it was completed. You said you had an agreement on the route, but, has it passed the EIS phase?

MR. RIDEOUT: There will not be any major EIS requirements.

MS JONES: You still have to have clearance from environmental -

MR. RIDEOUT: I understand that, but that has not happened yet, right?

OFFICIAL: Correct.

MR. RIDEOUT: We haven't got that clearance yet.

MS JONES: When will that happen?

MR. RIDEOUT: We are expecting it might happen some time within the coming month or so; mid-June is the time frame I have heard.

MS JONES: Okay, around the middle of June.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the anticipation.

MS JONES: When do you anticipate to call tenders for that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, we will be ready to call tenders as soon as it clears the EIS process. Our documents and engineering work, and stuff like that, is all pretty well done.

MS JONES: So, you would not call tenders before the EIS was cleared?

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't think we would be allowed.

MS JONES: Will the tender call be in two separate calls, or just the one?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am anticipating it will be three. There will be a tender call for seventeen kilometres from Cartwright going towards Goose Bay, a tender call for seventeen kilometres from Goose Bay going towards Cartwright and the Churchill River Bridge. They will go around the one time, but they will be three separate projects in terms of administration.

MS JONES: What is the budget on the Churchill River Bridge? I cannot remember now.

MR. RIDEOUT: About $15 million for three years.

MS JONES: So that is the bulk of the $21 million?

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, yes. That is the bulk of it, yes. It is about a three-year project; over two to three years.

MR. SWEENEY: It is cheaper to build a tunnel.

MR. RIDEOUT: You said that, I didn't.

MS JONES: I would not dare say that.

I do not have any more questions on that section. George, do you want me to go back to Marine now or what?

MR. SWEENEY: I would like to go for a coffee.

MS JONES: I want to go back now to section 4.2.04.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, can we take just a short break so I can skip out for a second?

MS JONES: Yes.

CHAIR: Is everybody okay? We will take five to six minutes, that's it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Five minutes is plenty for me.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

CHAIR: Ms Jones, are you next?

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some questions under 4.2.04, Marine Operations.

MR. RIDEOUT: What page is that again now? Page 91, okay. 4.2.04, Ferry Terminals. Is that where we are?

MS JONES: Professional Services, the $20,000 that you budgeted this year, what is that for?

MR. RIDEOUT: The $20,000. Can somebody help me here? I do not see a note on it.

MR. MERCER: That would be a budget that we would pay to consultants to do work associated with any rehabilitation work we are doing with ferry terminals in Labrador, or if we have to have, say, the Coast Guard do a water lot survey for us so that we can get the depths of the water, as I think we are going to be doing in a couple of locations. That is a budget that would help to pay for those services, and that is associated with the budget that is there for ferry terminal repairs in Labrador.

MS JONES: What ferry terminal repair work are you doing in Labrador? I am assuming this is for the consultant, not for the work, right, what you are saying here?

MR. MERCER: The $20,000 would be associated with having work done by a consultant, or in the case of the Coast Guard, getting the water lot survey done. They typically cost $4,000 or $5,000 apiece. In some areas we may have to do some dredging. So, we are looking at those things right now.

MR. RIDEOUT: There is $900,000 associated with ferry terminal improvements in Labrador, right?

MR. MERCER: That is correct.

MS JONES: Where is that budgeted to then?

MR. RIDEOUT: Is it in Purchased Services or is it in Capital? Where is it budgeted, Denise?

MS HANRAHAN: The actual work is under Capital, 4.2.05. The Current account stuff is in 4.2.04, and you will see it primarily under Purchased Services, .06.

MS JONES: Okay. Now that budget is down by $1.3 million this year, right?

MR. RIDEOUT: Which budget is that?

MS JONES: She has gone down to 4.2.05, Ferry Terminals. She just told me that the money for Labrador is coming out of Purchased Services, under 4.2.05.

MS HANRAHAN: No (inaudible) the $1.1 million.

MS JONES: Okay, it is coming out of 4.2.04. You have me completely confused.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I tell you, this capital breakdown of Current and Capital accounts under this business that you guys started off last year in this accrual accounting got me totally confused, too.

MS JONES: Well, you can blame the Minister of Finance today for that accrual accounting.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, you fellows started it last year.

MS JONES: Yes, only because we got tired of listening to him ask for it.

MR. RIDEOUT: People who have an accounting background may have more luck with it, but I find, when I did Estimates before, you had your current account, your capital account, and you could keep the two separate. Now it is parts of each charged off in different areas.

Denise, can you take us back through this and point us to the right areas where the amounts are?

MS JONES: Well, we will start over. The $20,000 under Professional Services, I was told, was for a consultant to look at some work that was going to be done in Labrador on docks, and some water lot surveys somewhere. I don't know where the water lot surveys are.

MR. MERCER: Yes, that is correct. They would be done on wharves in Labrador. For instance, we are in the process of having a water lot survey done at Rigolet, to see if there has been any infilling there over a number of years, just to ensure that we have adequate draft for the boats, the Northern Ranger and the Trans Gulf when they go into that port. That is what those fees, in part, would pay for, or if we have to engage a consultant to do some particular design work that we do not have any in-house expertise for, but it would be specifically for those ferry terminals in Labrador.

MS JONES: The $1.1 million, what is that for under Purchased Services?

MR. MERCER: The $1.1 million is contract payments, so any contract work that we do up there would come out of that subhead. For instance, we have a carryover project. Last year we started a wharf in Postville and it was phased over two years. We did a part of the wharf last year, and I think we have about $350,000 or so that we have to spend this year to finish that wharf.

MS JONES: What was the total cost of that wharf?

MR. MERCER: I believe it was a little over $700,000. As well, once we have the water lot survey done in Rigolet, we will make a determination of whether we need to do some dredging there for the long term. We are also looking at some minor repairs on other wharves. I think there is some minor work that needs to be done with the Cartwright wharf. There is some investigation ongoing with respect to the water depths at Black Tickle as well. There had been some dredging done there in the past, but there has not been a water lot survey done since the dredging was completed so we are going to be looking at that. As well, there is some work, I think, at Port Hope Simpson, at the wharf there, that needs to be done - not major work, but $50,000, $60,000, up to $100,000 in each of these locations - generally, rehabilitation work that is ongoing that you would do year over year.

MS JONES: So, the $1.1 million would include the dredging work for Rigolet but you are not sure if you are going to need it yet.

MR. MERCER: If we have to do any, yes.

MS JONES: The Grants and Subsidies are cut out under 4.2.04., but what would they have been for? There was $150,000 last year under Grants and Subsidies. What was that for?

MR. RIDEOUT: The grant that you are talking about was the one-time grant that your government paid to the Town of Lewisporte - actually, to the Lewisporte Area Chamber of Commerce, I think it got funnelled eventually - to do work on the terminal and other marine buildings that the department owned in Lewisporte. That grant was provided last year as a one-time grant to Lewisporte.

