Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Anna Thistle, MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans, replaces Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains.

CHAIR (Manning): Order, please!

Good evening, everybody. We will get the meeting underway. First of all, I will ask everybody to introduce themselves. I would like to remind everybody, when you are asking a question or answering a question, you have to wait until your mike is turned on in front of you and then you identify yourselves so that the people recording this for history will be able to keep track of who said what, when.

We are going to do the Public Service Commission first, followed by the Department of Finance following that.

I am going to ask everybody to introduce themselves, or the minister can introduce his staff. We will start up here for the purpose of recording.

My name is Fabian Manning, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's, Chair of the Committee.

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

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, MHA for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

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

MR. ORAM: Paul Oram, MHA for Terra Nova.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Loyola Sullivan, Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and also the Minister Responsible for the Public Service Commission.

MR. PADDON: Terry Paddon, Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. SAUNDERS: Earl Saunders, Director of Debt Management, Department of Finance.

MS DEVINE: Sheila Devine, Chair of the Public Service Commission.

MS KEOUGH: Diane Keough, Director of Communications, Department of Finance and Treasury Board Secretariat.

CHAIR: Thank you.

If the minister has some opening comments, then we will open the floor for questions.

We will call the heads of the Public Service Commission.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 1.1.01.

That is it. Is that it?

CLERK: Yes, they just debate under that.

CHAIR: Under that heading, yes.

Minister, the floor is yours.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to keep it down to no words in the Public Service Commission other than to say the Public Service Commission is operated arm's-length from me, and I have allowed it to do just that.

I am going to have Ms Devine then handle anything in that specific area there. If there is a question you want to direct to me, I will certainly take that, too, unless there are any opening comments you would like to make.

CHAIR: Are you finished, Mr. Minister?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We will let Ms Thistle have the first questions, and we will do that for fifteen minutes or whatever you want, and then we are going to pass back and forth for ten and ten. If anybody does not have a question, we will just go back and continue on that way, okay?

The floor is yours, Ms Thistle.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Manning.

I would just like to go over some of the lines in the Public Service Commission first. Then I have a couple of questions for you, Ms Devine.

I know that you have budgeted roughly $2 million for salaries and there was only $1.7 million used up. Can you explain what happened there?

MS DEVINE: Nine hundred thousand dollars of our salary budget is allocated for what used to be called the Graduate Recruitment Program, and it is now the Internship Program. For the past year, not all of that money was expended. There was a hiring freeze in place. The Graduate Recruitment Program is being restructured to be more in line with human resource planning in departments. Subsequently, there were very few hirings in the Internship Program during the year.

CHAIR: Just a reminder, for recording, before you answer you should identify yourself.

MS DEVINE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: No problem. We won't throw you out or anything for it.

MS DEVINE: Thank you.

OFFICIAL: The mike is not turned up very well.

MS DEVINE: Okay.

OFFICIAL: You might have to move in. That mike is weak anyway.

MS THISTLE: Now we are in business.

CHAIR: Are you wired up?

MS THISTLE: Wired up and ready to go.

MS DEVINE: Would you like me to comment again?

CHAIR: Would you like her to repeat her answer?

MS THISTLE: Yes, that would be good. I really only heard part of it.

MS DEVINE: Okay.

A substantial portion of the Public Service Commission salary budget is the $900,000 that is dedicated to what used to be the Graduate Recruitment Program and it is now being transformed into the Internship Program.

Due to a hiring freeze during the past year, and the restructuring of the program, not very much of that money was expended. Some of the money was expended, of course, to support some of the graduate recruits who are still remaining on the program, but there was not very much hiring done at all within the Internship Program.

MS THISTLE: What is the Internship Program?

MS DEVINE: It is an initiative to bring young professional people into the Public Service to fill what would be some of the hard-to-fill positions within the Public Service.

MS THISTLE: In other words it is the same as the Graduate Recruitment Program by another name, is it?

MS DEVINE: The Graduate Recruitment Program is intended to bring in generalists, highly educated generalists who could move around from department to department, agency to agency, and move up through the organization, I guess, diagonally. The refocused program will look more at the gaps that are going to come within our public service over the next two to five years and attempt to hire people specifically to fill those hard-to-fill positions.

MS THISTLE: Are you saying that there were no graduates hired in last year's budget for this program?

MS DEVINE: No.

MS THISTLE: Were there any hired the year before?

MS DEVINE: Yes, there was one.

MS THISTLE: Was that a government policy, not to hire any last year?

MS DEVINE: There was a hiring freeze in place which impacted the program; however, the majority of the reason was due to a restructuring. As well, what we were waiting for was departments who are in the process of doing human resource plans. We wanted to make sure that, because the focus of the program is on hard to fill, that we were very specifically targeting positions that departments had identified as hard to fill.

In addition, departments were going through program renewal; so, in some cases, identifying hard-to-fill positions was difficult for them. So, while we had lists of hard-to-fill positions, there was a lot of negotiation with departments as to what they really wanted to fill, and when.

MS THISTLE: When the program was first introduced it was called the Graduate Recruitment Program. I know it very well. I was the minister who introduced that program.

MS DEVINE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: We started off with five per year, and it went up to fifteen per year.

MS DEVINE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: How many are you hiring this year?

MS DEVINE: This year the funding has remained intact. The $900,000 is there. Depending what we get from departments, we even envisage probably hiring ten to fifteen people. Now, again, that is dependent on confirmation from departments as to what they consider to be hard-to-fill positions.

Our experience with the Graduate Recruitment Program has led us to believe that really the program needs to focus on the gaps in the system so that as people are hired there are definite positions that they can be allocated to.

MS THISTLE: So, out of the original people who were hired into that program, how many are remaining today?

MS DEVINE: We still have twelve who are funded from the Graduate Recruitment Program, from the old program. These are very competent, highly educated, professional people who have done very well in the various positions and work they have done in the public service but they have not been successful in securing a permanent position within the public service. That has been the lesson, I guess, for the Commission in terms of trying to restructure the program so that people at the end of the day get jobs.

MS THISTLE: What is the problem? They are well qualified. Is it that government does not have jobs for them?

MS DEVINE: There certainly are not as many jobs as we would have hoped for when the program first began. As well, it is highly competitive within our public service at this point in time. Every position draws numerous applications for people, so it is highly competitive. These are young people with not a lot of seniority. They are not in the bargaining unit, so they do not accrue seniority. It has been very difficult for many of them to secure permanent positions.

MS THISTLE: When the funding was not allocated for that program last year, did the public service or government decide to let go the ones who were in the program?

MS DEVINE: No, the twelve people who still remain in the program have been retained, but certainly our discussions particularly with the Treasury Board Secretariat and departments have said to us we really need to make a very concerted effort to try and help these young people obtain permanent positions.

MS THISTLE: From the knowledge that I have -

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe if I could just add a point of supplement - but I am certainly content to let Ms Devine carry on - I think a point I should probably mention of pertinence is that in 1999 to 2001, during that two year period, there were thirty-four people hired into the program, and the goal is to move all of these and hopefully land jobs in the public service and use these people with skills to fit in there; but, out of those who were hired between 1999 and 2001, four years later, twelve out of the original thirty-four still have not landed in those positions since 2001. Some of them came in 1999, some in 2000-2001, in that two year period, or three if it overlaps. I think it is a two year period. Out of the thirty-four, over a third since then, in the last five or six years, have not gone into the public service. So, putting people into a program to put you into the public service, we still have twelve that we have not put in there, so do you put another five or six on top of that and you have not...? That is the goal of the program, to enable you to take a job and become a member with certain skills and get in there. It depends on, I guess, the competition for those jobs, and if those people have the skills equivalent to someone else who may apply for that position.

That is something that has being going on, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, since 2001. We have not been able to put these in there. Even though they might have been new coming in, the funding was still there, and still for four years now there are still a dozen who have not gotten in as a result of that. I think it was pertinent to give a perspective on it.*

MS THISTLE: From what I know of the program there were thirty-four originally hired and, as of January of this year, there were twenty-five remaining in the program. You are telling me today that there are twelve? What happened to the others?

MS DEVINE: Most of them would have secured alternate employment within the public service.

MS THISTLE: From January to today?

MS DEVINE: The number that we have been funding, that we are carrying to this budget, is twelve.

MS THISTLE: Twelve?

MS DEVINE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: My sources tell me that there were twenty-five in January of this year. Were any of these let go before the end of March?

MS DEVINE: No. Certainly, there were people who did not remain in the public service, but that was probably two or three people who exited the program to take alternate employment.

MS THISTLE: Would you be able to furnish me with accurate numbers as of January, and as of today, and would you be able to tell me how many departed from that service?

MS DEVINE: Yes, I can give you the breakdown of what happened to the thirty-four people.

MS THISTLE: My understanding is that in 2003 there was one person hired.

MS DEVINE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: I would appreciate those numbers.

That program is under another name now. It is still on the radar screen as being called the Graduate Internship Program.

MS DEVINE: The Internship Program is the name now. In actual fact, I would suspect when the review of the program is completed it may even have another name. Certainly, the original people hired under the Graduate Recruitment Program, the funding is still there for those people and they continue to be funded.

MS THISTLE: How do people apply for this program now?

MS DEVINE: What the Commission will be doing is, as hard-to-fill positions are identified, we will be working with the departments, we will be working with the Treasury Board Secretariat, to identify what the vacancy would be, what the requirement would be, and how best to go about attracting someone to that position.

The revised program, I would expect, will not only include people outside the public service but be available to people internally within the public service. That was one of the criticisms - strong criticisms - of the earlier program.

MS THISTLE: So, what you are telling me, this is not to entice new graduates. You are not opening it up so that all new graduates can apply for this program. You are saying that you are going to identify a need in a particular department where there may be an opportunity for this type of an internship program to work and then you are going to advertise it within the public service?

MS DEVINE: It will be advertised within the public service but also be open to people outside because we expect many of these - the definition: hard to fill, generally means to a department that there is nobody they can identify, either within their own department or probably within the whole public service, likely to go into that kind of position. We are generally talking about fairly specialized positions where the department can anticipate, either through training or through other means, it is going to be very difficult to have someone within the public service go to that position. The position might be, for example, a veterinarian.

MS THISTLE: I guess your requirements have changed because the idea behind it, initially, was to take bright, young people -

MS DEVINE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: - graduating from our universities and colleges and groom them for public service opportunities, careers; not necessarily those having experience, the ones that had a good resume and filled all the requirements of being the ideal candidate, or some of the people who are sitting there in your front row, like yourself, tonight. Now you are going to let that opportunity be available to anyone in the public service. They could be in their forties or fifties, instead of taking that young person right out of college or university and grooming them for a career and giving them opportunity as a government. Is that what you are telling me?

MS DEVINE: The internship program will work hand-in-hand with the human resource plans that are happening in departments, whereby departments are trying to anticipate their future human resource needs and work with their own staff to develop them, mentor them and bring them forward within the public service. The internship program is intended to augment that and, I would anticipate, would very likely attract primarily people graduating from university, young professionals who might not otherwise have a chance to get into the public service.

We were very concerned however with the other program, that we did restrict the competition. There were a number of very bright, young professionals within the public service who were very interested in moving outside their own department, participating in an internship program and advancing in that way within the public service.

MS THISTLE: Well, I guess what it amounts to is a shift in policy. That is what it amounts to. There is not the same thrust on getting young people right out of college or university to begin a career within the public service. You are opening it inside and outside, your advertising. I wanted to know that because it appears that there is a shift in policy.

What I would like to have from you, Ms Devine, is a list of how many people were in the program; how many people actually secured jobs, and in which departments they secured jobs; how many were there in January, 2005, and how many are there today?

MS DEVINE: Yes, no problem.

MS THISTLE: Okay. Good. Thank you.

Can you also tell me, Ms Devine, have there been any cuts to the Public Service Commission with your regular staff complement over the past year?

MS DEVINE: There have not been cuts. The Public Service Commission does carry a number of vacancies within its own staff, but these are vacancies that the Commission has carried for the past couple of years.

MS THISTLE: Was there a freeze on transportation last year for public service employees in training or whatever, because I notice that the Transportation and Communications budget was not used?

