The Committee met at 5:15 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (French): Okay, folks, I guess we can get started.

First I will start off by asking the committee to introduce themselves and then I will ask the minister to introduce herself and her staff, and then I will call the subheads. The minister can bring her opening remarks and then we will start by taking questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition. I guess we do not need to have the clock this evening because there is only one person asking questions. So we will go from that.

One little bit of explanation, I guess, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs is in the one lot of Estimates. So we will just do the Aboriginal Affairs piece tonight. We will do the Labrador Affairs - it is scheduled for Tuesday morning, May 20, at 9 a.m. we will start, and that is here in the House.

So without further ado, I would ask the committee if they would start by introducing themselves.

Ms Jones?

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yvonne Jones, I am the MHA for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and the critic for Aboriginal Affairs.

MS E. MARSHALL: Beth Marshall, MHA, Topsail.

MR. DINN: Oh, I will go next will I? I thought we were going to go around.

John Dinn, MHA, Kilbride.

MR. FORSEY: Clayton Forsey, MHA, Exploits.

CHAIR: And I know Mr. Buckingham is here but he just had to step out for a minute, he is the Member for St. John's East.

Minister Pottle?

MS POTTLE: Patty Pottle, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, MHA for Torngat Mountains.

MR. COOMBS: Robert Coombs, Deputy Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. HUGHES: David Hughes, ADM, Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. TOMPKINS: John Tompkins, Director of Communications, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I will start by calling the first subhead.

Shall 1.1.01. carry?

Oh, we are going to do the minister's office too, I guess, if she is part of that.

Minister Pottle?

MS POTTLE: As Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the Estimates of the Aboriginal Affairs Branch of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

As you may be aware, nearly all of the activities of this department, including land claims negotiations and implementation of the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, require a collaboration with other provincial public bodies, as well as Aboriginal groups, governments and the Government of Canada.

For the fiscal year 2008-2009, major Aboriginal Affairs initiatives identified in the grants section include: $100,000 to address suicide and detrimental lifestyle issues among Aboriginal Youth; $50,000 to support Aboriginal women's groups and organizations to participate in the analysis and review of the recommendations arising from last June's National Aboriginal Women's Conference.

I am now available, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the details of the estimates.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister Pottle.

Ms Jones, whenever you are ready you can start with your questions.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, minister, for that brief overview.

I am going to start with the actual estimates themselves, in terms of the numbers that are provided on page 57 of the Estimates book. From what I can see based on the estimates, although Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs is touted by government as being two distinct departments, it is quite obvious that there is continuous overlap with the Executive and Support Services divisions of these two departments, which leads me to believe that it is probably very much one within the same.

I would like to hear your response to that because looking at the estimates and how it is budgeted for under Executive and Support Services, it looks very much like it is still just one department.

MS POTTLE: We do share a lot of the services, such as communications. Labrador Affairs do have their office situated in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They have an assistant deputy minister up there. We share a Deputy Minister, Mr. Rob Coombs, who is permanently up in Labrador but does a lot of business back and forth here to St. John's. The Aboriginal Affairs office is located here in St. John's with a full staff. We have our own secretary. We have our own executive assistant and such but there are overlaps with some shared services, yes.

MS JONES: What about with communications? Is there overlap with communications people or are there separate communications people for each department?

MS POTTLE: Mr. John Tompkins is the communications director for the department. We have Val Oliver in Goose Bay - what is Val's title?

OFFICIALS: (Inaudible) Public Relations.

MS POTTLE: Public Relations, and he is situated in the Labrador Affairs office and they sort of – John is the overall communications director for the department.

MS JONES: For both departments, or just Aboriginal Affairs?

MS POTTLE: For both departments.

MS JONES: For both departments.

The PR director who is based in Goose Bay, is that individual responsible for both departments or just one?

MS POTTLE: Yes, they do overlap. They share, obviously, with some Aboriginal issues coming out of Labrador. We use Val in that capacity up there to keep us informed of Aboriginal issues arising and likewise, back and forth here as well with Mr. Tompkins.

MS JONES: Okay.

How many employees do you have in your department?

MS POTTLE: There are approximately - is it eight?

MR. COOMBS: We have a total complement of twenty-five, thirteen being in Aboriginal Affairs and twelve being in Labrador Affairs.

MS JONES: How many of those employees have overlapping responsibilities?