MS JONES: That work on the terminals, are those terminals owned by the town or by the Province?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, by the department.

MS JONES: By the department?

MR. RIDEOUT: The town does not own any of the marine facilities in Lewisporte; they are owned by the department.

MS JONES: So that $150,000 was all paid out last year.

MR. RIDEOUT: It was all paid out last year but was not spent last year. My understanding is that $40,000 of it was spent last year and $110,000 of it remains to be spent.

MS JONES: Do you know what renovations they are doing there with that money?

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year they did some electrical and waterline work at the storage facility there, I believe, and they may have done some other things. This year they are doing some painting and office realignment in the terminal building itself. Again, that is being carried out, not by the department but by the Chamber, as far as I know.

MS JONES: The office realignment they are doing, will that be used by the department?

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of it will. It will all be used by the department in one sense, I guess. I have my constituency person located in Lewisporte, and it is the responsibility of the department to provide the office space of some sort for that person to work out of, and I have not asked the department to find any space for her; however, there is plenty of space in the terminal building that is not being utilized, so I see no reason why she could not be assigned some space in that building.

We are also planning to relocate the marine manager - not relocate. The marine manager actually lives in Lewisporte but works in Grand Falls and that has been the case for x number of years now, but we would like to have a place for him to work out of Lewisporte to make sure that the shipping and the other activity that is going to take place there this summer runs smoothly with somebody overseeing what the contractor is doing and so on. That did not happen last year and there were complaints, I think, when freight got to Labrador that perhaps had not been packaged properly or re-packaged properly or palletized properly or whatever.

So, part of what we are going to try to do this year to improve the service is we are going to have a person in Lewisporte - not a new person, just have a person who worked with the department in a managers capacity but was stationed in Grand Falls, stationed in Lewisporte. Plus, Mr. Pardy in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is going to be moved into Cartwright for the same purposes on a full-time basis this coming season. So, that is the general thinking in an attempt to improve the operations.

MS JONES: So he will be in Cartwright full time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, he will; a full time responsibility for managing the terminal and the port activity.

MS JONES: The marine manager who will be moving to Lewisporte from Grand Falls, was that always their title, marine manager -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I think was the title, wasn't it?

MS JONES: - or did they hold another title?

MR. RIDEOUT: No.

MR. MERCER: Yes, his title is Manager of Marine Services. He is involved with the Fogo-Change Islands and the Green Bay service as well, and the marine division. He will be, on a part-time basis, assisting with our eyes and ears in Lewisporte to ensure that our contractors that we have engaged are delivering the service that they were contracted to.

MS JONES: Under the Capital budget, Transportation and Communications has increased. It is now set at $60,000 this year. Can you tell me what that will provide for?

MR. MERCER: That is an estimate of the Transportation and Communications part of a $1 million Capital budget. Capital, again, versus Current account would be replacing capital assets, capital infrastructure as opposed to repair. So, this would be a significant undertaking to restore or replace existing infrastructure. It is an estimate of the Transportation and Communications cost associated with that million dollar budget item.

MS JONES: The million dollars in 4.2.04? What million dollars?

MR. MERCER: If you look at 4.2.05, the totals of .03, .04, .05, .06 and the recharge Voted in Other Divisions - which is the salary component - adds up to $1 million. There is programming for $1 million worth of Capital Ferry Terminal work.

MS JONES: Okay.

The Supplies under that section, what would that be?

MR. MERCER: Supplies for ferry terminals; that would be anything we have to do - anything that we purchase ourselves outside of a contract for those wharves, or supplies that we would purchase for the people, our own staff, who administer those contracts.

MS JONES: Are you budgeting for anything in particular there?

MR. MERCER: No, that is basically a percentage. Typically, supplies would cost a percentage of the total program. So, it is an estimate of what our supplies may cost. They may very well, at the end of the day, be $15,000, $20,000 or $35,000, depending on what is required under - and which particular projects we end up actually doing. We have not decided, at this point in time, exactly where the million dollars will be spent.

MS JONES: Purchased Services is down by $1.3 million this year. Why has it declined so much?

MR. MERCER: Why has it declined so much?

MS JONES: You budgeted $645,000, which is quite a different figure than last year.

MR. MERCER: Yes. Last year there were some capital upgrades that were being done to the Bell Island service that got completed last year.

MR. RIDEOUT: So, they are finished and off the books?

MR. MERCER: Yes. As well, there was some significant work in Labrador that was considered to be Capital work. That was projects at Black Tickle, the project I mentioned at Postville, which is not quite finished yet, and some work at Cartwright. There was about $350,000, I think, spent at Cartwright in developing the port facility, some minor repairs to the wharf and some rock filling to create a lay down area for freight containers and that sort of thing. That is where -

MS JONES: The money that was spent last year in Cartwright, Postville and Black Tickle, did any of that money come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund?

MR. MERCER: Yes, it did. If you look at Revenue-Provincial, under 02., you would see $1.79 million and that would have come out of the LTIF.

MS JONES: What are you going to purchase with the $645,000 this year? What work are you doing?

MR. MERCER: We have not made a determination yet. There were several projects that were put forward last year. They all, of course, total a lot more money than we have in-budget so we have to make a decision as to which ones will actually get done this year and we have not done that yet.

MS JONES: Earlier, the minister made a comment about $900,000 worth of work being done in Labrador this year. Where is that budgeted?

MR. RIDEOUT: Under 4.2.04.; it is a block of funding that we have put aside to carry out improvements to our facilities in Labrador.

MS JONES: That would have been Postville, Rigolet, Black Tickle, all of those.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: And the Revenue-Provincial that you are claiming back, the $750,000, that is coming out of the Labrador Fund. The $645,000 that you have budgeted this year for ferry terminals, you have not decided where you are going to spend it yet. Is there any work being done at the ferry terminal in Lewisporte that is paid for by the Province?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not this year. The work that was done at the terminal last year was done out of that $150,000 grant that I referred to earlier.

MR. MERCER: Just for clarification, I guess, there was a contract that was actually let last year to install some ladders on the wharf in Lewisporte. I think that was awarded in the spring, and, because of some occupational health and safety issues with the contractor, that work has not yet been completed. We still have an active contract there and we are pursuing the contractor now to get on with getting the work done that was actually tendered and awarded, I believe, around June of last year.

MR. RIDEOUT: That would be a carry-over if, in fact, it is anything.

MR. MERCER: That is a carry-over and it is worth about $40,000, I believe, and that would come out of provincial funding.