MS DEVINE: The fact that the full budget was not expended was the fact that the Commission made a very conscious effort to be prudent itself in terms - as it always does, but we made a very special effort last year - of looking at our transportation budget.

As well, I would note that some of the committees that are normally in place at the Commission, namely the Classification Appeal Board, did not operate for a number of months and, of course, there were savings there when that accrued.

MS THISTLE: I have to say that, Ms Devine, we are getting complaints from workers and different groups saying that many of their appeals have not been heard and they have been delayed. Are you going to shift that focus for this coming year and clean up on those delays?

MS DEVINE: In actual fact, the Classification Appeal Board, since it was reconstituted has made significant progress. The number of appeals at this point, as of the end of March, is down to 775. That is still a very significant number of outstanding classification appeals. However, it has significantly improved from the year previous.

MS THISTLE: I would also like -

CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms Thistle. Your time is up for now. I may be back to you in a second.

Any questions? Mr. Langdon?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay.

Back to you, Ms Thistle.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Manning.

I would like to ask you, what professional services were undertaken under .05 last year to increase your budget by $70,000?

MS DEVINE: The Employee Assistance Program, which draws from that particular budget, expended about $140,000, which is in excess of what is normally spent from that program. The remainder of that budget was spent on consulting services to staff senior executive positions that the Commission was asked to complete by government. There were approximately twenty-four senior positions that the Commission was asked to chair and complete competitions. For some of those senior positions the Commission used a recruitment firm, an outside consulting recruitment firm.

MS THISTLE: Ms Devine, the take up in Employee Assistance plan, $140,000, how does that compare to the previous year?

MS DEVINE: It would have been up, generally, by about $10,000.

MS THISTLE: What do you account for that difference?

MS DEVINE: The EAP program is making very strong efforts to promote throughout the regions. It has been doing that for the past couple of years, but more and more it is doing that. So, certainly that has been a very significant factor. Every year, for the past five years, the take up on the Employee Assistance Program has been going up. I would put that down as one of the main reasons why the expenditures would be higher.

MS THISTLE: Would you attribute any of those increases to the recent NAPE strike last year and employees having more difficulties?

MS DEVINE: Certainly any time there is stress or turmoil within the Public Service the take up on EAP services increases.

MS THISTLE: Would you also elaborate on what executive positions the Public Service Commission was involved in for hiring? Would that have been for the - well, you tell me.

MS DEVINE: The positions were Deputy Minister, Natural Resources; ADM, Communications; Chief Information Officer, Executive Director, Labrador West; Deputy Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; four CEOs, Department of Health; four executive directors, CEO, school boards; ten assistant Executive Directors, school boards.

MS THISTLE: Okay. Will you be able to give me a list of those?

MS DEVINE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much.

I am finished my questioning now with the Public Service Commission, Mr. Manning.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Ms Devine.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, just to finish one of the questions that was asked before we move from the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - just a point to supplement there.

There are certain areas where, I guess - and in the past it happened in one case that we mentioned. The Public Service Commission may go outside to get a level of expertise for high level positions and they get an independent company to go out and do that.

Just one other bit of information - I will just respond - is that under the appeals division we have moved significantly this past year to clear up a lot of backlogs. There were over 1,100-and-some appeals a year ago and it is down to 775 now, even though there are many new appeals coming on. So we have made significant strides, and an effort is made now over the next while to move in and try to get these down to a very short period of time.

A lot of these appeals too, in getting them dealt with, it is not only upon the Public Service Commission or upon government, there is also a willingness to move them forward by the people who make the appeals, and sometimes they are not ready and delay that process. We have made significant progress this year and reduced the numbers between 300 and 400, and that is, I think, fairly significant. Maybe, Ms Devine - how that would normally compare to other years from her experience, who has been a long-term member, if you want further comment, but I will leave it at that unless you want further detail.

MS THISTLE: One final question I would ask, since the Finance Minister mentioned about appeals. Has there been any change in the staff complement for dealing with appeals?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we went through a process now to set up and -

MS THISTLE: Well, whoever.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. We went through a process to set up - one of the things I know I want it to do by reporting to me, and I have indicated: get the process up, get sufficient numbers of boards up, get them done, get the numbers down and move forward. I think if Ms Devine wants to comment on how that has happened. I was real eager that those high numbers, inordinate - people should not have to wait so long, and we wanted to get something done with it. I must say, I was proactive in moving that to get that done and get them set up.

Maybe Ms Devine could comment on its effectiveness or the result of that, where she would know directly from dealing with it.

MS DEVINE: Any credit for moving the appeals forward - certainly, once the board was appointed significant progress was made - is due entirely to the efforts of the appeal board members; who are generally managers who work in the system, who have other positions within the provincial public service or the health care sector and who give of their time to go to appeal hearings and to attempt to address the significant backlog which is still outstanding.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, this is in addition to the regular workloads that they carry on in here. They put in an inordinate amount of time and effort and did a very effective job. I think it is appropriate to be recognized for that effort.

CHAIR: Okay.

Thank you, Ms Thistle.

Mr. Oram, do you have any questions?

MR. ORAM: No.

CHAIR: Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, I just have one question. Who is the new Chair of the Public Service Commission?

MS DEVINE: Sheila Devine, Chair of the Public Service Commission.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. It is you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, she was introduced in the beginning as the Chair. Ms Devine was appointed the Chair, I guess, seven months back. Ms Devine?

MS DEVINE: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Yes, okay. I did not have my hearing aid in and I have problems hearing.

CHAIR: Alive and in person.

Are there any more questions on the Public Service Commission? Okay.

Could the Clerk call the heads, please?

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

Carried.

Shall I report 1.1.01 of the Public Service Commission carried without amendment?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Department of the Public Service Commission, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: You can be excused now.

OFFICIAL: Thank you.

CHAIR: The Department of Finance.

Do you want to call the -

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Minister, do you want to give some opening remarks on the department?

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I am prepared to just move in and get into any particular questions and that, that they want to take their time. I don't see to waste time on an opening comment.

CHAIR: Okay. We will do the same thing again on this department. We will let Ms Thistle go for fifteen minutes or so and then I will interrupt and see if anybody else has any questions. Is that fine with everybody?

OFFICIAL: Okay.

CHAIR: Ms Thistle.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Manning.

Before we start, I guess, some of the line Estimates, I want to ask the Finance Minister if he would turn to page 251 of the Estimates book. Can he explain to this House the total increase in salaries cost by department of some $20 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: Page 251?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: The question is pertaining to what?

MS THISTLE: I notice that on salary department totals there is an increase roughly of $20 million. Can you explain that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Why the total salary amount?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

The total salary amount last year was $312 million there.

MR. SULLIVAN: The $310,484,300.

MS THISTLE: Now it is $332,988,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why has it increased?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, the overall increase would be that there was a change in it due to the strike, obviously. There was a period in April where only certain costs were expended in that period.

MS THISTLE: Okay, I just wanted to hear you say that.

Thank you.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would not take it that the total amount would necessarily be contributed to that, because there are different numbers in employment levels and so on within the year that can vary, too.

MS THISTLE: Absolutely.

MR. SULLIVAN: That would be one of the contributors to that.

MS THISTLE: One of the contributing factors.

MR. SULLIVAN: A lot of the strike amounts, too, for instance, last year there was $10 million given to the boards to meet with their budget that was taken out of strike savings. Only a certain portion of that would have been in salary, too. Plus, some other costs may have been varied in addition to salaries as a result of that also.

MS THISTLE: Okay.

I will start on page 29 for Finance, Executive and Support, and that would be 1.1.01.01, Salaries. I wonder, why is there no listing of employees benefits in this heading at all?

MR. SULLIVAN: In the Minister's Office?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess there were no benefits incurred.

MS THISTLE: That would be unusual, wouldn't it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Why would it? Enrollment in conference groups, or things of that nature? The only people in the office are myself, an EA, a constituent assistant and departmental secretary. None of these have participated or paid any fees or any amount for any conferences or anything of that nature. There were just no expenses incurred.

MS THISTLE: In Executive Support, I notice that in Salaries, 1.2.01.01., you are budgeted for $618,000 and there was $639,000 in Salaries. Were there any new hirings in Executive Support?

MR. SULLIVAN: To increase that?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the amount there was attributed to one of the ADMs, a long-standing ADM with thirty-seven years in government, retired. He had some leave that was due him. Like anybody who is entitled to severance, he received that.

MS THISTLE: Was that a normal retirement?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, he retired voluntarily. He did not get any redundancy. He got his severance; plus, he got any leave that he had accumulated, nothing beyond that. That was the ADM, Mr. Bennett.

MS THISTLE: John, was it, John Bennett?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS THISTLE: I am just looking at Administrative Support. There are employee benefits of $9,000. Is that another case of someone leaving? What happened there?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they were employees in the department who were paid to - like CPR, first aid courses, workers' compensation, professional membership fees, conference registration. Employees in administration do attend conferences, pay fees, take first aid courses. None of my other people in my office, out of the core staff, were involved in any of that. That is why there are no expenses there. This is normal employee benefit expense in government.

I think the extraordinary one overall was workers' compensation costs. There was one individual, a significant amount had to paid out in a compensation cost case. That is why it was up higher than normal.

MS THISTLE: Isn't it unusual in a year of restraint that there were a lot of training courses going on?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the main cost there was for workers' comp due to increased costs. The normal amount was $1,400. The reason it went above that was because of the workers' compensation cost in one individual case, to my knowledge, just one individual case. I am not sure if it is appropriate to mention the name of an individual, but my deputy might want to comment on that.

MR. PADDON: I will make one comment.

We had one individual who was injured while on the job and we have to supplement or pay the Workers' Compensation Board for the costs incurred to maintain her on workers' comp. The increase in the cost is reflective of that.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a normal action that government takes for people when they are on workers' compensation.

MS THISTLE: In your capital for Administrative Support, what purchases were made to amount to $62,000?

MR. SULLIVAN: What number there?

MS THISTLE: That is 1.2.03.07.

MR. SULLIVAN: Administrative Support?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you talking about under Property, Furnishings and Equipment?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

In 07. there was a budget of $90,000. We decided that we were going to hire gasoline inspectors because a lot of people were using marked gasoline there and we were losing a lot of money in taxes. We had budgeted to hire three trucks at four by fours - that is what was in the budget - but we looked at it, and I guess maybe Treasury Board prevailed, and we decided we will go with trucks that were just two by fours. Three trucks we got for $21,000 each, three new trucks: one for Corner Brook, the West Coast, one for Central Newfoundland, and one for the East Coast, to go out and do those checks on gasoline for people who may be using marked fuel and avoiding paying the taxes. That was the cost of that.

There was nothing budgeted this year in that amount. That was just an effort we made to increase our taxes and to be able to cut down on abuse in the system. We received a tremendous number of complaints on that from people, and we decided to do something about it.

MS THISTLE: Under General Government, 1.3.01.01. Salaries, can you tell me, what is that $2.8 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will just put it in perspective.

Normally, there are amounts being budgeted under Government Personnel Costs within Finance to cover various other departments. I will just relate it, if I could, for example, on the $2,886,000.

The 2004-2005 budget, for example, while it might be only showing there, that was budgeted and $1,886,200. Usually it gets budgeted in the Finance Department and, as the requirement comes up in other areas during the year, it gets restated in those departments.

For example, last year there was $1.886 million budgeted and that went to three areas. There was one for $726,300 to hire - the salary increases for the RCMP officers, when we put money into the RCMP officer budget with new officers, and there were two other areas for an occupational study that was done in the Department of Health. These amounts were $700,700 and $459,200. So there are events which occur in areas where there is occupational study, personnel cost that government incurs if traditionally budgeted in the Finance Department for these. Last year it was $1.8 million. This year there was a budget of $2.8 million.

Next year, if they are allocated to Health for an occupational study, or whether it is - I think the RCMP (inaudible) is probably Labrador; I am not 100 per cent - Labrador, where they figure there is an emergency situation where they need extra officers, I do think that is the expenditure for that and we had to put money in. So, that got allocated there and went out to the Department of Justice and it got reflected in the Department of Justice budget at their year end. That is why it is not stated at the year end here, but it is budgeted and approval is to move it through those departments and reflect it in the appropriate budget where it ends up at the end of the year.