MR. COOMBS: They overlap quite frequently because Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs a lot of times are linked. If you look at issues like, for example, the Mealy Mountain National Park and the issues surrounding that, you are dealing not only with a Labrador based issue but you are also dealing with the implications of land claim agreements and Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal reservations who also have a role in those types of issues. So, there is quite a strong linkage between the two branches because there are specific Aboriginal perspectives and policies and agendas but there are also the broader Labrador policy and specific agendas that intermingle with those. It is a common community where you have different Aboriginal groups and the general non-Aboriginal populous which requires that blended approach.

MS JONES: I appreciate your answer but I mean Aboriginal Affairs overlaps with every government department, not just Labrador Affairs, but you do not have them sharing support staff. That was my question, in terms of how many of these twenty-five people would actually know that it is their job to service both departments?

MR. COOMBS: They would know that because other -

MS JONES: (Inaudible) other than Mr. Tompkins would know.

MR COOMBS: - getting down into the workings of the department is that they would be assigned. Often we ask Labrador Affairs analysts to participate in Aboriginal meetings. We are a small department and there are times when we require analysts on one side to work in the files of analysts on the other side of the department. So, quite frequently we will ask Labrador Affairs analysts to attend Aboriginal related consultations or meetings and vice versa.

MS JONES: Of the thirteen employees within Aboriginal Affairs who share overlapping responsibilities with Labrador Affairs, how many of them would be based in Goose Bay versus St. John's?

MR. COOMBS: The Aboriginal Affairs? None of the Aboriginal Affairs staff are based in Goose Bay. The reason being is that the nature of their work is largely - of the twelve, thirteen people - is policy development in the context of Aboriginal peoples in the Province. This requires regular, frequent consultation with all other line departments, resource departments of government and to be based in Labrador it would be difficult for them to get access to senior policy people, and particularly at the executive level in terms of direction that relates to their mandate in terms of negotiating land claims and development of programs and policies as it relate to the Aboriginal peoples of the Province.

MS JONES: So the only real connection you are telling me, as a department, would be the fact that the minister holds an office in the Labrador Affairs building in Goose Bay?

MR COOMBS: Which minister? She currently does not hold an office. Her primary office is in St. John's but there will be a transitional office that will be available for her to sit in Goose Bay. Those accommodations are part of the staffing up, I will call it, of the Labrador Affairs office in response to ministers being dedicated and identified in the last election process and governments decision to place heavy emphasis on Aboriginal and Labrador files by appointing two dedicated ministers. So the minister's office - actually, I think, right now work is beginning on it.

MS JONES: Where is your office, Mr. Coombs?

MR. COOMBS: My actual physical office space is on 21 Broomfield Street in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but I also have a dedicated office here in St. John's.

MS JONES: You are not included in the thirteen employees with Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. COOMBS: I am the conduit between the two branches as being the deputy minister for both. As a conduit I have an ADM for Aboriginal Affairs and an ADM for Labrador Affairs, but my role is to support both ministers. So I am sort of the conduit that brings together the work of the two branches.

MS JONES: Your answers are not concise in my mind. I asked you how many people were employed with Aboriginal Affairs. You told me thirteen. I asked you how many people were based in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. You told me they were all based in St. John's -

MR. COOMBS: Aboriginal Affairs.

MS JONES: - but yet you are the deputy minister for this department and you are based in Goose Bay.

MR. COOMBS: Yes. Well I am one then I guess, or half of one.

MS JONES: So are you the only one?

MR. COOMBS: Strictly dealing with Aboriginal Affairs issues, yes.

MS JONES: You say your reason for that is because the role of Aboriginal Affairs is to look at policy development in the context of Aboriginal issues across every department and therefore there is no real strong affiliation to Labrador Affairs.

MR. COOMBS: Sorry, I am missing the context of your question.

MS JONES: When I asked you how many people were based there, you told me that it was not particularly necessary to have people based there. Their job was here to look at the policy developments of government in the context of how they affect Aboriginal people.

In light of you making that statement, I have to ask the question: Why is there so much interconnection then between those two departments in terms of sharing staff, having staff that have the responsibility of both departments, whether it is part of their initial job description of not? To me, there is a complete overlap all the way through those two departments. They are not clearly defined by government.

MR. COOMBS: Yes, there is also the fact that we tend to forget. I guess I have sort of a bias as well, being from Labrador myself, that I forget there is a huge Aboriginal population on the Island. So, we cannot forget those as well. That is another reason why there is not really a need for Aboriginal Affairs staff, or the reason why the Aboriginal Affairs unit is based out of the office in St. John's, because Aboriginal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are not only in Labrador, but they are also on the Island.