MS JONES: When I looked at the study that was completed by Memorial University with regard to the Labrador Marine Services, they did a complete estimation of cost of running the Sir Robert Bond to Lewisporte as opposed to operating between Cartwright and Goose Bay. They also looked at what the cost would be to run the North Coast freight boat, the Trans Gulf, out of Lewisporte as opposed to out of Cartwright. The figures that they showed in their report, and the figures that I have studied and certainly been quoting, show a cost to the government of $1.7 million to run the Sir Robert Bond out of Lewisporte. Yet, I know you already said that the service may not be budgeted for in these Estimates because the announcement was made after, and that is why you could not explain fuel costs and some other costs, but the number that you did quote when you made the announcement was a number of $600,000. How does the university come up with $1.7 million and the department come up with $600,000? That is a huge difference.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, if you followed everything that was written on this, I think you would find the answer. The consultant, reacting to a story that was carried in The Telegram about the price of $1.7 million, actually, a day or two later, corrected that figure; because the $1.7 million, as I understand it, was based on option two of the consultant's report, which was a four-day turnaround for the Sir Robert Bond in Lewisporte, running out of Lewisporte, if you took option two of the consultant's report.

The government decided to adopt a modified version of option two, which saw the Sir Robert Bond going into Lewisporte once a week on a seven-day turnaround and then doing the other trips as it did last year. So, if you take the difference between option two, which the consultant said was $1.7 million, and take the modified version of option two, we believe that the additional costs are about $600,000. The consultant, by the way - I forget his name now - speaking on behalf of the consultant, confirmed that figure to the press when he was asked to do it, so we feel very confident about that number. We do not dispute the $1.7 million number if you were to operate the full functional option two that the consultant talked about, but we are not doing that. We are operating a modified version of that and that is where we get the difference in the cost associated with what we are actually doing and what the consultant said it would cost if we did what the consultant proposed. That is the explanation there.

MS JONES: I have not received any full explanation on costs from you, minister, or your department with regard to the Sir Robert Bond going to Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: You have received it, whether you accept it or not is another matter. I just gave it to you again.

MS JONES: No, I fail to actually see it, and I have looked at the Estimates. I just went through the two sections that would pertain to that and I cannot understand how you are going to run a service when you have not even budgeted for it, according to these Estimates. So, they are, obviously, going to have to change. I am looking at a report from the university that three professors took and studied. They crunched every single number under every single option and they show, quite clearly, that the cost will be $1.7 million more.

MR. RIDEOUT: With respect, they did not. They showed, if you accept the option two, the cost will be $1.7 million more. Government accepted a modified version of option two which we suggest, and which one of the professors who spoke for the consultants agreed with, will be approximately $600,000 in the difference. Now, that is out there in the public domain. I keep forgetting the gentleman's name.

OFFICIAL: Vardy.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Vardy indicated that yes, if you take the version that we took, the modified version, then he thinks that number is correct. We think it is correct, but if you take option two as proposed by the consultant, then we are not arguing with the consultant's figure for that but we are not doing it. So, that is the difference in the explanation. Now, whether we are right or whether we are wrong, I guess only time will tell but that is how we -

MS JONES: Well, the year end will definitely tell.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, exactly. That is right. That is what I am indicating.

MR. SWEENEY: Unless you recharge it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I don't understand that part of it.

MS JONES: To other areas.

The cost of the staff at Lewisporte to maintain the terminal and to maintain the port operations, what is the full cost of maintaining Lewisporte as a port, staffing, terminal facilities, all other costs that would be included?

MR. RIDEOUT: I think the cost last year to go back into Lewisporte was about $750,000, wasn't it?

OFFICIAL: Six-sixty.

MR. RIDEOUT: Six-sixty. A lot of this is associated with the contractor of course, and his costs and so on. During the winter, other than a bit of heat and light, there was no cost. There is no staff on there during the winter, that I am aware of. The costs will be during the operation during the season. I understand that was six hundred-and-some-odd thousand dollars last year.

MS JONES: Last year there was no passenger service operated there, there was only freight.

MR. RIDEOUT: The only difference, in terms of the passenger service, will be twenty-something thousand dollars, I believe, for a clerk or something - isn't it? - to sell tickets.

MS JONES: Well, last year there was one boat leaving Lewisporte every ten or fourteen days.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. Well, you will have one boat leaving every seven days this year carrying freight and passengers. The freight went out of there last year, so the same number of people who did the freight last year, the stevedoring effort and so on, will be no different - from anything that I have seen - from this year to what it was last year. The only additional cost to the system for the Lewisporte operation - now, I am not suggesting fuel or anything of that nature, but for the Lewisporte on-land operation, will be the cost of selling tickets. I believe that is somewhere in the $20,000 range.

MS JONES: The money to operate Lewisporte, does that come out of the Labrador Fund?

MR. RIDEOUT: The money to operate the Labrador ferry service comes out of the LTIF as long as the LTIF exists, as it has since it has been in existence.

MS JONES: To operate the terminal and pay the salaries of the workers there, the $660,000, does that come out of the Labrador Fund?

MR. RIDEOUT: Does that come out of the Labrador Fund?

Well, the whole ferry operation comes out for all of Labrador. Freight and ferry service, twenty-something million dollars, whatever it is, net of revenue comes out of the LTIF. So, whatever the global cost for the freight and ferry service in Labrador comes out. Billed back, I guess, is the right word.

MS JONES: Minister, are you concerned that by running the Sir Robert Bond into Lewisporte this year you will actually have less capacity for people to travel and that you are going to see a backlog on that service?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am concerned of anything that will cause a lesser service, but the Bond operated that service previously, albeit a larger number of trips, but we seem to think that we will have the capacity to do the freight and the passenger run once a week into Lewisporte without impeding the service that we are providing anywhere else.

MS JONES: Well, I am sure you have the numbers of people who are using the service and have used it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Last year, yes.

MS JONES: You will know that there has been quite an increase in the number of people travelling on that service, both out of Goose Bay and out of Cartwright. I think it increased by 4,000 people last year, or maybe more than 4,000. I don't remember the exact number, but my understanding is that, as of today, you cannot get a reservation on the Sir Robert Bond coming out of Goose Bay until August.

MR. RIDEOUT: To Lewisporte.

MS JONES: No, coming out of Goose Bay.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, to Lewisporte I am told.

MS JONES: Well, coming out of Goose Bay right now you cannot get a reservation until August, a confirmed reservation, whether you are going to Cartwright or Lewisporte was my understanding.

MR. RIDEOUT: That was not my understanding, so I will have to beg to differ on that. I will check into it, but that is not my understanding. I am told it is the connection to Lewisporte.

MS JONES: Well, it might be just Lewisporte. I had a call today and I was informed that was the case, that you could not get a reservation out of Goose Bay until August, and because of your decision to put the boat in Lewisporte you are going to run twenty-five less trips out of Goose Bay this year. I think it is going to have a significant impact upon the travelling public. I do not think it is going to allow any growth on that service, because we just cannot sit and expect that we are going to carry the same numbers in 2004 as what we carried in 2001 and 2002.

Activity is increasing in Labrador. We saw the increases on the Labrador Straits. When the Apollo went in service we went from carrying 33,000 people to, six years later, carrying 110,000 people. There is an opportunity for growth, and I feel that you have stagnated that opportunity for growth in Labrador. I feel that reducing the number of trips out of Goose Bay will have a significant impact on the people who are travelling, and I also feel that by running the boat into Lewisporte you are going to have a significant negative impact on the tourism industry in my district and on the Northern Peninsula.