MS THISTLE: So, for this current year, 2005-2006, what is the designation for that money?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we did not know in advance. It is not budgeted. If we knew the designation for it, it would have been budgeted in the department that we knew, and that would show up in their Estimates.

If we knew last March we were going to hire RCMP officers for Labrador, that would be in the Department of Justice budget. If we knew there was going to be an occupational study in health, it would be in the Department of Health budget.

It is traditional, you budget the money in Finance because you can move it to the appropriate department. You have approval for it, but it must reflect in those final accounts of that department and be accounted for. That is what was done last year and that is what will be done this year.

If, in three months' time, we are told that there is an emergency situation, they need to do hiring in a specific area, or there was a forest fire, whatever the case may be, an extreme case that might have to be utilized, there is money to do that and you would do that and utilize it rather than go to a special warrant. There is money utilized. It is not uncommon. It has been done in the past. Last year, there was $1.8 million. As it arises that will be done and information will be so noted on that.

MS THISTLE: So, you have pulled this out of thin air, this amount, $2.8 million. You are saying that if an emergency comes up, or if there is a need, it will be addressed through the Finance Department?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am indicating that they are government personnel costs. They are personnel costs. If an occasion arises where that is there, yes, it would be allocated to the department where that need would arise.

MS THISTLE: How much of this money will be used to pay out in severance pay to employees who are no longer with us? Like, for instance, Ms Deborah Fry.

MR. SULLIVAN: To my knowledge, in this specific area - maybe my deputy might want to comment - I am not aware. Last year there was none, to my knowledge. It went for three areas last year: occupational studies for two in the Department of Health - I mentioned that - $700,700, that is $459,200, and, for RCMP salaries, $726,300. Last year there was $1,886,200. This year we budgeted that.

There is nothing that is known or identified in any way at this point in time. That is why it is there without an intended use. If we knew where it was going to go, and we knew there was a need, we could not reflect it there. We would have to put it in the department. It would be a part of that department's budget for that purpose.

MS THISTLE: Is any of this $2.8 million set aside to look after the cuts that are going to come from program review, and it will be used as severance pay and paid out to employees who are now going to leave departments of government?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not aware of any particular one. There has been very little change in this year's budget. There has been very little change in the number of people in government whatsoever because of any program renewal. In fact, this year we have hired significant numbers of people with some of the announcements. We are hiring eight inspectors now on tax collection. We are looking at a central collection in government of another $125,000 for that. We have looked at adding salaries for people in health care to operate machinery and so on. We have had a significant capital increase, and extra people are going to be needed in areas. None of that is for that. They are all appropriately budgeted in their respective departments. None has been identified. If they were, we could not put a chunk of money in here when you know an intended use and not reflect it. We would reflect in the Estimates of that department where it could be appropriately debated in that specific department.

MS THISTLE: I will move to 2.1.01., Pensions Administration. I notice that in 01., Salaries, you budgeted for $1.6 million and you used $1.4 million. Were any jobs cut in the Pensions Division?

MR. SULLIVAN: No. There was an unfilled vacancy during the year there, and there was certainly a small amount in all cases. There are certain savings in certain areas due to a strike, but there was an unfilled vacancy for a portion of that year also. As you can see, the number is back to where it was. This is a normal expenditure for that area.

I will add that any expenditures under Pensions Administration here, for your information generally, we get a recovery from - the pension fund covers Pensions Administration. That is reimbursed. While we may spend $2 million, if $2 million is covered in the pension fund to administer and look after that pension - if we spend $1 million, we get a recovery of $1 million, or whatever the direct costs associated with it are.

MS THISTLE: I would like to ask you about 05., Professional Services. What did you undertake to spend an extra $35,000 in Professional Services?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, this year we had the consulting services of William M. Mercer, who is the one who government deals with on the administration of the pension plan, actuarial reports and special assignments like indexing and so on with specific areas. They did work on that, so that was over and above the normal $150,000 that would normally be budgeted for that area.

MS THISTLE: Were they the only consulting company that you used?

MR. SULLIVAN: In pensions?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no other company, to my knowledge, on pensions. I think they are the (inaudible) that we deal with. I will refer to the deputy, if he is aware of any. I am certainly not.

MS THISTLE: Okay.

MR. PADDON: Not that I am aware of. William Mercer is the only one we have used.

MS THISTLE: In 2.1.02., Debt Management, there is a reduction in Salaries there. Were there any employees lost in that area?

MR. SULLIVAN: There was a debt analyst position that was vacant. That position would be one of the major aspects there. There is a position that is still vacant, I think - Earl Saunders in Debt Management - that position is still vacant.

MR. PADDON: There was one position that was eliminated in Debt Management last year as well.

MS THISTLE: In Financial Assistance that would be 2.1.03., Grants and Subsidies for Crown Agencies. I notice that budget was reduced last year, but it is up again for this current budget. Can you give me an explanation on that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, last year we had $3.2 million - 2004-2005 there is $1.2 million in that budget to the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to assist in putting broadband services in rural Newfoundland. We also, out of that money last year, reached an agreement whereby when a plant in Arnold's Cove was due to close and we did not want to get into guarantees or subsidizing that plant, we came up with a greater solution where the quotas that were held by National Sea, we would purchase those quotas and lease them to Icewater Fisheries. Those quotas cost $3.5 million. We had appraisals and so on, on values of these that are significantly above - we can easily do - but we wanted to ensure that these quotas did not go out to other companies and they stayed in our Province. For purchase of those quotas that are now owned, technically, by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we agreed to put $3.5 million, and had the appraised outside values on these, and we got them below that price. We paid $1.75 million last year, and we are going to pay $1.75 million the remaining - well, in this fiscal year now, has been paid to deal with that.

Annually, also, there is always - Pippy Park Commission receives a grant from government because Pippy Park probably does government lawns and various things all around. They have been receiving a grant of $400,000 in the past. This year we have reduced that grant, for this fiscal year, down to $350,000. We also budgeted in that area this year for the Centre of Excellence in Corner Brook, $500,000 is also budgeted this year in that specific area.

MS THISTLE: In Special Assistance - that would 2.1.04 - that was for the oil tank replacement program. Has there been less of a take up over the past year for that program?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS THISTLE: Because I notice that there was only $240,000 spent.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. Less than anticipated on the take up on the program.

MS THISTLE: Why do you think there is less of a take up? Isn't there a time limit when homeowners must respond to this situation?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is budgeted again this year. There is allowance assistance on it. To my knowledge, it is an ongoing program that people can take up at any time. Would that be essentially correct? If there is a carryover, we do not know how many people are going to apply in advance. So, we budgeted an amount for it and it came short. As for this year, there is $370,000 in the program. I am not aware what other intended use last year in that program there was. Maybe the deputy might have more specifics.

MR. PADDON: Yes, the only use for this allocation is for the fuel tank replacement program. It was difficult to estimate how much take up with it there was going to be.

You are right, Ms Thistle, that this is a time limited program. One would think that the closer we get to the end of the program the greater the take up, as more people try to get in under the wire. It is probably not unreasonable to think that we are going to get a little extra take up this year over last year but, at this point, it is really just an estimate, so we will wait and see.

MS THISTLE: To the Finance Minister, are there any plans now to make people more aware that they are approaching a deadline on this matter so they will be able to use government's program to replace their oil tanks?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I am not aware of any specific public relations aspect we have done, other than what is normally ongoing. I do not know if my deputy has any specific initiatives. Other than that, when people - the program has been out there. It has been announced. We have been processing people who are aware that it is there.

As to any particular initiative there, not that I am aware of, in terms of advertising or anything of that nature. We are always - you know, we normally advertise a program and we release it and put it out, or if it is a program by a former government we continue. We do not normally budget allocations to go out and spend money on advertising on programs. We prefer to have it there to use for the purpose rather than use it for the purpose of advertising, other than the initial startup of a program.

MS THISTLE: My only concern was that probably - you know, that was hot news about three years ago when there were a lot of issues facing it, around that, but maybe people are not aware of it at this point because there has not been as many issues. You know, you do not have to spend a great deal of money but it might be an idea for putting in seniors' news, or whatever, from time to time.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I think also on that too, Ms Thistle. On that also, companies that are filling these tanks, too, if they feel they are not in a condition - I know companies will not fill them and there is an obligation not to do it. I think people are made aware, too, sometimes through the companies that are operating on those tanks.

I do not know from practical experience whether my deputy is aware of any further particular details here, but I do know that numerous people I have spoken to on it have indicated that the companies told them that they cannot fill the tank unless it is brought up to a certain standard and it is appropriately done, because it has to be a certain standard. They are not going to do one that is, probably, on wood and not properly put in position. So, I do know that the impetus from this is also coming from people who are suppling them, to make sure that they are putting it into a tank, and I would assume there could be a certain liability on the company. I cannot speak from that legal perspective. To my knowledge there is, that if they fill a tank that they know is improperly safe and does not meet standards there, there is a certain responsibility they have. So, I think the impetus is certainly coming there.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, Ms Thistle.

Mr. Oram?

Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: Going back to the dollars that you paid out for the quotas for National Sea.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. LANGDON: Many people have said that it should never have happened, that it is a peoples resource; that government gave National Sea $3.5 million to put in their pockets and walk away with our resource. Again, I do not have a definitive answer. I have not gone out and gotten a lawyers perspective on it. I am sure that you did, as a government, when you did it. What do you say to those people?

MR. SULLIVAN: One of the concerns that we had there, Mr. Langdon, is that before we came into office, the year before that company had sold quotas to John Risley at Clearwater and they are getting processed in Nova Scotia. I am aware, and at the time when we discussed this issue, that these quotas could be sold and processed in Nova Scotia.

We did not want to see an opportunity where hundreds of people in Arnold's Cove were going to be put out of work when someone had a proposal to come forward and we were going to allow quotas, as happened in the past, go to Nova Scotia and processed in Nova Scotia at the expense of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We were not prepared to subsidize the company but we were prepared to take that, and the federal government permitted us to put it into our Crown corporation in IDC, allow us to put them in there and held by them as a corporation that we are the owners of that and get a fee. We own that and we can sell it if a company in the future does not want to operate or decides it cannot operate, or for any reason wants to get out of it. We own it. We can sell it to another company on the condition, or lease it, that it could be used in Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That was our concern, to see more quotas going outside our Province, and we wanted to stop that.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, anybody in their right mind would want that to happen. Regardless of what government or what stripe you are, I mean that makes sense to (inaudible) the quota.

My question is - it has not been answered to my satisfaction - is the fact that: Did you really have to pay National Sea that money in order to maintain those quotas? Could you or the federal government have brought to bear on them and said: You can go but these quotas remain in Newfoundland, or were they transferable and you had a legal opinion which said that you had to do it? That is my point, not questioning whether you should or not.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer that. We have no control over the quotas, none whatsoever. It is the federal government that establish quotas.

MR. LANGDON: I understand that.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is the provincial government's responsibility for processing. We have no guarantee. In fact, we know some have been sold off to Nova Scotia. We knew things were in the works to move on it. We felt we were either going to do something about it and buy them or they were going to get sold off elsewhere. If the place was shut down we could go there. So we thought it was a fairly creative solution to keep it here. We had absolutely no control. The only one who could tell where the quotas were was the federal government. When quotas are out there, it could be in 3PS or out on grounds adjacent to any areas. A harvester can catch - you cannot dictate to them where they are going to land or where they are going to sell.

MR. LANGDON: I understand that.

MR. SULLIVAN: They can go to Nova Scotia with it, but by having these quotas in our hands now we are saying they will only be leased to a company that is going to ensure that that product is processed here for the benefit of the people here.

MR. LANGDON: I understand that. I am not questioning that. Did you have any contact with the federal government to see if they would give the Province the quotas or have them without taking $5 million out of the taxpayers dollars to pay for it?

MR. SULLIVAN: To my knowledge on it, the quotas were assigned to National Sea. They were entitled to have it. They could not be revoked by the federal government. If they pay a fee for it, it is their quota and their right. To my understanding on it, the federal government does not pull quotas back on someone who lives up to the terms of paying their fees and operating, and we did not have a recourse.

MR. LANGDON: Do you have that in writing?

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. LANGDON: Do you have that in writing?