The other aspect of it, as well, is that all our dealings on Aboriginal issues are done with full consultation and involvement and the need to have the federal government involved. Relationships between the federal and provincial government are best suited out of St. John's at the senior policy level, at the Land Claims level.

MS JONES: You guys are responsible for implementing the Land Claims Agreement that has been signed with Nunatsiavut, is that correct?

MS POTTLE: Yes, we are.

MS JONES: Can you tell me at what stage you are in the implementation right now?

MS POTTLE: The Nunatsiavut government, as you know, is a fairly new government. They are able to take down devolution in programs and services. They are actually not ready for that yet, but we are supporting them in their process forward. It is a working game with them right now. We are here for them, we support them, we encourage them to move forward, but right now they have not acknowledged taking down any of the programs and services.

MS JONES: What really do you do when it comes to the implementation of this Land Claims Agreement? On a day-to-day basis, what would be your department's involvement?

MR. COOMBS: I guess the best way to respond to that would be in terms of a current event and that would be the decision by the Nunatsiavut government to place a moratorium on uranium exportation. That sort of initiated a whole bunch of policy interpretation in terms of the provisions of the Land Claims Agreement in terms of what happens if the Province chooses to continue with development in the Labrador Inuit settlement area; what are our responsibilities, what are the consultation obligations. We, as an implementation body, the one that oversees the interpretation of the Land Claims Agreement, it is necessary for us to co-ordinate with all the other departments, Justice, Natural Resources, Environment, etcetera. Again that is why I referred back to your previous question about why the Aboriginal Affairs unit is housed in St. John's. Those kinds of mechanisms get in place. You need to have an immediate and direct and daily by-the-moment access with senior officials and all officials of government.

Actually, David, if you would comment on that?

MR. HUGHES: As you are aware, the Nunatsiavut government is a work in progress. It has basically been in existence for two years. We have been working with them on the implementation of the Land Claims Agreement and there are really a number of aspects to the Land Claims Agreement. The minister mentioned the devolution of programs and services which you will find in chapter 17 of the agreement, where we have committed to devolve not just programs and services but facilities and everything else. That was supposed to have been initiated in the first three years, but basically at the request of the Nunatsiavut government we have not been pushing because it is not in our interests, the people's interests or the Nunatsiavut government's interests to push this when they are not ready.

There is a social aspect to the agreement. There is also a lands and resource aspect to the agreement. What you have seen over the last year or so is the Nunatsiavut government implementing legislation with respect to management of the lands and their own internal affairs and we have certainly been involved with that. We worked with the Department of Natural Resources in assisting them doing their mineral policies. We have been actively involved with them in the creation of boards, because boards are a joint responsibility between us, the federal government and the Nunatsiavut government, and over the last year or so you have seen the establishment of boards. Those boards, again, you will see upcoming, really starting to operate in terms of management of resources as appropriate through the agreement.

We have been actively involved with the Nunatsiavut government and the federal government in working through the implementation process, developing plans in terms of how that process can be evaluated. What you probably will see over the next year is the kind of planning process and business plan in terms of the implementation of the agreement that we are seeing in business plans which are coming through the House; transparency and accountability. You will see that coming over the next year as we work within the Nunatsiavut government and the federal government.

We have been actively involved in some of the discussions that are going on now over Makkovik and the Makkovik agreement, which you have seen go through the House of Parliament. As Rob said, on a daily basis, in any week, we can get requests from the Nunatsiavut government for assistance and we will either assist them ourselves or direct them to the appropriate department and then work with the department and the Nunatsiavut government in addressing whatever the particular issue was. We have seen that in housing issues, we have seen that in a whole raft of issues. Rightly or wrongly, we are the first point of contact, in many respects, for this new government. Our work is to work with them and with other government departments.

MS JONES: In terms of the devolution of programs and services that would be taken over by Nunatsiavut at some stage, how was the transfer of financial revenues then done to accommodate for those services that they will control? Is that then still paid by the provincial government or paid by the federal government?

MR. HUGHES: At some other point if you want to talk about the fiscal agreements we can certainly do that, but there are four agreements respecting the financial aspects of the new government. There is a thing called the Fiscal Financing Agreement. The Fiscal Financing Agreement is really in two parts: The first part is the federal government's transfer agreement. Essentially what the federal government did is all of the programs they used to provide directly to the LIA or to the LIHC, the Labrador Inuit Health Commission, they bundled them all up together, clocked them in an agreement and put certain requirements on the Nunatsiavut government. That is their funding agreement. When we were doing the negotiations we offered to do the equivalent, to bundle our programs together and look at the transfer, but because of the pace of the negotiations it was not the appropriate time to do it.