I just attended the Viking Trail Tourism annual meeting in Rocky Harbour, and we had people in my district at the tourism show in Montreal two weeks ago. We had people attend the bus tour show in New York in the spring. We were promoting a product that would allow the bus tour operators and the coach tour operators to come into Newfoundland, take the West Coast Northern Peninsula drive into Southern Labrador, out through Cartwright, and out through Western Labrador. Basically, your decision has just put the ‘coliwash' on a whole marketing plan that we have had in place, and it is going to have significant impacts on the region.

I hoped that you would reconsider your decision on the basis of the downturn in economic activity that will occur in that part of the Province, based on the fact that you will have lineups of people who will not be able to get reservations and will not be able to travel, and simply based on the fact that this is costing more money to the people of Labrador in a fund of which you are the custodian. I think it is absolutely wrong and I ask that you reconsider your decision again in light of all those factors.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is allowed to feel and express her opinions as she sees fit. I obviously do not share them, and I think a lot of her doomsday scenario is not going to come to pass.

MS JONES: I hope you are right.

MR. RIDEOUT: I do hope I am right, and I believe that to be the case. There is nothing that we have done that is going to stop or retard or slow down any of the tourism traffic that she is talking about coming and going up the Northern Peninsula and across to Labrador. We do not anticipate it is going to happen. I pointed out to her on several occasions where her numbers are absolutely wrong with people who did the work for us, agreeing that they were wrong. I cannot change the hon. member's opinion. I can only provide the facts and if she does not want to accept them, then that is all we can do is agree to disagree.

But, no, I will say to her upfront, the service is going to operate as we announced some weeks ago now, and there are people who are looking forward to that. I think, from what I have seen and from advice that I have taken, that at the end of the day - sure, there is going to be growth over (inaudible) and we are going to continue to expect growth. I think that what we have done here this year is going to, in no way, retard or impede the tourism growth and the business growth in Southern Labrador. I do not expect to convince some people of that. Maybe they will be convinced after the operational season is over, I do not know, but that is how we see it.

MS JONES: Just one other question on this and then I have a couple of questions on the Apollo, then I will clue up the Marine service part of it.

I have consulted a number of groups in Labrador, on the Northern Peninsula and on the West Coast of the Island, with regard to your decision to relocate the Labrador ferry to Lewisporte, and I have received, from all of them, support for a Labrador-based operation. I think altogether it is something like twenty-three or twenty-four groups that includes everything from Chambers of Commerce, zonal boards, towns or joint councils and Combined Councils, right from Labrador City to Corner Brook. I guess, minister, I would have to ask you, how many groups have you consulted with, personally, before you took the decision that you did to base the service in Lewisporte?

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, when I became the minister I asked to see reports that were done for the previous government on how this service should be configured and the reports that were available, that were done for the previous government, suggested that the service should have stayed in Lewisporte until the road connection was completed to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That report was suppressed. It was never made public. Nobody knew about it. I knew nothing about it until I asked for it, having become the minister of the department. The people who did that report consulted with stakeholders. That is what the report says anyway. The people who did the report, that we had the audacity to go out and get done and then accept some of it and not accept all of it, but make it public so that we would have to defend it; it would have to be transparent.

A lot of people in that report, Mr. Chairman, if you read through the detail of it, supported an operation that would have an Island connection as well as Labrador. This wording of taking it away from a Labrador based operation to a Lewisporte based operation is fairytale. The ship is going into Lewisporte one day a week. The rest of the trips are operating on ports between Labrador. I mean, you can take anything, I suppose, and massage it into something you want to make it but, as I said to the hon. member before, I cannot change her opinion but neither am I swayed by it.

MS JONES: I will not comment on the report because I was not in government at the time the report was done. I am aware of it now but I certainly was not aware of it at that time.

MR. RIDEOUT: You were never aware of it when you were Parliamentary Secretary over there?

MS JONES: I said I was not in government at the time the report was done.

MR. RIDEOUT: You were over there when the decision was made, though.

MS JONES: When the decision was made to move the Bond to Cartwright I was there and I certainly had input into that decision. Actually, when government decided to build the highway in Labrador in 1997, it was made known to the people in my district at that time and, I am assuming, to everyone else in the Province, that when the highway was completed that marine services would be relocated from Lewisporte to Cartwright. That was always the assumption, that was always the understanding, and that was indeed what happened until your decision, Minister, to reverse that.

I have a couple of questions with regard to the scheduling of the Apollo. As it is right now, the Apollo is scheduled to dock in St. Barbe every night for the rest of the summer, it is my understanding. I just heard a statement that you made in the media saying that was something that was decided upon by the previous minister or the previous administration. Was there any kind of a contract, a letter of agreement? What was in place, because I fail to be able to understand what the context of any agreement was or when it was established?

MR. RIDEOUT: What it was is when Transport Canada sought to call tenders for the work in Blanc Sablon Transport Canada came to the Province and informed the Province that they wished to include in the tender documents the fact that the vessel would overnight somewhere else rather than Blanc Sablon during the course of the reconstruction of the dock. Those contract documents, with that caveat in them, were provided to the various contractors who wanted the job. That contract was a federal contract but it was awarded long before we became the government of this Province. There was agreement, my officials tell me, between the government of the day and Transport Canada that they could put that condition, that caveat, in the tender documents.

MS JONES: Well, I certainly was not aware of that condition. I was aware, however, that there was agreement last fall that there would be some rescheduling of the boat to accommodate the contractor, and I was also under the understanding that there would be some rescheduling this year. I was never under the understanding that the boat would be docked in St. Barbe every night until the end of the contract.

I have to ask again: Was there any correspondence from the department to the federal government or the Department of Transport in Quebec to that degree?

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't know about the correspondence. I don't know if it was verbal - I have no idea - but the explanation I was given when I asked those questions is as I have related to the hon. member.

Having said that, the Apollo is going to be in Blanc Sablon to begin her run every morning, the same as if she overnighted there. That is the way the schedule is set up and, in that context, I do not know why it matters where the vessel happened to overnight. People do not stay on the vessel. They are not allowed to berth on her, or anything of that nature. I cannot see how it can be argued that it is a negative in terms of business. It is going to go over and start the run from over there at 6:20 a.m., or whenever it is in the morning, the same as always.

MS JONES: Minister, I guess you are in the transport business and not in the tourism business, to make the statements that you just made, because it does have a serious impact -

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't profess to be a professional, that is for sure.

MS JONES: It has a serious impact upon the tourism industry in my district. If you go back through the stats, you will see a growth in tourism in this region anywhere from 24 per cent to 28 per cent every year, consistently, for the last four or five years.

MR. RIDEOUT: Why do you attribute that to the boat being parked in Blanc Sablon overnight?

MS JONES: It is attributed to the fact that the service has been convenient to bus tour operators.