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot tell you on that issue, but it is the (inaudible) findings.

MR. LANGDON: Could you check for me and see? The thing for me is, I am not questioning what you did because, like I said, it was the right thing to do so that Newfoundland would have the quotas to employ Newfoundlanders and keep it here. If the company went bankrupt these would still be our quotas. I have no qualms with that, none whatsoever. You are employing our own people. My question to you is - probably it can happen, I do not know. I am asking the question, not to be prerogative or to be confrontational. That is where I am not coming from at all. I am just asking: Did you make representation to the feds to see if these quotas could be given to the Province without you having to pay $5 million to the company? That is all, no more, no less.

MR. SULLIVAN: My deputy informs me, the way it was done legally was that we use that value to get preference shares in Icewater but we get the rights on the quotas. That is my understanding. I think, Earl, you were involved in this, the Director of Debt Management.

MR. LANGDON: So, actually then - am I hearing correctly?

MR. SULLIVAN: We had the dibs on the quotas but not the quotas.

MR. LANGDON: I understand. Was there a cash transfer between us and National Sea?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. LANGDON: Or did we take the first (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not National Sea, no. To Icewater ours would be.

Terry, will give you the details.

MR. PADDON: The $1.75 that was invested last year and the next (inaudible) of the $1.75 invested in 2005-2006 went to Icewater Seafoods and it was an investment in preference shares by the Province of Newfoundland in Icewater Seafoods. As a result of the whole transaction, the Province did get the quotas from the federal government but there was no payment by the Province to National Sea as part of this transaction.

MR. LANGDON: There wasn't any money?

MR. PADDON: No. No payment from the Province to National Sea.

MR. LANGDON: I will not carry it any further now, but it was my understanding - I will have to go back and check, and probably I am wrong - that the Minister of Fisheries probably told the House that there was money involved. Like I said, I am not being confrontational -

MR. SULLIVAN: There was money involved but it went to Icewater.

MR. LANGDON: Actually, money did go to Icewater did it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, not to National Sea.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, my mistake in the company but money did go.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the company that is operating now, I think its owner - Bruce Wareham, I think, is the owner-

MR. LANGDON: I understand.

MR. SULLIVAN: That money went to the company, that is right, in preference shares. I would (inaudible) because we get it with -

MR. LANGDON: It went from National Sea to Icewater?

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. LANGDON: It went from National Sea to Icewater?

MR. SULLIVAN: The company went from National Sea to Icewater, yes. They agreed to sell or to allow them to take the company and had some dealings with him. Whatever that personally is, I guess is another matter. But the new company, Icewater, that's under the ownership of Mr. Wareham, was the one that we dealt with, that company, by paying $1.75 in the last fiscal year and $1.75 this fiscal year in preference shares, but we got the dibs on the quotas. The federal government did not get money for that nor did National Sea get money from us. Would that be correct?

MR. LANGDON: I understand, but the money was transacted. I had National Sea but it was Icewater. I got the names confused in a sense but I mean the principles were the same.

MR. PADDON: Icewater is the new company that was formed out in Arnold's Cove.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, I understand that.

MR. PADDON: The use of the Province's money, there was an acquisition of a new deboning machine that was to increase productivity and those sorts of things, plus used for working capital and those uses. But to my knowledge, it did not go on to National Sea.

MR. LANGDON: Not a problem.

On the Debt Management, going back to that one -

MR. SULLIVAN: What number?

MR. LANGDON: 2.1.02.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: It does not mean it is out of business. (Inaudible) out with the Municipal Financing Corporation, that debt is there and it will move forward.

MR. LANGDON: I understand that. New stuff -

MR. SULLIVAN: Any new debt now is budgeted directly within the Estimates in Municipal and Provincial Affairs, right within their budget now, and any other entity that is out there - we have indicated we are going to wrap up the entities because there is debt still in the Municipal Financing Corporation. Obviously, we cannot wrap that up. So any borrowing goes directly on the sheet of that department then for borrowing directly from that department. The same as we would borrow for capital, whether it is in Transportation and Works or in health care. Okay, does that answer it?

MR. LANGDON: Yes. The other thing is that over the last number of years of course, as a result of the cod moratorium in the 1990s, and even up to now, many of the smaller municipalities - many of the debts were restructured, regardless of where they were in the Province; most of the smaller ones. I think the last year that I was in Municipal Affairs we had a few more to do, and I think that the present minister - I will ask him probably in Estimates if they have taken care of them. Are there any more smaller municipalities that need to have debt reconstructed through the government Municipal Financing Corporation, or is that not possible anymore now?

MR. SULLIVAN: What we did last year - we budgeted $9 million last year to try to wrap up the rest of the communities and look at them. That was the amount identified that should, hopefully, take care of the rest of these. That is a piece of work that I know is in progress. It is not closed in all communities but it is moved, and some of the ones are done and some are in the process, to my knowledge. Whether that is enough to do it all, it was determined it would be, but I guess Municipal Affairs would be the appropriate place to find out where they are in that progress.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, I understand.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, just from my information overall, that - I am aware of what is happening. There are some in the works that are not completed yet, I know that, and I know others have been progressed at different levels, but we anticipated that that would complete the piece. Now, whether it does, I am sure the department would get the specifics.

MR. LANGDON: Yes. I guess like in any fiscal year, government having so many responsibilities to do, there were a number of smaller municipalities that were not tied in directly to the Municipal Financing Corporation. They were tied in - I will mention, I think the name is correct. I will have to probably go back and check. Like, for example, Cow Head. Some of the municipalities on the Northern Peninsula that went and borrowed with the bank, their debt restructuring. They were some of the first ones - whoever the bank is, I cannot remember right now. But when a large number of these people moved out, the towns then had difficulty being able to meet all the debt obligations that they had. They were at the bank, and obviously, we did not touch them. We never had time to do it in the last couple of years that I was there; only two years in Municipal Affairs. We looked after the other ones through the Municipal Financing Corporation. Are there any of these that you are considering in 2005-2006 to be able to deal with, or would that have to be taken up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I will just comment on it. Yes, the answer to that should come from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but I will tell you that last Wednesday, I think, MHAs in the region were invited to a forum in Mount Pearl for all the municipalities on the Avalon Peninsula and that was an issue raised there. The minister did indicate at the time - and you will get the details from the minister, but I will indicate that those who went through the route with banks and not through areas, some of these might be put in a more difficult situation now because they did not come under the Municipal Financing Corporation. Therefore, the minister acknowledged that and he dealt with it, and he said it is something to be looked at. I cannot tell you exactly where the department is going to move on that or what is there, but I am sure the minister can. It is something he is very cognizant of and that was an issue that was discussed even recently there. I am sure he will give you more specifics on where they are moving with it.

CHAIR: Mr. Ridgley?

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, just to get away from some of the line questions there. Minister, school tax, how much money is outstanding in school tax?

MR. SULLIVAN: Outstanding now in school tax there is $40 million.

MR. SWEENEY: Does that include the interest?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it does. It is just slightly over $40 million. My deputy tells me $41 million. So that is close enough. Yes, there is $41 million on it. Out of these, there are 28,000 accounts. There were 116, I think, at that time - yes, 157,000. In fact, I just did an interview with one of the radio stations on this today and indicated that at the time when it was taken over here in 1992 from the tax authorities, there were 157,000 accounts. It is down to about 28,000 now and there is about $40 million left, including interest.

MR. SWEENEY: How much without interest?

MR. SULLIVAN: Without interest the amount is $10 million, and $30 million in interest; $10.6 million and $30.4 million.

MR. SWEENEY: What are your plans? Are you going to continue to collect that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Our plans on that is, we felt it has been on the go from 1992 and it is time to put a plan in place. We figured, let's get this over and done with and get it out of there. It is thirteen years ago since it landed on government's lap.

What plan we came up with this year, we budgeted in our budget to hire eight new people. The jobs were advertised. It closed on April 13. There were 200 applications for positions. It was advertised publicly. There is a screening process now ongoing. Eight of these people are going to go to work and they are going to work on these accounts. We are going to follow up on these accounts. We are going to make an effort to look at every one of these accounts. The resources were never put there over the past number of years to do that, a person working (inaudible) within the regular structures. So we have dedicated eight people now who are going to go there and look at those accounts. Someone we have in contact might be deceased, they might be a senior who is eighty years of age or seventy-five with a limited income. They might be low income. They might be people outside the Province who might be making $120,000 a year and owe money on their accounts. We are going to follow up on each of these accounts, deal with these where you can get settlements. You might have to get write-offs. We will make every effort to collect. We are going to go on that for a two-year period and close the books on it, is our intent, and say it is over and done with now, we have it dealt with.

On this issue, we look at people who want to come forward and agree to make payments, or if they have the financial ability but not to pay it all at the one time, we could work out a payment plan, and they do that in-line with the department. If people are just not co-operative and have the means to do it and they could be making significant amounts of money, as a last resort what we do is we can put it to a set-off program under our federal taxes, but that is after we have gone through - we are going to go through the channels to deal with these, but that option is there. That comes once a year under income tax refunds. Some people do not get a refund, some do. There are avenues, but we are making a concerted effort over two years to get it done, close the books on it and move on.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. So these are temporary positions?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct. Eight people were hired for two years on a basis to deal with this. At the end of that, if there are openings they could apply for in government, or the mainland there - they may be out the door, we do not know; the same as anybody who comes in and have the skills and apply for a position. They are temporary, yes. Two-year positions is the duration. That was advertised. That was in the ad, a two-year temporary position.

MR. SWEENEY: I know there was a major problem with trying to get some people dealing with some problem situations. I know from my end, people with low income, and no income in some cases and that sort of thing. I know there was a large backlog over there starting to accumulate.

MR. SULLIVAN: What we have done with that and the people there, we have tried to apply consistency in dealing with those problems. Any cases that come to me, I forward them on. I ask that they be dealt with in a fair manner, that the same rules apply to all. In a similar income, when you have a similar situation, that is what happens. If you have the means, make the decision, deal with it, but be consistent and be fair to everybody on whatever route we take. That is all I have asked of my officials on this issue and that is where it is to.

MR. SWEENEY: How much money does the department have in outstanding fishery loans now?

MR. SULLIVAN: Outstanding fishery loans, there is - well, it is not my department. It is the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development through the portfolio management area in fisheries. The amount of fishery loans, I think, is about $40 million.

That is correct. Earl informs me that is correct.

MR. SWEENEY: Is a breakdown of that between interest and principal?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that $40 million that is due in loans is in principal. That is the principal amount, yes. A lot of these loans that are out there are guaranteed. Some of them are guaranteed up to 20 per cent of that specific loan, to a maximum of $1.3 million in any one loan. They are done under a blanket guarantee that we provide. If somebody wanted to get a loan at a bank, they go to the bank, they might get $600,000 for an enterprise. They would go to the bank and we would give a guarantee to the bank up to 20 per cent of that particular amount with any ones that are settled or called on would be deducted from that total from profit, generally speaking, applied proportionately on these ones.

MR. SWEENEY: These are loans for boats, enterprises and that type of thing. What about plants, plant owners?

MR. SULLIVAN: To my knowledge, nobody has gotten a loan for a fish plant, that I am aware of. If there are any outstanding, there are limited guarantees with some plants. We have not added any new guarantees. We have been trying to move out of that. There are only two major ones now that are guaranteed. There are no loans to plants, to my knowledge. I will ask my Director of Debt Management. I know there is money that went into plants before and there are some in the position. We just moved on one that has been in the public forum there. There are two others that have significant guarantees from government that have been there for some time. Hopefully, the time will come when that will not be there. But, giving a loan to a fish plant out there, I am not aware of it.

Director Earl, if you wanted to add specifically. I do know one instance where a company operating now that we had to move - could not meet their debts and we had to move to get it operating for this year. Are there any others?

MR. SAUNDERS: No. There are two major loans out there for working capital for fishing companies. Then there are, probably, two or three very, very small amounts. These are all loan guarantees that were used to provide working capital.

MR. SULLIVAN: And they are out there. I will just give you the specifics. They are public information when we give a guarantee. Torngat Co-op has a $2.1 million guarantee on its working capital. In the summer or the time of the year when they have large volumes and so on, and there are a lot of receivables coming in, they may go up to $2.1 million. That is a working capital guarantee that they have.