What you will see in the Fiscal Financing Agreement is the commitment from the government to transfer funding for the programs and services. What we have committed to do is basically to transfer the programs and services. Whatever it is we are paying now, or government is paying now, for education in the five Inuit communities that money will go to the Nunatsiavut government. We will have an agreement with them to deliver that program or service in the community.

It is anticipated in the self-government agreement and the Fiscal Financing Agreement that there will be some variation in that program to make it more appropriate for the Inuit, especially if the Inuit are actually managing the program. You have that aspect of it. So this provincial money is going in in terms of, we have not taking anything off the table basically. We will provide them with whatever it costs to deliver the program in the community. It is not frozen at 2008 or 2005 levels, it will be whatever we do when we fund a board. It will be equivalent to the funding process that we go through with a board. We will be funding the Nunatsiavut government.

The second source of revenue the Nunatsiavut government has gotten, you have probably seen that much of this is being used now just for the running of the their government and that is their own source revenue. There are really two or three parts to that. There is money they are getting through the capital transfer with the federal government; there is money they are getting through resource revenue sharing which they have achieved under the Land Claims Agreement; and then there is impacted benefit money which they are getting through Voisey's Bay, PIBA, Park Impacts and Benefits Agreement, and other sources like that. It would be three sources of funding going up into the community, federal money for federal programs, provincial money for the basic programs and then own source revenue which is coming through the Nunatsiavut government.

MS JONES: I assume then that there will not be any transfer of those services in the next fiscal year. We have not seen anything budgeted for it in any way in the Estimates.

MR. HUGHES: It would be very, very unlikely that anything will go this year, minus small things. We basically said we are prepared to transfer anything that goes on in the community. One thing that will be happening this year is money for off-reserve housing. That money, rather than being administered by the Province we will do it through the Nunatsiavut government, which would be a small administration. As I said earlier, it is not in anybody's interest to push this issue with the Nunatsiavut government and we are very much waiting for them to ask. That is not to say that we have not put out feelers on education and feelers on health care. Basically we are at their call.

MR. COOMBS: (Inaudible) very limited capacity resources to take on huge programs.

MR. HUGHES: If you look at what they have achieved in the short time they have been in existence it is a tremendous amount, when you look at just putting the basic infrastructure of a government together, in getting all the legislation in place you need to operate. That has really consumed them in the last year or so.

CHAIR: Just for the interests of people who are keeping track of the minutes and so on, when you move from speaker to speaker could you just state your name, please. I should have told you that in the beginning actually. I apologize for that.

MS JONES: I certainly understand that there has to be a process that they go through before they are ready to take on some of these services. I am just inquisitive as to what the role would be in Aboriginal Affairs when this starts to happen. Let's look at the education piece, for example. If they start taking over their own education system, running their own education system, will that then, transfers, be done through the Department of Education or will it be done through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. HUGHES: That has not been determined. I can give you a preference which would be through education. That will be a very complex process because that is going to involve very complex discussions, not only relating to-

MS JONES: Well, that is just an example. You can pick a simple example. My question is based on who will be the department that administers the fund to the Nunatsiavut government. Will it be Aboriginal Affairs or will it be the line departments of government, no matter what the issue is? I just used education as an example.

MR. HUGHES: Obviously we are going to seek direction when we get involved in these negotiations, and that is possibly a question that we will ask.

The Nunatsiavut government wants to develop a government-to-government relationship with the Province. There has been a lot of internal thinking without any conclusion about how best to achieve that. That is something that we will bring to Cabinet as appropriate and that will involve heavy discussions with the departments and the Nunatsiavut government.

MR. COOMBS: Mr. Chair, if I could add to that.

Again I will revert back to the recent mineral decision of the Nunatsiavut government. That created quite a flurry of activity, because at the time we did not know who would be the principle contact point with the Nunatsiavut government because the issue spanned several different agencies, particularly Environment, Justice, Natural Resources and Aboriginal Affairs.

This was just one small piece. I can imagine when we get to the bigger pieces of education and health and justice or everything else that we want to pass on, that there will be a lot of dialogue between all the various agencies.

MR. HUGHES: As you are aware, obviously, by your question, this is something that none of us has done before, and it has not really been done in this way anywhere else before, except for B.C. In B.C., the example we have there was Indians on reserve, the Nisga'a.

This is very, very different, because we have a different relationship with the federal government and the Inuit. We have never done it before, they have never done it before, and this is something that we are going to have to work our way through, but we will be doing it together, in association with the departments as well. It is a good question. It is a question we have asked internally.