MR. RIDEOUT: Educate me; I am silly.

MS JONES: As of today - and, if you want, I can have the hoteliers call you - one bus tour company just informed one hotelier in my district that they will cancel twelve bus tours immediately because the boat is not overnighting on Saturday.

MR. RIDEOUT: Why? What is the reason for it?

MS JONES: Because they do not want -

MR. RIDEOUT: What does it matter whether the boat is in Corner Brook or the dark side of the moon, as long as she is there at her scheduled time in the morning? That is what I cannot understand.

MS JONES: The schedule is not accommodating.

I am not debating it with you. I am providing you with the information. If you do not like the information, that is fine.

MR. RIDEOUT: I want you to help me understand it. I cannot understand it.

MS JONES: Any person who does not understand that transportation impacts upon economic development in this Province, I am at a loss to sit here and talk to you about it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, but that is a silly statement; I didn't make that statement. The question I have for you, for the hon. member, is: How is it that bus tour operators would cancel twelve tours up into Southern Labrador because the boat is overnighting on this side of The Straits when she is going to be over there at the same time she would be every morning as if she were overnighting there? What is the reason?

MS JONES: The reason is because the scheduling is not conducive to how they book their tours. They book their tours based on a different schedule configuration. Now what they have to do is catch the ferry in the evening, which means they will shorten their tour into Labrador by several hours as opposed to staying overnight. This is where the impacts are happening with the tour operators. They are the ones who are calling me and giving me the information. I will have them call you.

In my district, every piece of economic development and tourism development is based around transportation systems and marine services. I am actually appalled to hear you, Minister, say that you do not know how this impacts upon the industry or on economic development, because it has all the impact in the world.

We have asked clearly that we be given at least one overnight, which would be Saturday night. The contractors are accommodating the Quebec Nordique, which is the Quebec ferry which comes down the Quebec Shore. They do not have anything in their contract, or nothing in writing, that stops them from allowing the Quebec ferry to dock at this wharf and overnight. Apparently they are saying there was an agreement that stops our boats, but there is no written agreement. I have checked and I cannot find it. You guys are telling me there is no written agreement -

MR. RIDEOUT: No, we are not telling you that. I said I am not aware of one. There may be one; I don't know. The contract documents should be there, though.

MS JONES: I will ask the deputy: Are you aware of any written agreement that exists?

MR. RIDEOUT: You will answer it through me, okay?

OFFICIAL: I am not aware of one.

MR. RIDEOUT: He is not aware of one.

MS JONES: Okay.

We are asking that the ferry be overnighting in Blanc Sablon, at least on Saturday nights, because that is the one time that we are feeling the most impact on the bus tours is going to be. They are allowing the Quebec ferry to overnight, so I don't know why they wouldn't allow us to overnight.

MR. RIDEOUT: We are working on that possibility. There is a name to a piece of -

OFFICIAL: Dolphin.

MR. RIDEOUT: Dolphin - that we have talked to the contractors about, and we have had discussions with them on that. If we can arrange it.... Look, I wish we could arrange for her to be there every night, but, according to the contract that is in place with Transport Canada, that is not part of the game.

I am not doing this to cause misery or heartache or political chicanery to anybody. I am doing it because I am told that was the arrangement, and the contract documents provided for that arrangement. Now, I did not invent that, I say to the hon. member. It is either out there or it is not, but if we can get our way around it in some way, and we are having discussions with the contractor to try to minimize that - and Saturday night is a good example; I think we have already modified the schedule to suit some suggestions made by users and business people in the area - anything we can do in that context, we will do, but if it is something that the contractor.... It is not our facility. It is the Government of Canada. It is a Quebec contractor. If there is anything we can do to mitigate it then we will, but if there is something that they come back and say to us, look, we have an understanding with you guys and this is the way it has to be until we get finished here, well, you know, we have some problems.

MS JONES: When is the dock work going to be complete in Blanc Sablon?

MR. RIDEOUT: The last date we heard was October 16.

MS JONES: I understand that you guys have approached the contractor to try and get the ferry to dock in The Straits overnight, they would not agree to it, and now you have gone back and asked them to do it on Saturday nights?

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not they would not agree to it. They were working on some technical arrangements to see whether or not it would be possible to make it happen. That was the installation of a dolphin, I think the technical term of it is. I do not profess to understand what it is supposed to do, but I know I have seen some briefings where that has been discussed and we are continuing to follow that up with them, yes.

CHAIR: Just a note of clarification, I guess, on the timing here. We have gone past the scheduled three hours. Do you want to continue on for a while now or do you want to set another date? Do you have any idea of how much more time you will require?

MR. SWEENEY: I have a few more questions that I would like to ask.

MS JONES: I have just a few more. I don't know how long it will take. It depends on the answers.

MR. RIDEOUT: That depends on the questions.

CHAIR: The preamble, I think, is the - okay, we will go on for another while and see how we are doing. If we need to, we will have to set another date.

MS JONES: I am just going to finish there on the Marine Services and I will turn it over to George.

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: You go ahead.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, just some general questions that I have been thinking over while I have been listening to the dialogue back and forth.

Land acquisition: say, for instance, the department purchased some land from an individual for a new highway. What happens when the highway is finished and the land is not used, is not needed? Who gets the first opportunity to get that land?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, it depends. I have seen situations where if it was expropriated, for example, from a family and the family were still around and were interested in having the property back, I have seen instances where government has agreed to let it go back to the family for the amount that the government paid for it. If the original property owners are not available or their estates are not known and we determine that the land has become surplus, we can do a number of things. We could deed it off to a town if it were in a town and the town could dispose of it for land development, commercial or whatever, or we could call for proposals to dispose of it ourselves. That is, I think, the parameters - where is Mr. Moores? Weldon? That is generally how we operate?

MR. MOORES: Yes, that is true. The other issue is if the land was expropriated and used for a road, as opposed to expropriated and not required, then generally it would not go back necessarily to the people who owned it before because it cannot be returned in an unaltered state. If it was used it is less likely to be offered back to the people from whom it was purchased.

MR. SWEENEY: Less likely, but not unlikely?

MR. MOORES: It could happen. Any of the options are available.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

Minister, the increase in ferry rates, where is that money going to go? Is that going to go back into general revenue or is it going to be used to improve the marine ferry services?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, you will see it offset in revenue related in each of the items in the ferry service headings. I think before the rate increase our ferries were operating at about a 95 per cent subsidization rate. After the full rate is implemented, and that is three years down the road - yes, another three years down the road - it will be operating at a 92 per cent subsidized rate. Even with the increases, there is still a significant -

MR. SWEENEY: Increase in operation.

MR. RIDEOUT: - cost between the actual cost of the operation and the revenue generated.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, there is no funding to go into improving the services. In other words, 3 per cent of any -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it was a revenue measure at this point in time. We have a fleet replacement requirement which is very problematic and very challenging. The previous government called for Request for Proposals to begin that process back in, I guess it was August or so of last year, and the - was it one proposal or two?