Fogo Island Co-op has a $2 million guarantee on their working capital from us here in government also. They are the two big ones. There is one with only about $1,000, I think I saw on the books. They are published in our Public Accounts. The other ones are just minuscule. There was one - I think it is gone now, I am not sure - P. Janes and somebody. Is that still there in the small form? Or maybe it is gone. They are very minimal. If they are, they are the only ones that are left and they are the only significant. The other ones are just really insignificant and they have been there for some time. I am not even sure if we have ever drawn down on these, but the other two main companies, yes, draw down on them. They drew on them significantly to their maximum, generally, at peak times during the year. That is Torngat and Fogo Island Co-op.

MR. SWEENEY: No. The reason I raised that was I was told today, actually, that the plant which was foreclosed upon on the Northern Peninsula - I think that is the one you are referring to - that was given to a company that had already defaulted on a loan to the government?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not to my knowledge.

MR. SWEENEY: Or a principal who was?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, (inaudible). I think we had a release that went out today, didn't we, on that issue? Well, I will give you the details anyway. The company was owned by James Doyle (Sr.) & Sons and operated by Cliff Doyle in New Ferolle. That company had a loan with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador one time, about $1.2 million that they defaulted on, and they also had $770,000 and change that they owed to government. He never made any payment on that since - I do not know, ever probably. I am not sure if they ever did come on all these, never. We came here and they had that, and there were significant creditors out there ready to move on it. In the meantime, they had leased it to a company called - the name of the company, Earl?

MR. SAUNDERS: Ice Cap.

MR. SULLIVAN: Ice Cap, a company called Ice Cap. They had leased it to them. They had signed a lease agreement to operate that plant. So, they came in and they operated this past year or two years; two years, I think. One year before we came they were operating. They operated again last year. They operated on a lease from James Doyle (Sr.) & Sons. They operated that and did their own business. I think they employed some of these people and they dealt with people on that.

This year we indicated that there had been no payment; that we wanted some reasonable settlement on that and to make some payments. We had not received one penny and they never moved on it. We had significant (inaudible). So we moved and foreclosed, basically, on it and that company went into receivership. We did have some problems trying to deal with it, to move in there and to get it operating for this year. Just recently now, we moved on it. We were - and the creditor has that. So what we permitted to do for this year to allow the company that was leasing it from James Doyle (Sr.) & Sons to continue their operation to lease it this year until a decision is made as to what will happen to that in the future. I think that is the gist of what is happening there. If there are any other details on that, that is basically where it is. We have not sold it. We have not leased it. We have permitted the lease to continue to them because we are now technically the owners of that, or at least to the value of our investment in that. The $1.2 million is gone, and history. We cannot collect on that, to my knowledge, Earl, on the $1.2 million, but the seven hundred and seventy-some is one that we can. If there is anything to add on that - Earl just confirmed that.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney, your time is up.

Mr. Skinner?

Mr. Langdon?

MR. LANGDON: I want to follow up on a couple of things. First of all, I want to follow up on the aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir. The industry has been struggling for some time, and over the years there has been a lot of money put into it. I guess the industry is out of its - or we thought it was probably out of its - embryonic stage and ready to move ahead and move forward, but it is still in dire straights. One of the companies, as you are no doubt aware, is into receivership as we speak, and the other two can go into receivership any day. I do not have to tell you something that you know. You are more aware of it than I, as I have been out of it for two years.

The thing that kind of puzzles me in a sense is the fact that the minister said last fall that they put a feed program in place similar to that of New Brunswick, and that these companies would be able to access that feed money and be able to put themselves above the breathing mark and should be able to move ahead and probably expand. Up until only a couple of days ago, neither one of the companies were able to qualify. Someone says there has been one over the last couple of days again. I am not sure on that; you can probably verify that for me.

The problem that I have been told about is that the companies have to come up with about 20 per cent of the amount of money that is needed to be able to put them back on a sound footing. Obviously, they do not have that money to do it. Some of them are smaller operations in Bay d'Espoir, from local people. To them, unless something happens, these particular companies can never raise the 20 per cent. As a result of that, there is a lot of uncertainty in the area. All of us would like to see it expand. I think it has a potential to expand from an ice-free area, free of pollution and all of that stuff. I know there are a lot of new sites being readied, and all that type of stuff, but I just want to find out what is the department's take on the feed program? It is probably fisheries more than anything.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Langdon, I do not feel like I should speak on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on this issue, but I will say generally -

MR. LANGDON: That is all I want.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am fairly familiar with the details -

MR. LANGDON: I have talked to the minister a number of times.

MR. SULLIVAN: - but I do not think it is appropriate for me to go into detail on it.

MR. LANGDON: I don't want detail.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will say we looked at putting in a program, not a guarantee to any individual companies to operate, but a guarantee to an industry to allow an industry to move forward.

MR. LANGDON: Right.

MR. SULLIVAN: New Brunswick had set certain criteria to qualify to get feed subsidy under a guaranteed program. We know, from the time you start until you can sell that, you have a number of years, a considerable up front investment before you get a return. We wanted to be able to allow our Province to compete with New Brunswick, and we initiated a program that would allow the same level, the same criteria, that they could operate in New Brunswick under. We did not want to have it less generous. You might companies who are more stringent. The rules vary. We took a standard on that. The details - not that we are refusing to answer, but I do not think it is appropriate that I should go into the details of another minister's area.

MR. LANGDON: I know, but overall it is a situation that is really worrisome when you bring in a program and nobody qualifies for it. You are not going to save the industry that way. That was my point.

MR. SULLIVAN: I understand. Other provinces have a similar program.

MR. LANGDON: The thing is, right now - I watched the papers on the weekend - you could buy salmon here, local Atlantic salmon, for $2.77 a pound. With that amount of money they cannot even break even in the market. That is some of the problem that they are having there, but we will leave that for another day.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

I understand where you are coming from.

MR. LANGDON: The other question I would like to ask is, again, on the Harbour Breton situation. The feds, as of now, have not come through with any money to help in the short term. We were there last week. The feds look upon it as a provincial problem. They look and say: We did not close the fish plant. We did not cut any quotas from FPI. They got just as much to operate this year as they did last. It was a company's decision to pull out of Harbour Breton, just as you would have any company doing across Canada any day of the week and losing 200 or 300 jobs. My question is - because I have talked to the Premier about it and we have had a good relationship with the Minister of Fisheries and so on, but here is a situation that you might be able to help me get in general terms. Let's suppose that the feds do not come through with any money - and the time is getting short. May 1, by the way, you are going to have a large number of people without any income at all in Harbour Breton. None. The provincial government has said, and up to now have come through with some dollars from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. People are being paid $6.24 an hour. Up to the time that they ran out of benefits they were $12 and $13, a man and spouse, with mortgages and cars and everything. Then, all of a sudden, you are put into this situation; the bottom falls out of it. I do not have to go into it any further than that for you to get the picture. My question is: If the federal government - because the provincial government has said that $1.25 million of the provincial money is contingent upon the money from the feds coming through. Has your department given any thought to the fact that you would probably still go in with a $1.25 million if the feds did not come through with the $4 million, or is that a question I should not ask you either?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Langdon, it is not an issue raised by my department. If government is going to move on a general government policy, it would be initiated within a specific department and then brought to the table of government for a decision generally. I, as a member of Cabinet, would sit around and participate in that decision making. The Minister of Fisheries has been on the file. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has been active in dealing with it.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, I understand.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have not been on a committee dealing with it, and I do not think it is appropriate. The question has been asked in the House also. The appropriate minister should answer that.

MR. LANGDON: I do not think that has ever been asked - not by me.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the Leader of the Opposition probably asked the Premier or somebody. I do recall, to my knowledge, that question was asked: What happens if -

MR. LANGDON: It might have; but, again, I am not asking it for the sake to try to be at odds with you if you answered it before, or anything of that nature.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not dealing with the file, but if something comes up - like anybody who sits in Cabinet, as you are well aware - we will deal with the issue, but it has to get brought forth from the department. It is not my department that is involved in bringing it forth.

MR. LANGDON: The whole idea for me to raise it here is such that the deputy minister and whoever else will be aware of it. It is a major problem, and one that will be coming very shortly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

Thank you.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I would like to follow up on a couple of more questions regarding school tax. It appears, from what the minister has stated, that anyone who is now financially capable of paying school tax will have to pay school tax - who has an outstanding bill. Is that correct?

MR. SULLIVAN: You are essentially correct. Debt owed to government, we have seen it and the Auditor General has said on numerous occasions that government does not do a good job of collecting its money, money owed to government. We think we have an obligation to the taxpayers of the Province to collect monies owed to government if people have the ability to pay.

MS THISTLE: I know in some situations that are now coming across my desk, and they are from all around the Province, a lot of people say to me that they were never notified or they would have been granted an exemption at the time their school tax bill was actually issued in 1992. Since then, of course, they have gotten on with their careers and they are better able to deal with it at this point, but they still feel they should not have to pay all of the outstanding interest. Is government providing any flexibility in those situations?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I said earlier that numerous financial situations for people would dictate their ability to pay. That is one aspect. If someone had the ability to pay, we expect to get paid. There may be certain costs involved with collection. If someone owed us $2,000 and they wanted to deal with my people in collections, whatever process applied to them, they contact the manager or director, the manager in collections, to deal with them, and if they have a proposal that they want to put forth and settle something, deal directly with them. I do not get involved in that process.

Sometimes there are costs involved in collection and there might be some latitude if there is a collection cost involved, and those things. They are things that I leave to the people dealing with that. I do not look at cases on these, and examine them or make any recommendations or suggestions. I want consistency applied, and fairness. There are periods where somebody has known, there are periods where they have not, where they may not have or they could not locate somebody; they might have gone out of the Province. There are probably 1,000 or 2,000 or 10,000 different scenarios, almost, out of 28,000, but officials will try to make a fair decision based on each of these cases and deal with them. I think a lot of cases might have variances and there might be different solutions to different cases based on financial ability, based on periods of notification, knowing you were notified and did not respond, and all these type of things.

There are numerous scenarios. I think it would be fair to say that there will not be one rule applied to every case but there would be consistency with people in similar situations. I think that would be fair to say.

MS THISTLE: I guess the rule of thumb is that the Department of Finance will expect people to pay those bills, principal and interest, unless there are unusual circumstances. Is that correct?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would not necessarily go to that extent. It depends on how you define unusual circumstances. I think there is a degree of subjectivity in somebody who may have left the Province, gone out for three years, could not track them down, and they are back in the Province and working for the past four or five years and might have received a bill since they came back. They might have somebody who left for eight years and never got notified. There might be all scenarios. I do not think I can prejudge and establish a particular scenario. I think there would be a consistency applied and I think different situations and circumstances and financial situations warrant different solutions. I am not going to be the one to judge them, I can assure you, at all. That will be done by staff and officials who deal with these and know what those consistencies are.

I think it would be advisable, I would suggest, that anybody who does owe it and are trying to deal with it, to contact the department and put forth their case to them to get dealt with. We do know there are significant numbers of people there - a lot of telephone calls - thirty, forty and fifty-some people a day, trying to deal with and process these, and also deal with tremendous calls. It will take some time to deal with them all, but please contact them if someone has an interest in getting it settled, and deal with the appropriate official on that, I would suggest.

MS THISTLE: I just have a few line questions before I get into general questioning. I would like to go to 2.2.01.06, Tax Policy. What are you undertaking this year to be $1.6 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you just repeat that number, please?

MS THISTLE: Under 2.2.01., page 34, line 06., Purchased Services, $1.6 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

What has happened in the past, the Canada Revenue Agency, there is a fee that we pay for any change in their forms, like tax on income and so on. What we have been doing every year - I will just use an example. If we were going to get $672 million in personal income tax, for example, and it cost $1 million for those services, we would get $671 million.

What we are doing now - we are saying that is a cost they are charging us - we are putting that in as a cost and we are reflecting the higher revenue as revenue. The Auditor General has indicated on numerous cases that any credits we are getting, or breaks that we give the people, like direct equity tax credit or certain exemptions under programs, do not show reduction of revenue for those things; show all your revenue and show them as an expense. That is why for the first time we have added, even in cases right over in the last page, I think, is it, in our Estimates book? I am not sure if it is - yes, it is 258 in the Estimates book. That does not just apply to this one, but that is an example of the process we followed.