MS JONES: The thirteen employees who work in your department, Minister, what are their job titles?

MS POTTLE: (Inaudible) the breakdown here. We have the Assistant Deputy Minister, five analysts, two chief negotiators, a Director of Policy and Planning and support staff.

MS JONES: The salary in your office has doubled up this year. It went from $104,000 last year to $204,000. Is that because there are now two ministers in this Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs? I do not know how else to ask the question because the estimates are all based on two ministers in two different departments.

MS POTTLE: Yes. Well, the increase in salaries would be because of the two dedicated ministers and the support staff.

MS JONES: Okay. This one is just the salary, I guess, for the ministers. Last year you spent $30,000 less than you budgeted for salaries in the minister's office. Why was that?

MS POTTLE: There were vacancies throughout - one of the policy analysts was vacant. Pardon? Oh, the minister's office?

MS JONES: Yes.

MS POTTLE: Oh, I am sorry. Which one is -

MS JONES: 1.1.01.

MS POTTLE: David, can you take that?

MR. HUGHES: We got our two new ministers late in the year and there were estimates based on what it would cost to fund the two ministers after November. There was a delay in hiring my colleague here, Mr. Tompkins, and the minister's secretarial staff. So the estimate that went in - we had our budget increased last year to take account of the new minister. That was basically - we did delay in recruiting the staff to fill those positions.

MS JONES: You budgeted $50,000 for Transportation and Communications but you spent $70,000. I am just wondering what the extra $20,000 was spent on?

MS POTTLE: Part of that, again, was because of two dedicated ministers. As you probably can appreciate, I come from the coast and they had added expense there. The cost of travel itself has gone up. Was there any –

MS JONES: Last year you spent $9,000 on Purchased Services, which was $6,600 more than you had budgeted. I am just wondering, what additional services did you buy or what services did you buy last year under that heading?

MS POTTLE: Under Purchased Services?

MS JONES: 1.1.04.

MS POTTLE: There was an employment opportunity ad that was for a department secretary for the Minister of Labrador Affairs, and there were conference and trade show costs associated there.

MS JONES: What was the conference and trade show?

MS POTTLE: There was a Circumpolar Agriculture Conference, a UVS Canada Conference, and a Northern Lights 2008 Trade Show and Conference.

MS JONES: I cannot hear you very well. Can you fix your mike or talk a bit louder? We are having trouble trying to get your responses.

MS POTTLE: Okay. The conferences were: the Circumpolar Agriculture Conference, the UVS Canada Conference, and the Northern Lights 2008 Trade Show and Conference.

MR. COOMBS: Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

Those numbers as well, because it is a blended department, those reflect the Labrador Affairs branch.

MS JONES: Yes, I am aware of that.

Under Executive Support, line 1.2.01. Last year you budgeted $548,600 for Executive Support Salaries, you only paid out $463,100. What salaries were budgeted for but were not paid out in the last fiscal year?

MR. COOMBS: We have been dealing in both branches, and I think all government is dealing with the issue of a drain of employees and a lot of vacancies in positions.

On the Labrador Affairs side, at one point between last summer and fall we were short three analysts.

In Aboriginal Affairs, we were short a director for approximately seven months, an analyst for another three months, and we still have vacancies yet. So the savings that are realized is due to vacancies and difficulty in recruiting, which is being faced by all businesses and government.

MS JONES: This year you budgeted $569,900 for these Salaries, $57,500 of which is listed for temporary and other employees. Can you give me some details on that, please?

MR. COOMBS: The details there, is that in this budget we were approved for a new analyst position. As well, there is provision there for funds for the communications director. So that bumps it up - and a departmental program coordinator on the Labrador Affairs side.

MS JONES: Both of them are on the Labrador Affairs side?

MR. COOMBS: Well, the Director of Communications is across both.

MS JONES: It is just that in the salary estimate, which is a separate document from this estimate, it talks about it as being temporary employees.

MR. COOMBS: The departmental program coordinator?

MS JONES: The $57,500 of which was listed.

On page 47 of the Salary and Benefits of Government, under the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, it talks about, under Executive Support, that there would be an extra $57,500 budgeted for temporary and other employees. That would tell me that they are not permanent employees, they are not new positions that would become a permanent part of the public service. I am just wondering what those temporary employees would be, what period they are being hired for, what job they will be responsible to do?