OFFICIAL: Two.

MR. RIDEOUT: The two proposals that came in did not meet the criteria as laid down. So, now we are working our way back through that process and seeking approval from government to begin that process again. Hopefully, we will get some - at some point we have to start a fleet replacement program and I mean many of our vessels are getting up there.

MR. SWEENEY: With the closing of the depots in various parts of the Province, what would be the cost or the savings involved with those closures?

MR. RIDEOUT: We are not actually closing depots. There is going to be no change this year but starting next year we are going to increase the number of depots that are seasonal. We always had thirteen seasonal depots?

OFFICIAL: Nineteen.

MR. RIDEOUT: Nineteen, and we are going to add another thirteen. So, seasonal depots have always been part of our operations.

There is basically no savings except in the kind of heat and light portion. The number of crews and employees that we would have to redeploy in the summertime to do summer maintenance, by and large, there would not be any impact there at the moment.

It is more of a management tool to utilize the people that we have and to be able to draw up a summer schedule for maintenance and say: For the next two weeks this crew is going to be down in Victoria, and for the two weeks after that it is going to be somewhere else. It does not really matter where they live or where the depot was that they used to be. It is the management of the resource is what we are trying to get at, to the best advantage of (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: There are a couple of issues surrounding that, and you just touched on one of them. It was: What impact will that have on road maintenance? Obviously, if a crew was scheduled to be somewhere, once it moves out of an area, whether the work is finished or not, I guess they won't be back for that summer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, if you look at the present set of circumstances that we operate our summer maintenance under, you will find this scenario. Up until now, there has been plenty of money for salaries and no money for materials. Treasury Board has allowed us, in the reconfiguration that I announced, and all ministers announced, in the House over the last several days, to keep the savings from that reconfiguration of our human resources and put it into materials. We will actually end up with $1 million more this year in materials that we did last year as a result of salary savings. We are going to continue to try to do that for the simple reason that in some cases we have plenty of operators and not enough laborers, or in some units plenty of laborers and not enough operators. The whole system has been allowed to, kind of, evolve out of whack over the last several years. What we are trying to do is to put it back into a more manageable situation and keep the dollars that we are going to save as a result of the labor side of it and put it into maintenance, so that we will have a better balance between our human resources component and the money we actually have to spend on maintenance.

The hope, I say to the hon. member, at the end of the day, is that we are hoping to utilize those dollars that were, I don't suppose wasted is a better word - if you are paying out a salary it is never wasted, somebody is getting a benefit from it - but to have a better balance between your salary component and you maintenance component and thereby be able to do a better job at summer maintenance on a lot of the roads throughout the Province. That is the idea. Now, whether the idea will become the reality as this continues on, I say to my friend, I really do not know.

MR. SWEENEY: The other part of it, where I was heading, is that some of the councils depending on those depots for their salt and sand supplies.

MR. RIDEOUT: They are all going to be open in the winter.

MR. SWEENEY: So that won't interfere with the councils being involved with extra costs?

MR. RIDEOUT: No.

MR. SWEENEY: I think maybe that was missed in the communication that went out.

MR. RIDEOUT: It could be, yes.

MR. SWEENEY: - because some of the councils in my area have called me and (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The only problem there may be for some of the larger towns, I say to the hon. member, is all this toxicity business now with salt and so on. There are national standards being imposed, as the member may know. I believe any user group that uses 500 tons or more, I think there is a protocol that is out there that is coming into play which says that we cannot store it for them any more. So some of the larger towns where that used to happen are going to have to change, but the smaller communities that took advantage of those winter facilities, those facilities will still be open in the wintertime.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

Another issue I have, I guess, coming from the Budget, with the closure of the HR&E offices, or LE - I am not sure what the proper term is; HRE offices, I guess, they were originally - what is the anticipated savings in repairs and maintenance for those buildings?

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of them, or mostly all of them, would have been leased, I guess, would they?

MR. MOORES: Most of the buildings were leased, in which case the lease is not paid by Transportation and Works; it is paid by HREL. I believe two or three of the buildings are government-owned buildings, in which case - one is in Fogo, I believe - the building still remains. The cost of repairing the building, even through one or two -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the courthouse, isn't it?

MR. MOORES: Yes, the public building it is called, and the court is in the same building.

The fact that one or two people move out of a building does not really change the cost of operating the building, because you still have the maintenance on the building; you still have the heat on the building. You may save an incremental cost of turning down the heat in one particular office but you cannot materially change the heat that is required in the overall building.

MR. SWEENEY: That almost answers my next question, because that is where I was leading. How many of those buildings were the government's, and are they going to be disposed of?

MR. RIDEOUT: I can tell you that the one in Fogo is not, because your colleague asked this question in our last session. The courthouse has to actually be maintained there. That is the only one that I am aware of. Is there another one that is government-owned?

MR. MOORES: I think there are two there that are government-owned, but in both cases there are other government offices in there, and the fact that one or two people move out of the building doesn't cause a closure of the building.

MR. SWEENEY: They were not stand-alone operations then?

MR. MOORES: No.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: Any that may have been leased, that would be up to the client department to determine what happens to that lease space.

MR. SWEENEY: The maintenance plan for government-owned airstrips, is that being affected by this budget? I couldn't find it here in any of the numbers but I don't think it was (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I have seen nothing. The Labrador airstrip program, there is capital improvement in there for a number of those and then, I guess, the federal government pays us the cost of the maintenance after it is effective. On the Island, I am not aware that there has been any reduction.

MR. SWEENEY: The other thing that sort of has become a pet peeve of mine is the weight scales in Port aux Basques and Foxtrap. I have always been critical, actually, of the services and how thorough they were with some of the weights on the trucks, because I have said a number of times: the railway may be gone but all they have done is moved the tracks from the rail beds to the highways. Because, if you are out on the highway right now, with the tractor trailers, the ruts they have created in the highway, for those of us who commute on a fairly regular basis, it is dangerous.

I am concerned about the scales being closed and the impact it is going to have upon the road maintenance and the repairs to the Trans-Canada, because even with the scales at Port aux Basques and Pynn's Brook and Foxtrap and other areas, there is no problem to see overloaded trucks pulled off and being offloaded by local contractors. Now, with Port aux Basques in particular, by the time you get to Pynn's Brook for your first weigh you are almost one-third the way across the Island. A lot of damage is going to be done between Port aux Basques and the Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Northern Peninsula section before you get to Pynn's Brook.

The same thing here with Foxtrap. If you are travelling west from St. John's and the conditions are snowy or foggy or rainy, you do not get to stop at Goobies. The light is flashing that you continue on, and the next stop is Grand Falls. So you are halfway across the Island.

The trucking companies are going to have a real field day with overloaded trucks because the only thing that kept this stuff in check were those scales. Apart from the safety part of the vehicles themselves being overloaded, I am talking about the damage they are doing to our highways.