MS THISTLE: I noticed it.

MR. SULLIVAN: We have included this for the first time, shown in your Personal Income Tax, the money we got. How much is because of a Child Benefit, $8.5 million; Direct Equity Tax Credit, $100,000; HST, $5.6 million.

What we are doing here is that the monies we are paying the federal government, we are showing them as an expense rather than having it as less income to get for that. Have I made myself clear or do you want me to have another go at it?

MS THISTLE: I guess it is a new method of reporting, what it amounts to.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly.

MR. PADDON: If I could just make a comment?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. PADDON: Included in the $1.6 million, too, there was a one-time charge of almost $1.1 million which is an implementation fee that the federal government intends to, or is contemplating charging us for moving to the tax on income system a number of years ago. There has been, I guess, a process of negotiation going back and forth with the federal government now as to the amount of the fee. It is probably about two or three years old now. We expect that if they are going to charge us the fee, it will come this year. It is a one-time fee and would not reoccur; but, you are right, this is really just a different way of reporting. Traditionally, it has been shown as a reduction of revenue so it really did not get the visibility it should have. Now we are just showing it as a departmental expense and estimating what the fees are going to be.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, also, just one thing to add.

Once that initial cost - and that has been, I guess, a two or three year negotiation thing, as the deputy indicated. The annual cost, then, to administer and pay for these programs is about $550,000 a year. That would be the annual then, so we are showing it as a cost but we are getting more revenues now, and if we did not get the revenues it would be deducted from the revenues. It is another way of showing it, that we could break out the cost and you know exactly it is a cost as opposed to less tax. It is a more transparent way of reporting it, actually, and that is -

MS THISTLE: I do recall when we negotiated that particular agreement with the feds, but I guess this is the first time I saw it reported that way.

Thank you.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are doing a lot of things more transparent, if that is what you mean.

MS THISTLE: That is not what I mean.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh.

MS THISTLE: I feel we were very transparent in the past.

Under section 2.2.04., Tax Administration, line 01.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just have to catch up to you there.

MS THISTLE: Section 2.2.04., Tax Administration.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS THISTLE: There is quite an increase there in Salaries coming up this year. What are you attributing that to?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we are attributing $264,000 of that to the eight temporary tax collectors we just talked about, and we are attributing another $250,000 -

MS THISTLE: How much was that?

MR. SULLIVAN: We budgeted $263,900, and we budgeted $250,000 for a central collection pilot project. We are looking at hiring more people also to come in, generally students or work-term people or whatever, to look at another $250,000 we budgeted to hire more people to try to get some central control of collections.

Right now, as you are probably aware, HRLE will do their collections, and Justice will do their collections, and various other areas. We are trying to get some central collection system on a more organized basis to deal with this. The Auditor General, if you remember, in his report this past year has referenced this, wondering where it was. We have been moving and working on this and we have been able to budget $250,000. When you add these two together, that is $517,200 extra just for those two initiatives.

MS THISTLE: Under the same heading in Transportation and Communications, I noted that you did not use your budget last year; only half of it, really, $100,000. What do you expect to be doing this year, that you are going to be able to use $185,000?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, there was employee turnover that caused that last year, and the non-filling of vacant positions. Of course, with extra people, too, that we reference and so on, and extra costs there, we anticipated that it is going to be up to that level. We just referenced more people hired in the department.

MS THISTLE: What are you going to be doing with Professional Services, the increase of almost doubling your budget there, under 2.2.04.05.?

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you mean for this year, why is it up higher?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, Professional Services, we estimated that the extra tax collectors is going to cost about $22,000 extra, $21,800 - about $22,000 - by having these extra people there. The central collection pilot project, we do not anticipate costs associated with that, but with tax collectors we anticipate about $21,800 would be extra in this area.

MR. PADDON: If I could just add a comment.

The lion's share of that cost relates to chemical analysis for gas tax samples, so we have hired an additional number of gas tax inspectors. We will have a full year of them on stream this year, so we would expect to see a fair bit more analytical work on the samples, and that is done at the university so they charge us for that.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

Section 2.3.01., Economics and Statistics, there is a sharp increase in Salaries there. Can you tell me what is going on there?

MR. SULLIVAN: Salaries, that is Economics and Statistics. I will just say at the onset, too, in this specific area, that Economics and Statistics is an area, if you look at it there at the bottom, where we get considerable revenues coming in from other sources. That area, we get a big recovery on contracts we do, whether for departments, outside agencies, wherever it is, and we get revenues associated with that. Even though there is more there, the breakdown, we are going to have an extra - the temporary assistance for special projects, for example, we have a census project that is going to cost $241,800. We have production accounts another $86,600. The LMDA, $100,000 for that. We have a National Crime Prevention Strategy, $100,000. Miscellaneous surveys, projects like forecast contracts within Economics and Statistics, about $357,500. Those special projects funding alone is almost $900,000, just on these alone.

Now, one of the good things about that, when you look at the bottom line there, under Total, you can see, underneath them, look where it has been overall. There has been a consistency in the bottom because sometimes we might get a lot of outside contracts. We have done projects for things as far as, I think, the First Nations people, outside provinces. When you do work it goes up and we get a recovery, some 100 per cent recovery on a lot of initiatives, so you can see the bottom line has been very consistent all along. They will go up and down with the contracts and the work we get and the number we employ, and the associated cost with them.

MS THISTLE: Minister, how much did you say your census project was going to cost?

MR. SULLIVAN: The census project, about $241,800 we projected.

OFFICIAL: Just the salary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just the salary component, now.

MS THISTLE: Just the salary component?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am talking about salary, strictly salary.

MS THISTLE: But the actual project itself.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, the census project itself, I think we have a total - I will just give you an example. Under transportation - under the census - and communications, $7,000. For instance, under supplies, I do have a total here, too, of summary. Do you want the total or the breakdown?

MS THISTLE: The total.

MR. SULLIVAN: Two hundred and eighty thousand three hundred of that would be on census.

MS THISTLE: When will this project be undertaken?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will refer to my deputy.

MR. PADDON: This project started last year and it will continue this year and move in, I think, the next two years. It is a four year project. It is in conjunction with seven universities across Canada, with Statistics Canada and with our own university here, so it is a fairly in-depth project and it is the second year right now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just to add to that, Mr. Chair, we are doing the work here for seven universities. There is IBM, there is Stats Canada, the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency. This initiative is one that we are doing - an example of using our people to do significant work for other areas outside, to use our people, employees, and get funded proportionately back on this money, back into the coffers, that is really employing people on - that area has a certain level of expertise. They do a lot of work for different departments also. We are fortunate that we can do some work outside and employ our people who have skills in providing that information and employing people here and getting funded from other groups outside our Province.

MS THISTLE: What advantage will this information be to government at the end of the four year project?

MR. SULLIVAN: In terms of the specific census? It is an array of statistics in various things drawn for a variety of things, I would think. I do not know if there are any specific -

MR PADDON: This is not necessarily a project that is going to benefit the Province per se. It is a contract that we have been given by, essentially, Statistics Canada, that is funnelled through some other universities, but it a project that they are looking for some benefit from. It really benefits them. Specifically, I guess, there will be some ancillary benefits for us later on down the road, but it is not something that the government is undertaking per se. It is just a contract that we are filling for somebody else.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is my understanding on that one, Mr. Chair, on projects that we do like this outside, that we get 100 per cent return on the project cost. That is my understanding on these projects.

MS THISTLE: Very good.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Sweeney?

MR. SWEENEY: Back to the fishery loans, I had one more question there on that. Any loans written off in the fisheries?

MR. SULLIVAN: Overall, any ones written off are published and get done annually, and they are published in our Public Accounts. If you go to our latest Public Accounts, go to the back and you will see every single thing that is written off in every year.

The only one I can recall - not in companies - I recall one that was two fishermen, I think, one of whom was deceased just recently, went through, and the other person, I do not remember specifics. I would not want to comment on that. I just recall, in the last number of months, I think there were two fishermen. One is deceased, I am not sure, and one made a payment or a settlement, I think, I am not sure, who is retired or working. I do not know the details. It is not uncommon from year to year that there are certain ones that get written off. The only one I recall, and I stand to be corrected, is, I think, for two fishermen. I am not sure if there are any others that have gone through recently, but they will be published. These things are published. If you go to our Public Accounts that come out in the fall, every single one of these will be listed, and the amounts written off, and who they were. There are none that jump out at me.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Saunders, you were going to say something?

MR. SAUNDERS: There have been no significant write-offs in recent years. Typically, the way write-offs have occurred, we probably make significant submissions to Treasury Board for write-off approvals every five or six years or so. There have been no significant write-offs in very recent years. All of the write-offs have been reported by the Auditor General in his annual report. He has included in his report the collection of accounts. He has included a long list of write-offs over the years, but there have been no significant write-offs in recent years.

The minister referred to a couple of individuals, and those related to payouts under the Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program, where fishermen have gotten a guaranteed loan from the Province for a vessel. Then, due to a circumstance, if they defaulted on the loan, the bank realized on its security and then came to the Province for the deficiency. We set that up, then, as an account and we try to collect. A lot of those accounts are very old, and there have been a couple recently where we have settled and written off the balance. Then there were two recently where we reviewed the circumstances. One individual had passed away, and the other person had a very small income, so that balance was written off. There are still a handful of these accounts that we are trying to resolve.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay.

Just a couple of questions away from the lines. Minister, can you explain which lines in the budget are used for advertisements in the newspapers, radio, TV, and that sort of thing?

MR. SULLIVAN: In our budget here?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't think we did much advertising. I will just have a look at each one.

MR. SWEENEY: Various times throughout - I picked up the paper today, I think it was the Northeast Avalon, and I noticed there were five or six ministers with ads in there.

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot speak for other ministers. To me, I do not think I have ever advertised as a minister. I have never advertised, to my knowledge. The ministers will have to speak for their departments, but, to my knowledge, there is nothing that we advertise. If there is a program you are putting an ad out on, like Communications Director might - if you are bringing in a program or you are doing something you are announcing whether it is - like the fuel rebate program now. We had something in the newspaper on that program and information, but we have never, to my knowledge - and (inaudible) will tell you. I have never taken out an ad in any magazine, to my knowledge, or anything as a minister and paid for by the department. None, to my knowledge. None.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. Now, I must say, you are not as bad as the Minister of Environment. He is -

MR. SULLIVAN: Well -

MR. SWEENEY: He seems to be on the back of every toilet paper roll or whatever it is he is advertising on.

MR. SULLIVAN: I speak for myself. I can only answer my department's Estimates.

MR. PADDON: If I could add just one comment there, one follow up. The only thing we really do advertise are pre-Budget consultations. We do some advertising for that. Plus, as the minister suggested, the fuel tax rebate program, we do some advertising for that as well. We put the application form in the paper and those sorts of things.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: We do that every night. That is nothing new.

What polling is -

MR. SULLIVAN: Not that I was opposed but I had a meeting set up in my other responsibility as Health. There are only so many hours in a day.

MR. LANGDON: Do you know what? Loyola, they do not believe you. So, I mean, you say it, right.

MR. SWEENEY: I would rather believe that the minister wouldn't take you folks out because he did not invite us as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, the former Minister of Finance, in all the while I was critic I never did get a meal. I never did.

MR. SWEENEY: Did the department do any polling in the past year?

MR. SULLIVAN: My department?

MR. SWEENEY: For any particular reason. Like, from time to time -

MR. SULLIVAN: Not that I am aware of.

MR. SWEENEY: - sometimes some of these polls are done, that there is a question added on and paid for by various departments.

MR. SULLIVAN: Nothing, that I am aware of. I will refer that to my deputy or Communications Director. Nothing they said. Nothing. I think hard of spending money. Absolutely nothing.

MR. SWEENEY: How many meetings did you and/or your officials have with our provincial representative in Ottawa, Mr. Bill Rowe, in the past?