MR. COOMBS: It relates to, one is there is an analyst position created that - David can correct me. It is an analyst position to deal with implementing recommendations of the National Aboriginal Women's Summit that occurred in Corner Brook last year. The department budgeted for this analyst and was approved. That amount was for $32,500 and we are also approved to another - I don't know the exact details, but we are also approved for a departmental program coordinator. Partial salary, I think, was $31,000.

MR. HUGHES: The analyst position that we have hired is because of the government's priority on Aboriginal communities, especially women's issues. What we wanted to do was hire someone to assist us in the process of working with Aboriginal women's groups in the Province, a senior executive in developing programs and looking at how the various recommendations that came out of Corner Brook can be implemented. That was not put in as a permanent position because, being responsible, we wanted to see how this thing worked out over time and then, subsequently, it has been approved as a temporary position for three years, subject to appropriation. It is only funded for six months this year, basically because, as Rob said, of the difficulties in recruiting these kinds of positions in government. There just are not the people around.

MS JONES: Also, in the salary funding under Aboriginal Affairs there are permanent and other adjustments being made of $33,715. That is up about $20,000 from last year in terms of adjustment. Has there been some reclassification of employees in your office? I do not know what could have contributed to such a high increase. I know there are standard, normal raises that the public service gets, but I am just wondering if there were some reclassifications, some step increases, something that might have been done in your staff to contribute to that?

MR. COOMBS: Purely what you indicated.

MS JONES: Pardon?

MR. COOMBS: Purely what you indicated, step increases.

MS JONES: Okay. Were there any new positions created to accommodate those step increases or were they done to accommodate new positions, I should say, that were created?

MR. COOMBS: No, I think they are just your standard year by year increases for staff, employee benefits -

MS JONES: So there was always an ADM, there was always a director?

MR. COOMBS: Yes. Now the only difference over last year was that - no, you have hit it.

MS JONES: Last year there would have been an ADM for Aboriginal Affairs and an ADM for Labrador Affairs?

MR. COOMBS: Correct, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. The director positions, there would have been one for Labrador Affairs and one for Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. COOMBS: Correct, yes (inaudible).

MS JONES: There were no new positions created like that?

MR. COOMBS: No, not last year. No new permanent positions, no.

MS JONES: That full $33,000 would have been step increases?

CHAIR: If I could interrupt here, are we waiting on a response or a question?

MR. COOMBS: No.

MS JONES: Oh, I thought I was waiting for a response.

MR. COOMBS: No, I am sorry. No, it is just simply that –

MS JONES: I was just wondering how many people were reclassified to make up that $33,000?

MR. COOMBS: There were no reclassifications last year.

MS JONES: Okay. They were all step increases?

MR. COOMBS: They were all step increases, yes.

MS JONES: And none of them were new employees, they were all existing employees that were given step increases? It is just that it is a lot of money for step increases when you weigh it out against other estimates in other departments. That is why I asked the question. If it looked like it was in configuration with regular step increases I would have just skipped over it.

MR. COOMBS: Yes. I am going to think on that one. As I indicated, it is expressly that. I think probably we can get back to you with the information to confirm that, have a chat with our HR people, our finance division.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under section 2.1.01., which is directly related to Aboriginal Affairs spending, last year the spending for Salaries was $539,200. It was $148,900 less than you had budgeted. Why did you spend less last year than you had budgeted?

MS POTTLE: It was based on vacancies within the department.

MS JONES: So, there were vacancies here as well as in the support staff in the department? Can you tell me what positions were vacant under that heading?

MR. HUGHES: Rob has already mentioned, we were without a director for seven months, an analyst for four to six months. Secretarial positions we were filling late in the term. It is basically the difference in the salaries not being spent, not that the people were not needed.

MS JONES: Okay. I understand his explanation was for section 1.2.01. headings. That is why I am confused now. He told me, when I asked about the savings under that heading, that it was due to the fact that there was a director's position and an analyst position that was not filled. It cannot be under two budgets. It is only under one budget. Were there any other positions that were not filled?

MR. HUGHES: I might be getting confused, or we are confusing you.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under section 2.1.01. you spent almost $149,000 less than you had budgeted for Salaries. Can you tell me what jobs were not filled?

MR. COOMBS: Under 2.1.01?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. COOMBS: Okay. That was the position David mentioned. It was the Director of Policy and Planning for Aboriginal Affairs was not staffed for approximately seven months, and there was another analyst position that was vacant for three months. We are currently still one analyst short. So we are realizing savings as we go on. That is sort of why I commented on, not only across Aboriginal Affairs but Labrador Affairs side as well.