Is there any additional funding in the budget, coming from any of the fines or fees or whatever, in these extra assessments? I know there is $14.4 million extra out of Government Services that is going to be collected with extra fees. I am just wondering: How much, if any, that your department is going to get to keep against those repairs on the Trans-Canada? Because the Trans-Canada, in a lot of areas in this Province, for the most part, if it is a wet night it is not fit to drive over. I am sure the Member for Placentia has experienced that himself coming in from there and anyone else who has travelled the highway.

That is a concern I have, for the public safety of our people and the extra expense it is going to cost your department. I look at closing those scales as being penney-wise and pound foolish because there is somewhere around $350,000 being given to this Province under an agreement to have trucks inspected here in this Province. It is a federal grant that comes here. I can only guess that if the trucks are not going to be done or the quota decreases, that funding will not come here. I am just wondering if you have any plans to compensate for this type of damage?

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the hon. member is saying. I understand the transportation effect here, public safety and so on, but that is another area of ministerial responsibility. I am not going to try to answer for something that is not in my Estimates, except to say this. The additional $7 million that we are getting for capital improvements in our provincial roads program is coming from increased levees, particularly on driver's licences and motor registration. That money, while it is collected by another department, is flowed directly through to us and into our capital program and will enable us to have an additional $7 million or more, I suppose if it grows, but at least $7 million on a projected basis and an annualized basis year over year.

The other matters that the hon. member raised, while I understand the concerns and what he is saying, it is not something that I - except to understand the transportation impediments that he is talking about - can answer for from a minister's perspective.

MR. SWEENEY: What I wanted the answer for was, is there a plan in place to upgrade the Trans-Canada because there are places out there now where the ruts are three and four inches deep?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. There are all kinds of plans in place to upgrade the Trans-Canada but it is not by picking up more fines or something of that nature. I indicated this to the committee previously, there is $24 million left from round one infrastructure program. We have proposals before the Government of Canada to utilize some of that money for the Trans-Labrador Highway and some of it for the Trans-Canada and major trunk roads on the Island. There is $50 million to $60 million left in round two of infrastructure programming. We have proposals before the Government of Canada to utilize that funding on the Trans-Canada and other major trunk roads in the Province. So, we are always cognizant of the fact that we need to be upgrading the Trans-Canada. The significantly rutted section here where the four-lane area is, I think is well-known to all of us who travel it on a regular basis. It needs resurfacing in the worst kind of way.

We are trying to take advantage of every cost-shared program that is out there to continue to effect improvements to the Trans-Canada, but keeping in mind we have other significant transportation routes in the Province that are important as well.

MR. SWEENEY: The next question I have is the Air Services. I notice that the revenue for the Province is up now to $1.4 million. It is on page 93 in the book. I am just wondering where that increase in revenue is coming from.

MR. RIDEOUT: Revenue - Provincial?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: This is again, I guess, a bookkeeping matter, but it is due to the creation of a charge-back account with the Department of Health and Community Services for the usage of the air ambulance fleet.

The health boards will be billed at an hourly rate for the ambulance usage and we charge back the Department of Health, so it turns up on our - and this is a relatively new item, I understand, that was started this year. This will show up as additional revenue now in our department, but I guess it will show up as an additional cost in Health, so it is an accounting procedure rather than a revenue grab.

MR. SWEENEY: So it comes from the fees that are charged people for the use of the air ambulance.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have no idea what fees are charged people for the use of the air ambulance.

MR. MERCER: To give you a little bit of history, basically the budget to operate the air ambulance - and that is the true operational cost; it is not from fees that are collected, because it is a service that government provides - basically what was happening was that you have one line department that was making the decision as to when to use the air ambulance, and the budget for that existed in another department so there was an accountability problem there. There was, I guess, no desire under the Department of Health to try to live within budget, so it was a move to move the accountability framework to an appropriate line department who makes the decision to actually use the air ambulance. So, the revenue is not at all based coming from user fees; it is revenue coming from another line department.

MR. SWEENEY: I was trying to find where that expenditure was in the health budget, but I will look that up tomorrow.

Is the department getting any revenue from gasoline taxation as was promised in the Blue Book? One of the commitments in the Blue Book was that gasoline taxation would go towards Transportation and Works for maintenance of roads. Is that -

MR. RIDEOUT: My recollection of the Blue Book commitment was that there would be an increasing, I think was the word used, share of gasoline tax provided for transportation infrastructure improvements. Like I said, we have moved in that direction this year with an additional $7 million for the provincial roads budget. That is coming from fees on driver licences and registrations.

The gasoline part of the Blue Book commitment is not something that I can address at the moment. Is it a Finance and Treasury Board matter on how those things will be rejigged to reflect budgetary appropriations. At this point, I really do not know.

MR. SWEENEY: The reason I ask was the fact that I did not see any increase in budget for your department.

The other question that I have is the feasibility study for the construction of the fixed link. Where is the funding for that coming from? Is it from your budget? I didn't see it in the Estimates.

MR. RIDEOUT: I understand that the Cabinet Secretariat is in the process of sourcing where our share of that is going to come from. Our share is what, seventy-something thousand dollars? We may be told to find it in our base, I don't know, but those decisions, as far as I know, have not been made yet.

MR. SWEENEY: There is a promise of a maintenance plan, a multi-year plan for maintenance for highways. Is that developed yet, or how far along is it?

MR. RIDEOUT: It is coming along very nicely.

MR. SWEENEY: When will that be released? Any idea?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am not sure. I cannot answer that. I know officials have been working on a four- and an eight-year plan. I have had some submissions from them, and gone back for some fine tuning and so on. Whether that will be an internal government working document or whether it will be something that we will be making public, I really do not know at this stage.

MR. SWEENEY: There has been no money allocated for that plan?

MR. RIDEOUT: The whole infrastructure - was it $100,000 for a strategic...?

OFFICIAL: A strategic infrastructure study (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: There was an additional $100,000 put in our budget this year to go about developing a strategic infrastructure strategy, and that is there in our base.

MR. SWEENEY: Somewhere along the way, with the bridge inspectors and that sort of thing - I heard your answer in the House when you were being asked about that, but I did not quite get it all - is any of that work being contracted out or is it all going to be done in-house?

MR. RIDEOUT: It has been done in-house historically. As I was explaining in the House the other day, there is basically a three-line approach here. The superintendent, the supervisors out in the field, are the first to do the on-site eye inspections. Then, if there is anything further required from there, we have a bridge inspection team.

OFFICIAL: An engineer.

MR. RIDEOUT: An engineer at headquarters.

There has been no change in the staff allocations for those. These matters are taken care of now the same as they always were, except that we have put in place an inspection strategy which sees bridges that were mentioned as problematic last year - I think it was last year or the last two years - inspected this year over the course of the year and then inspections every two years beyond that. I think that is the (inaudible). Some of this came about from the Auditor General's Report last year, I guess, was it, or the year before last?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: So, that is the strategy that has been put in place to make sure that the inspections are up to date.