MR. SULLIVAN: Meetings?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Like, specifically to go up for a meeting with him? Well, I have met with Bill Rowe on several occasions. Bill Rowe participated in and was there during discussions on the Atlantic Accord. I attended the First Ministers' Meeting on September 13, 14 and 15 dealing with health care and equalization. He was there. I attended meetings on October 26, 27, I believe are the dates, the First Ministers' Meeting - or we tried to attend, almost attended. That was the instance where we did not get the deal on the Accord. Mr. Rowe was there at that, and when I went to Ottawa on discussions on January 28, he was there all day during those meetings. At several meetings Mr. Rowe was available and participated and had discussions. I will talk from my experience. I will speak from my experience there. I cannot speak for other areas.

MR. SWEENEY: What about your officials?

MR. SULLIVAN: He was engaged and around, and a participant in numerous meetings that I attended in Ottawa.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. What about officials? Did he meet with any of your officials outside of meeting with you?

MR. SULLIVAN: My Finance Department officials?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will certainly - they are free to answer if they met him independently. I doubt if they met him independently without me being aware of it, unless it was an intended purpose. I will certainly let our deputy answer that.

MR. PADDON: No, the only time I met with Mr. Rowe was in conjunction with the same meetings the minister referred to.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. How many layoffs were in the department last year?

MR. SULLIVAN: Last year the department - we announced in the Budget last year, and just before the Budget I called in Mr. Puddister and Mr. Lucas and indicated to them that there could be 700 people laid off in the public service as a result of the Budget I announced last year. As of March 31 of this year, 2005, out of those 700 we had anticipated, there were 196 people laid off - did not end up going out the door, out of that 700 I announced. Out of these 196, they include management, they include unionized, they include bargaining unionized people and also non-bargaining people who may not be in management, too. That is including within any ones decision that were made within health education boards directly in government. Anything across the public service - out of about 40,000 people in the public service, we ended up with 196 less bodies that went out the door. We had some funded vacancies that we removed and did not use and pulled out of the system and so on but there was only 196, including unionized and non, and management less in the last twelve months from my Budget up to the end of March of this year.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay, but what about in your department specifically?

MR. SULLIVAN: My department -

MR. SWEENEY: I will leave Mr. Puddister to argue with you on the numbers.

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, they are on the payrolls of that and we know who they are. They are identified. They will raise the issue. I will make reference to that, even though it is another aspect of - not Finance - Treasury Board that I am responsible for, which I certainly can deal with in the House. The numbers that are included -

MR. SWEENEY: But the Department of Finance?

MR. SULLIVAN: In the Department of Finance, in the past year. I am sure our deputy - we did have some people - you mean laid off or retired?

MR. SWEENEY: Laid off.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I will let our deputy do that. He is probably more specific.

MR. PADDON: In the Department of Finance, last year we laid off five in total. In Corner Brook we had a staff complement of five and we took a decision to close the office. We maintained two people who were intended to work from their home - basically, audit and gas tax, inspector staff, who would be on the road most of the time anyway. The three people who received layoff notices, all three found jobs in other areas of government, through bumping or whatever.

In St. John's, we laid off two individuals. One found a job elsewhere and a non-bargaining employee is working out his notice and is still employed. The notice period should be up within the next couple of months. So, five in total.

MR. SWEENEY: Any plans for any more going this year?

MR. SULLIVAN: In this year's Budget, overall, in terms of work there, we have eight hired in those two-year positions. We have $250,000 in central collection. I guess that will involve another half-a-dozen people or more - more than that, probably six or eight or ten more people coming in as a result of that. In people going out - well, we have some positions now that are funded and not feel we are going to be filling. We are aware of that, and some even at a senior level. I am operating with - in this department since my deputy went with (inaudible), we have not filled the ADM position there. We have another ADM who went out, as we referred to earlier, a gentleman - that has not been filled yet, and we have numerous directors reporting to the deputy here. He has had a very hectic time with some vacancies there.

If there are any other targeted, he could - I think we will have more employees possibly, unless there are other ones in the plans that I am not aware of.

MR. PADDON: There are no plans to eliminate any other staff. In fact, as the minister suggests, we will be augmenting the staff and with any luck, filling some of the vacant positions we have there.

MR. SULLIVAN: In all of government this year, overall, basically it is awash between people coming and going, and there are no plans in the layoff system in government. There are areas where there are going to be increased complements of people in government this year over last year. Some areas will be down. In any normal day, in any operation of government with 40,000 people working across government, in any day in an independent budget, there are people who would be - in any given day they could be coming and going across government.

For instance, the CEO of Eastern Health Care might decide that there is a certain task completed, or he needs three less in an area, or dietary, or more in housekeeping, or in another area. These decisions go on everyday in government, since government began; independent operational decisions that we would not necessarily know about or what is happening, but within government itself, directly in there, we would know. We would not know what is happening out in other areas. They are administered and run by authorities. We do not know the day-to-day decisions on these. I am sure in any given day across the Province, or any given week, there are in the dozens, if not hundreds, who might be coming or going out of 40,000 people. That is the normal course of operations, if you scale up operations or down, based on the need for work, whether it is winter or summer demands within that specific area, whether it is - hospital beds in the summer usually scale down. They might rev up at other times of the year. There could be workloads which shift accordingly, if people are in temporary or on call and they might get more work. These numbers fluctuate. We cannot control that, but we do know that in this year's operation, over the course of government departments here, there is no significant change. Last year there were196 net, at the end of the year.

CHAIR: Okay. One more question.

MR. SWEENEY: Since the minister spoke through my fifteen minutes there that time, I would like to have one -

MR. SULLIVAN: I have no problem in waiting to address any questions you have.

MR. SWEENEY: The danger in asking the minister a short question is that you are not getting -

CHAIR: Maybe I should be timing the answers.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, instead of timing the questioner.

MR. LANGDON: And he thinks we want to hear him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry, George. You get lots of time.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, where would I find in the Budget, in the Department of Finance, the extra funding for special projects or projects that were not listed in departmental budgets?

MR. SULLIVAN: Like what, for example?

MR. SWEENEY: Let's say the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor today. The Department of Health said it was not there. There was no money there for it, and today you made an announcement which - and do not get me wrong, I am very happy that Central Newfoundland did get a new cancer clinic.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will explain that one. The Department of Health received an allocation for capital expenditure for the 2005-2006 year. When I came to the portfolio, I, and the former minister, almost made it to tour the site. The deputy minister came back with a report. When we looked at the report there was an initial plan, I think - as the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would know - to look at an involvement of the whole site to deal with other areas, like pharmacy and all these areas, and that was about a four-point-some million. By the time it is fully completed, the whole site would be about $9 million to $10 million, was the total projected cost.

We looked at: How do we deal with the cancer need? What can we do to deal with that in terms of the funding? So, we asked them to go back and look. When they came back and put their report in, they indicated that we have significant cash money in the budget this year approved. We said: Is there money needed? What would be the cost of doing it? They came back - and how much money is needed? They determined that we would need $1.2 million to build on, because there are no options in the Grand Falls-Windsor facility to accommodate inside. To build on is going to be $1.2 million. Gander would be (inaudible) so that is $1.55 million needed. They said: Well, we have other capital projects and numerous things indicated for that year. Some are up and some might be slower getting started and moving. They said: We feel, with the cash flows we have, we could, by the time we get out now and get it moving - it cannot all get done this year anyway, even though that is the cost - there is sufficient cash flow to move it and advance it without delays, that could get done within the amount that is budgeted and allowed already before the fiscal year, which means, though, that some of these costs are going to carry into the 2006-2007 fiscal year. For some of the ones we approved this year, it is not uncommon to carry capital costs in facilities. It is all a cash flow basis, I think, as you are probably familiar with, and may get carried in the next year.

In any event, because we have just added $1.55 million on, to do the project we announced, if they are accurate, we are going to have to allow in next year's budget $1.55 million. Whether $600,000 of that goes to those projects and $950,000 goes to these other projects, we are still going to have to add that into the pot next year, budget for it, and bring that estimate there for capital expenditure. You might budget $15 million. Last year, on roads - I will use this as an example - on roads last year we budgeted $30 million of provincial money. When the end of the year came and it was getting late - I think this example will spell it out - at the end of the year there was about $3.6 million, roughly, or $3.5 million we will call it, did not get done, so we had a cash flow we will carry forward this year of $3.5 million. Normally what happens is, that dies and is gone, and it goes into your bottom line.

What we did this year, for example, the road issue, there was $3.5 million that we did not use. On any capital project you could get a carry through, so we figured, and we have been told by the department who spoke with those boards out there who have the cash, the capital projects allocated, that they were going to get a cash flow that could cover this and we will not need any new money. Beyond March of next year, somewhere along the line, by the time these projects are finished, this one and the one we announced, we need $1.5 million. That is basically how the cash flow works on the system.

MR. SWEENEY: I guess the short answer to my question was that there is no special line there, no special allocation for special projects.

MR. SULLIVAN: In the Department of Finance?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is in the Department of Health.

CHAIR: I do not know what part of that you would not understand.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, there is no new budgeting for it.

MR. SWEENEY: I am delighted they got it. As a matter of fact, the answer took almost as long as it did to get the clinic.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I wanted to explain the cash flow. I was not sure on the -

MR. SWEENEY: No, we know -

MR. SULLIVAN: I will add one thing on roads and what we did. Not only did we let that $3.6 million and $1.5 million collapse on roads; we put another $30 million on top of that $3.5 million again this year.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: In my position as Chairman, I am going to have to ask the minister to shorten up his answers because we have business to get done.

Ms Thistle, the floor is yours.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions on the Department of Business.

MR. SULLIVAN: There are Estimates under the Department of Business, and I am not the minister.

CHAIR: Tomorrow morning.

MS THISTLE: But you are the guru who handles all the -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not the Minister Responsible for the Department of Business. That would be answered, I think, in the absence of the Premier, by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. These are Finance Estimates and I am not going to take on another minister's department when there is an appropriate time given for that.

MS THISTLE: Okay.

Well, I will ask you a couple on which you would make a decision.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am prepared to answer anything under Finance Estimates, or pertaining to it, in this period, or under my -

MS THISTLE: Okay.

Can you tell me what costs were associated with the dismissal of the former CEO, the President of the Liquor Corporation, Gerry Glavine?

MR. SULLIVAN: What costs?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: His contract was up and his time was up. His contract was fulfilled and he went out. There were no other extra costs that I am aware of, on that. I don't know if my deputy - his contract was fulfilled as of August, 2004, and it was just ended on that date.

MR. PADDON: (Inaudible) normal severance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, anybody who retires from government and entitled to severance will get normal severance, I am assuming, that is a given, or if he had any - I am not sure if he had any vacation left or not. I do not deal intimately with details. That would be prepared through the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, but there were no special additional payments other than the normal payments that anybody would receive if they left the public service.

MS THISTLE: Has money been allotted in this year's budget to take care of the severance package for Ms Deborah Fry?

MR. SULLIVAN: In this year's budget in the Finance Department?

MS THISTLE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: None, to my knowledge, whatsoever.

MS THISTLE: Has she been paid any monies to date?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would not be able to tell you the answer to that. It is certainly not through my department. I am not going to venture to guess on other people's departments.

MS THISTLE: Would that matter be taken care of under the Department of Health?

MR. SULLIVAN: It could be. I am prepared to answer that when the Department of Health Estimates come up, but it is not under my department here.

MS THISTLE: Can you tell me, how was the figure of $14.7 million arrived at for the White Paper study?

MR. SULLIVAN: For the White Paper study, that is a question that should be asked of the Minister of Education, who was asked that question, I think, in Estimates already. I am not going to answer a question on somebody else's department either.

MS THISTLE: I am sure that this question belongs in your department. How do you think the decrease in VLTs will happen over the next five year period? Will there be any compensation paid to those people who have VLTs on their premises, or will they be given notice, written notice from your department, that they must remove them in a certain period?

MR. SULLIVAN: We will deal with that, as a government. We announced it, and that exercise would have to be carried out through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. We give a direction. We are one of the owners, basically, of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and, along with the other Atlantic Provinces, we carry out a policy directive of government. They would have to fulfill that policy, fulfill that directive, in line with our policy.