Last year we had, for one period, three analysts at one time that were not on staff. So we were realizing savings at that point as well. There was about a three-month period before we got them all staffed.

MS JONES: Are all the positions filled now?

MR. COOMBS: The Labrador Affairs -

MS JONES: No, this is just Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. COOMBS: No, we have a new policy analyst position to fill. The one related to the NAWS, National group of Aboriginal Women's Summit that was approved in this budget. We have another analyst position, permanent position to fill, and that's it.

MS JONES: Okay.

Also, in the budget you have allocated $93,000 for temporary and other employees under Aboriginal Affairs. Can you tell me what positions they are?

MR. COOMBS: Pardon me, under what section again?

MS JONES: Under section 2.1.01.01., which is your Salaries. You go to page 47 of the Departmental Salaries for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and there is $93,000 budgeted for temporary employees. Can you tell me what temporary positions this is?

MR. COOMBS: Those numbers relate to a secretary to the assistant deputy minister position. That is temporary staff on an ongoing basis, and then there is a Clerk III that is on a temporary staffing as well.

MS JONES: The $93,000, that would cover two secretaries on a temporary basis?

MR. COOMBS: Secretaries and -

MS JONES: They get paid good, $47,000 a year secretaries.

MR. COOMBS: That includes estimates for increases. That is the estimated amount.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under Purchased Services, last year you budgeted $420,000 for Professional Services. Obviously, you did not spend all this money. You spent only about $268,000 of it. I am just wondering what it was purchased for that you did not need to use afterwards? What it was budgeted for, I should say, that you did not need to use afterwards?

MR. COOMBS: This relates to funding for the National Aboriginal Women's Summit, $340,000. That was a one-time measure and was budgeted in Purchased Services.

MS JONES: You spent $268,000. So I guess it must have cost $268,000 after, did it, or?

MR. COOMBS: No. Actually, I think it was more than that, because it was also spread across - and there was a federal offsetting measure as well.

MS JONES: Okay. The federal revenue that you received, which was $150,000, was that all received for this women's conference?

MR. COOMBS: Yes.

MS JONES: It was?

MR. COOMBS: Yes.

MS JONES: Therefore, the other $200,000 would have come from Purchased Services, is that what you are telling me?

MR. HUGHES: The way this is being handled by our finance and administration people is whereas we budgeted it in Purchased Services, the actual recording of where the expenditure was made is actually in other accounts. So it is an adjustment which is being made for this being accounted for elsewhere. Now, do not ask me - I can find out for you where it was but it is a bit of arcane science I am not familiar with.

MS JONES: Yes.

Well, you did budget $420,000. Was there another event, another service you were going to require that you did not require afterwards?

MR. HUGHES: No. This was an estimate of what we thought the conference would -

MS JONES: - women's conference would cost.

MR. HUGHES: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. HUGHES: And then we had the offsetting funding to balance it.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under your Grants and Subsidies, you also budgeted $664,000. You only spent about $472,000. First of all, I do not know what your Grants and Subsidies are. Maybe you could tell me that?

MR. COOMBS: On this item, that purely relates to Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement implementation. You are basically looking at the cost for the wildlife management board, the fisheries board, and the Dispute Resolution Board. That is the biggest bulk of those.

MS JONES: Okay. So you would pay for these board operations to do the (inaudible)?

MR. COOMBS: It is a three-way payment because the federal government is also a member of these boards as well. So we have a contribution agreement between the parties to the land claims agreement.

MS JONES: Okay. I guess the federal cost is incurred directly by them. It does not come through you guys.

MR. COOMBS: It does not flow through us.

OFFICIAL: It flows through the Nunatsiavut government.

MS JONES: Okay. All right then.

I guess the reason your Grants and Subsidies is up again this year is because you are projecting that you would spend that amount of money. It is nothing extra built into that, is it?

MR. COOMBS: No.

MS JONES: Okay, it is all for that.

Also, you have there that the provincial revenue collected last year is $22,000. I am just wondering what you would be collecting money for? What would that be?

MR. COOMBS: That was also related to the National Aboriginal Women's Summit. There were sponsorships made available. That reflects sponsorships from two corporations.

MS JONES: Okay.

That is basically it for the numbers, but I have some other questions as well.

One of them, I guess, is related to the Metis hunters who were charged in Labrador. Metis being an Aboriginal group in Labrador who had traditionally hunted under agreements with the provincial government without prosecution and without investigation or being stopped other than for routine checks, like would happen with any hunter, but last year they were stopped and information was collected. At that time the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was in the media saying they were doing routine checks and that there was not an intention to prosecute. However, months later they did receive a summons to go to court. They now have to go to court to look to have this case settled.