MR. SWEENEY: How many workers in your department have been laid off this year or will be, your total reduction in the workforce?

MR. RIDEOUT: It will net out to be about fourteen people, because while some are gone on a temporary basis, they will be hired back again next fall. The maintenance supervisors have been declared redundant but we are hiring back thirty-three to forty-one of those, plus thirteen on a temporary basis. So there is no job loss there. The net-net, when you net it all out, I believe is a total of fourteen positions at the moment.

MR. SWEENEY: So, that is fourteen province-wide for the whole -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. That is net-net now, like I said, because there are more than that gone on a temporary basis but some will be coming back.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes. All right, I have more but I will wait for next year.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.

MR. SWEENEY: Yvonne, if you will continue.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Were you finished, George?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Sweeney.

Ms Jones.

MR. SWEENEY: Unless I hear something else that (inaudible) me off to another question.

MS JONES: I just have a couple of questions, minister, one is on the Williams Harbour Road. Can you tell me if you have any plans of going ahead with that road construction or not?

MR. RIDEOUT: I cannot answer that question definitively for you now, and here is why. When you were government, I think there was a Minute of Council that involved that road - or was it one of the others, Norman's Bay or Black Tickle? But, anyway -

MS JONES: No, it was Williams Harbour.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I think it was Williams Harbour. There is a Cabinet Paper that has not yet been dealt with, so I am not in a position to say what the government decision may or may not be except to say to you that the Cabinet Paper is in the system and I would expect it would be dealt with shortly.

MS JONES: I cannot remember the Cabinet Paper. Did it recommend the construction of the road?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it did not recommend the construction. It was on the EIS or something.

OFFICIAL: It recommended the benefit of the cost analysis.

MR. RIDEOUT: It recommended the benefit of the cost analysis and that has not gone back to the Cabinet yet. There were actually no capital allocations made in last year's Budget for any of those, was there?

MS JONES: I thought that was already completed. Didn't you make a statement, or the Minister of Labrador Affairs make a statement with regard -

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, yes. I did not say it was not completed, but it has not gone back for the Cabinet to make a decision - you know, what are you going to do with it? - because it was a study or a piece of work, whatever you want to call it, that was authorized by Minute of Council, and it has to go back there before you can say what the final lay of the land is.

MS JONES: Well, I would certainly like to see a favourable decision on that piece of road. The money would come out of the Labrador Fund, I understand, and there is adequate resources in that fund to cover that construction. I can only ask that you encourage your Cabinet, and hopefully you, yourself, will be supportive of that.

The other question is with regard to the Air Services in my district. There was an expression of interest by the municipalities to close down four of the small airstrips and to have a regional airport. I know there was a consultant engaged by the department under the previous Administration to actually look at the concept and look at whether the Port Hope Simpson Airport would be able to be used as a regional facility and what would be required. I understand that the consultant came back and recommended that there be a new site, if this was something government was looking at proceeding with. Can you tell me where that file is? If anything is happening with it, if the report is finished or whatever?

MR. RIDEOUT: Actually, you are partially right and partially incorrect.

The consultant who was engaged by the previous Administration is still carrying on his work. I say his work, but their work, I suppose, is what I should say - I do not know if they are he or she - but they are still carrying on their work. They did not finish. There were indications from operators, Air Labrador, and I think Grenfell and others, that they would like other sites looked at. What happened is, we extended the scope of work that we asked the consultant to do and asked him to not only look at what would be required to bring Port Hope Simpson up to whatever standard we require for a regional airport, but also look at site location. I explained this to the Combined Councils on a couple of occasions now when I met with them. As a matter of fact, a number of them agreed that it was probably a good idea to look at site location, and I think there are a couple of sites. Is it in behind Charlottetown?

OFFICIAL: There is one both north and south of Port Hope Simpson.

MR. RIDEOUT: The process of that is a little bit longer, that you have to install wind measuring devices and things of that nature to get a longer term handle on what you are facing.

I think it all boils down, too, that the operators, if they say - if you were going to go in to service that area, for example, with a Dash 8, there would be problems with Port Hope Simpson. However, the door is not closed on anything. The consultant is still doing its work, but we have enlarged the scope of their work to look at possible alternate sites and then advise as to what they think is the best approach.

MS JONES: Will the consultant in the broader scope of his work now be looking at all of the other airports to ensure that none of them were adequate before you move to a new location?

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not think that was part of it, no. No, they were engaged to look at what was required to make Port Hope Simpson into a regional facility, and then they were asked to look at possible alternate sites to Port Hope Simpson. I suppose, theoretically, that could include some of the other strips, but I do not think that is actually what they have been doing.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) areas we were looking at were within ten kilometres or so of Port Hope (inaudible) central location.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that is my understanding, a central location within ten kilometres or so of Port Hope are the sites that they have been looking at.

MS JONES: Okay.

The only other question is with regard to the depot in L'Anse-au-Loup in my district. I know there are a number of people who received their layoffs through that office. Will there be people rehired to work there? Can somebody explain to me what is going on?

MR. RIDEOUT: The maintenance supervisors, I guess, like everywhere else, were laid off; but, as I explained earlier, thirty of the forty-three of those are going to be rehired again on a full-time basis, and thirteen of them on a part-time basis, so there is no net loss.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) area has the full-time one.

MR. RIDEOUT: Your area, Cluney tells me, has the full-time one, so that will fall into place again under the organization. Who the individual may be, whether it is the same person or somebody else, that will come out at the end of the pipe.

MS JONES: Okay.

I do not have any other questions.

CHAIR: You are finished? No other questions? Okay.

Thank you very much.

I will ask the Clerk to call the heads. We will call them inclusive.

CLERK: 1.1.01 to 4.3.02 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 4.3.02 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.3.02 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-mined?

Motion carried.

On motion, Department of Transportation and Works, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: The minutes of this meeting will be sent around for everybody to initial.

I would just like to thank the Committee. This is our final meeting of the Estimates for our Committee.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, just one other thing.

In our last meeting, we asked for a number of pieces of information to be tabled before we voted on the Budget in the House. I just to make sure that is being prepared for us.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is as we - I was going to say as we speak. Obviously, it is not as we speak now but it is in the process. I just had a brief conversation with the deputy to remind him that any undertakings we gave tonight, that we make sure we fulfill them.

MS JONES: Okay.

CHAIR: As I was saying, this is our last meeting of the Committee. I want to thank the Committee for their work, and certainly take the opportunity to thank the minister and his staff. I realize it was almost seven hours of Committee, but certainly it was an opportunity to ask the questions and to get what we hope are the answers.

With that, I ask for a motion to adjourn.

MR. SKINNER: So moved.

CHAIR: Motion moved by Mr. Skinner.

Seconded? Mr. Sweeney, do you want to second it?

MR. SWEENEY: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Alright, I wanted to make sure.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

Thank you very much.

On motion, Committee adjourned sine die.