MS THISTLE: What you are saying is that the policy has not been established yet for that particular -

MR. SULLIVAN: We have announced that it would start next year. The reason it did not start on April 1, lots of people just spent money, and it probably cost, and they have a one year grace period before you have to start decreasing the numbers. Then the numbers will decrease by 15 per cent over the next five years. If people have a certain number in there, they will have to decrease that proportionately over the next five years to get it down to the number of five maximum.

MS THISTLE: Have you had any early indications on how the Sunday shopping has been with the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation? What are the early figures on that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it was only approved before Christmas and did not get passed until the end of January, so we only had February and March. What money we budgeted to get from the Liquor Corporation last year we got, but they only had two months in the last fiscal year, only February and March, to really have any impact on that, and there was nothing of any significance that we had. There was no deviation or no increase in the amount of money they provide to government.

MS THISTLE: Why did you underestimate the revenues from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation this year as compared to last year?

MR. SULLIVAN: We did not underestimate. What happened, when I became minister, I sat down with the Liquor Corporation and we had $114 million budgeted in your last fiscal year, 2003-2004, to deal with that. They indicated to us - the $114 million we were going to get paid - they said: We cannot raise $114 million. We are only going to make $90-some million. They told us to take it out of equity. We would have to take $15 million out of the equity of the company.

I said that was robbing Peter to pay Peter, not robbing Peter to pay Paul. I said, if you make $99 million, we want $99 million. If you make $102 million, we want $102 million. We are not going to take equity out of a company and have to borrow to give us money; that is not right. They were told to budget more money above and beyond what they had the ability to raise, and we said we are not taking that and that is not going to happen. We corrected that, and now it is back to realistic levels.

MS THISTLE: We all know that they turned in $105 million last year.

MR. SULLIVAN: They did, and they had to squeeze to get that. This year the problem is, there is some extra cost. The IT is antiquated over there. It is completely out. There is a significant investment occurring this year in the IT. Basically, we have improved their system to be able to make it adaptable to know their inventories. The Auditor General has said, you have stuff on the shelves too long. It is way over its lifespan. You are not getting a turnover. You are tying up money. There are extra costs. We want to know what is in the store. We want to know what is selling, what is the turnover. We want to get into the modern day and age of keeping inventories and control. As you walk up to a Canadian Tire Store, they put up on your screen that we have six of these in stock, or seven of these. We want to advance our program to make it a more efficient operation. That is the way it is moving there, and there are some extra costs to make up for a lot of lost time on that issue.

We are going to take every revenue or cent that they provide in profit to us that we are going to get, and we hope that the efficiencies in all of these will enhance that and get a bigger return to us in the future, but we are not going to ask them to go out and borrow, and go out and take equity out of the corporation and so on, just to take money from one pocket and put it into another pocket. That is why there is a difference there, and we are moving.

I appointed my deputy minister to sit on that board. He now sits on the board of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. I wanted him to be close to the operation, efficient, and to ensure that it meets the expectations of government in operating as an efficient agency of government.

MS THISTLE: I expect, Mr. Finance Minister, you are lowballing these figures like you did last year, and you know -

MR. SULLIVAN: On which one, Ms Thistle? Lowballing which one?

MS THISTLE: The same as sales tax, last year you had revenues of $635 million and look what you have this year, $614 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: The reason for that is, there was a loophole in the federal government tax. I announced that in my midyear financial statement that I released. I am not sure if you were there, but down in the Media Centre at the time we thought there could have been about $65 million extra we would have to pay back because of loopholes in the tax where people could carry forward, I think, credits - the deputy might want to give you more detail - for one year, and this was money that the federal gave to us. We go on the estimates that they give us based on it, and, because of taking advantage of an opportunity of a loophole, it caused us probably to lose $60-some million. We thought it was going to be a lot worse in December, but we found out since it is not quite as bad as it is and now it is down to a more modest amount. It is thirty or thirty-five now; they gave us a revised figured since that. That is strictly on the numbers provided us by the federal government, and what is available in terms of what you can claim. It is strictly a federal number given to us by the federal government, and it is only half as bad as we thought it was going to be when I did my midyear statement in December and released that figure and explained where it came from.

MS THISTLE: This will probably be my last question.

I noticed that, Minister, you budgeted $45 million revenue, or interest, on the $2 billion Atlantic Accord money.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct.

MS THISTLE: How are you planning to hide the $2 billion in the Atlantic Accord money for this coming year in your Budget?

MR. SULLIVAN: We do not plan to hide it. We checked with our comptroller general on what is the acceptable accounting practice to deal with $2 billion. We do not have it yet, number one, but we have indicated publicly what it is. I have said on numerous occasions to the public from day one, that pot of $2 billion that comes into us will go as deferred income.

Last year, the year just ended - even though we do not have it yet, hopefully we will get it - we allowed $133.6 million in last year's statement for revenue from that $2 billion. If we do not get that, our statement - we are $133.6 billion worse off last year. This year there is $188.7 million into that. The purpose of that, and the agreement was reached, is that $2 billion is an upfront payment to go against what we would get over the next eight years. It is a floor. If it comes to be $3 billion, we will get $3 billion or $3.5 billion, but we cannot get less than $8 billion. What we will do in the first eight years of that deal we are guaranteed that.

In year one we are guaranteed - whatever we would lose through equalization because of our offshore revenues we will get that made up to keep as 100 per cent. Because the federal government fixed the equalization pot in an agreement reached in September, and confirmed in October, that the federal equalization pot is $10 billion for last year and it is $10.9 billion for this year. We could determine from the fixed equalization pot exactly what we are getting in equalization, what we got last year and what we are getting this year. This year it is $861 million. That can change. Every other year before, back since I got into politics, equalization changed up and down. It went as high as some $220 million extra in one of the previous administration years. It went as low as $50 million less, it went 110 more. There were windfalls most of the years, for several years when the federal government gave new numbers. That will not happen this year because we know now equalization is going to be $861 million and will not change during the year. We know that $188.7 million out of the $2 billion is gone into this fiscal year to allow for revenues from our agreement we reached with Ottawa.

Next year there is a new equalization formula coming out. When we know what that is and we know what the revenues are and what we would lose, if that is $200 million, $200 million will come out of that to keep as 100 per cent. For each of the years four, five, six, seven and eight, if that is gone, the $2 billion is gone after year six, and what we earn in year seven we will get new money from them to make up for that, technically, and in year eight to keep us whole.

MS THISTLE: You made reference, Minister, about deferring the revenue from the Atlantic Accord money. Is it your intention to park that money in a trust account?

MR. SULLIVAN: A final decision has not been made on that. We were hoping that the legislation would come through with the federal government in March and get this approved. When it did not, we did not budget that we would get it then in March. We budgeted not to have this in the first three months of the fiscal year, which meant our budget encompassed having that money from July 1 to the end of the year, for nine months of the year instead of a full year.

The $45 million is the amount of interest and the amount of allocation we made on that. If we decide to use that for some other purpose, that could vary that $45 million, but we went on a rule that it would cost by either - number one, if we did not have to borrow - we have one issue coming due this year, I think in October, of $100 million. If we do not have the cash flows or monies to do that, we could not roll that over. We could retire that and we could use the rest into what is a trust of whatever it is. So, we budgeted for that scenario because a decision has not been made and we do not have it, but we will make a decision before that money is due to come to us, on what is the best use of that money. We will use whatever expert advice we can get on it, along with our own advice. I am sure it will not vary. My department's advice probably will not vary from any expert advice you will get out there. That has been my experience.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

CHAIR: You are welcome.

A question, Mr. Langdon?

MR. LANGDON: Yes.

I know that it is prudent with money and all these things, and I understand that. Why is there a need tonight for the Estimates to have six cops here, RNC officers and two more people out on the parking lot?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know. I wasn't aware. You know more than I do on it. I wasn't aware of it.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, okay.

CHAIR: Is that it, Mr. Langdon?

MR. LANGDON: That's it.

MR. SULLIVAN: The whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God, that's a fact.

MR. LANGDON: No, I am not saying you do not.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know; didn't know.

MR. LANGDON: No, it is just the other - I am just asking the question again for the record, right?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't need protection. I didn't ask for it.

MR. LANGDON: I assume that it is time-and-a-half for those -

CHAIR: I could go out and ask them and report back.

MR. LANGDON: No, no, no.

CHAIR: Okay. Alright.

Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, in recent times, have undergone a reorganization I think. How many jobs have we lost here in the Province? How many positions?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation runs their affairs and we do sit on the board. We do have representatives who sit on the board of that corporation.

MR. SWEENEY: You said earlier that government was part owner of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we are part owner, but I do not know the day-to-day operations of the commission. There are reports tabled and -

MR. SWEENEY: Can you find that out for us and report back?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I am certain we can.

MR. SWEENEY: Because I am concerned about jobs here in the Province and how things are compared to P.E.I. and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can find that out, but in the every day-to-day operations in the Atlantic Lottery Corporation - the way it works, there are jobs in our Province, there are jobs in Moncton, there was a fuss raised in the past with Nova Scotia. They were going to pull out and they were talking about the job ratio. They came to some reconciliation, I think, on getting what is considered a fair share on it and a fair return. We pay proportionate costs, and I will endeavour to get those numbers. I am sure I can get those numbers, on how many are there and what has been the traditional in the last number of years. If you need them, I am sure they are in the records and the payments - employee records of the company, but I would not know this type of detail. If you asked me how many are working today for the Eastern Regional Health Authority, I would give you a ballpark figure. I would not be able to give you exact numbers.

MR. SWEENEY: The other question I have is the two components of the Department of Finance, and that is the Liquor Commission and the Lottery Corporation. Both of those have booths at Mile One Stadium.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. SWEENEY: I am just wondering what the policy was on the use of those booths and who in government has availed of the use of those booths? I know you are not down there every night trying to see who is there or anything, but if you could get the information and send it back to the Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would not be able to give you that. I think I have been in the stadium four times in the last year, so I would not exactly know the details. We did indicate that when the contract was due - the contracts are due around now, I think, roughly. I am not sure of the exact date but I did express an interest that when the contracts come due and the $60,000 was committed, I think over five years by your government on that, that I thought it was excessive. The Auditor General made a reference to it and that something should be done about it. I will follow up on that and see where it is in the process.

I am after being in the Atlantic Lottery booth. I dropped in for about, I guess, a half hour one night, and I was there on another occasion. There was a group of people from different stores there when I was there. Some from - the last time, I think - out in your area and from around - I am not sure, out in the Conception Bay area. I know several were. I did not know hardly anybody there, but there were people who sell lottos. They bring them in for certain events and they utilize that. I think Atlantic Lottery has utilized, to my knowledge, with different people; that they are selling their tickets out around. In fact, one gentleman I spoke with there, I think is probably from the area and works with them. In fact, two of the people I spoke with I happened to know from your area. So they were probably bringing people in that they deal with out in the field. (Inaudible) booth, to be honest with you -

MR. SWEENEY: No, the question I was asking was probably more pointed. I was just asking who, in government, may avail of those booths and the policy within government of using them?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I cannot tell you that because -

MR. SWEENEY: But if you can find the information for me, I would certainly appreciate it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not think the booths have ever been booked and provided to people in government, to my knowledge; that a booth has ever been given and provided to someone in government. If they are, I am not aware of it.

MR. SWEENEY: Probably you could check it out and report back to Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN: I could check it out. Yes, I can.

MR. SWEENEY: Okay. That concludes me, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Sweeney.

Mr. Langdon?

Ms Thistle?

MS THISTLE: No, I am finished (inaudible).

CHAIR: Mr. Oram?

Mr. Ridgley?

Mr. Skinner?

MR. SKINNER: No, I (inaudible).

CHAIR: Thank you.

Shall 1.1.01 up to and including 2.3.01 carry?

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.3.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: Shall I report the total heads of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board carried without amendments?

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Department of Finance and Treasury Board, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On April 13 we held a meeting on Government Services and we need to adopt the minutes of those meetings. So moved by Mr. Sweeney, seconded by Mr. Ridgley.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded.

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Our next meeting is Thursday night, 7:00 o'clock. We will dealing with the Department of Transportation and Works.

Motion to adjourn?

Moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Ms Thistle.

Thank you.

On motion, Committee adjourned.