Basically, what it comes back to is that Metis, consecutively for two years, hunted under agreements with the provincial government whereby they allocated tags for a caribou hunt to their own members and they had rules and regulations that had to be abided by in order to do that hunt. They thought they were operating under the same context back a year ago but in essence, later, months later actually, leading into the fall, their members were charged.

I have to ask, why was there a switch in this? Why would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, at the time, be saying that they would not be charged but yet four or five months later charges were indeed laid and now they have to go before the courts to be able to defend themselves?

MS POTTLE: I am not aware of any agreement that was made between the provincial government and the Labrador Metis Nation with regards to hunting rights.

MS JONES: You may not be aware of it, it dated back prior to your election. For two years they did hunt and were not charged by the provincial government. I do not know if there is written documentation or anything of that nature, but I know there were rules and regulations around conservation that was worked out. I know that they did hunt, they issued tags and that they were not charged. I guess my concern is the fact that they are now being charged and I am wondering why that is?

MS POTTLE: I guess you are referring to the no seizure policy. As far as I know, there was not any agreement with regards to allowing them to hunt at leisure but there is a no seizure policy, unless the equipment, game and have not, would be required as evidence before the court.

MS JONES: No, there is a no seizure policy. They fall under a different agreement. There were sixteen of them that were stopped, information was collected, recorded in terms of their licences, their permit to carry guns, all of the other federal-provincial pieces that have to be looked at. None of their gear was confiscated or seized by the authorities. It took them five to six months before any charges were actually laid.

I have concerns about it because there are interviews documented. We have both audio clips and written clips in which your predecessor, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, said that they had no intentions at that time of laying charges but was doing a routine check.

MS POTTLE: I am not aware of any agreement between the Province and the Labrador Metis Nation. So I will let Rob -

MR. COOMBS: There is no formal agreement. What the Province has been operating under for a number of years now is a restrained seizure policy where they will check people and they will take information, they will take photographs of equipment and any game that may be captured, but the bottom line is there is a no seizure policy and it is not a no charge policy. So, yes, a charge can follow. I would rather defer that to our counterparts at Justice, but that is essentially my understanding of the dealing with the Labrador Metis Nation when it comes to their assertion of traditional harvesting rights.

MR. HUGHES: There has never been an agreement with the Labrador Metis concerning hunting. The Labrador Metis has approached the Province on a number of occasions, wanting the Province to recognize their ability to issue tags and recognize those tags, but that process has never been accepted by the Province.

MS JONES: You are aware that they were engaged in hunting practices and enforcing their own conservation practices for several years while this government was in power, prior to this happening?

MR. HUGHES: They have been doing that even prior to this government being in power. As I said, they have been seeking for recognition by the Province - well, acceptance by the Province of the licences issued by the Labrador Metis Nation, and that has never happened.

MS JONES: Also, on the Mealy Mountain Park area, as you know, there are Aboriginal groups in Labrador impacted by this. The Innu Nation and the Metis Nation originally supported the original footprint of land, the 21,000 square kilometres that was to be looked at as the basis for the park in the Mealy Mountains. Your government is now proposing to cut this footprint in half, down to about 12,000 square kilometres.

I am wondering if you have had any consultation with these Aboriginal groups directly on that issue?

MS POTTLE: I have not had any direct conversations with the Aboriginal groups. I know that they are represented. They are a part of the steering committee. The Labrador Metis Nation, the Nunatsiavut government and the Innu Nation all stood at this steering committee. As far as I know, the steering committee has not come back to the provincial government with regards to their latest proposal.

MS JONES: There is also some dispute over whether Parks Canada will negotiate separate agreements, IVA agreements, with the Metis Nation. I am wondering if you have had any intervention there?

MS POTTLE: The first I heard about that was on CBC this morning. It is something that they are seeking from Parks Canada, which is federal jurisdiction.

MS JONES: But, they are an Aboriginal group and they were invited to participate in this process. I guess from where I sit, I think they are probably - their people are most impacted by anything that is going to happen in this park, probably more so than some of the other Aboriginal groups in Labrador. Well, especially more so than the Labrador Inuit because it falls outside of their initial land claim areas.

I am wondering if you are prepared to make representation to the federal government to ensure that there are impact benefit agreements looked at for the Métis Nation with regard to this issue.

MS POTTLE: We know that the Labrador Métis Nation is waiting for the federal government to make a decision on their claim. Right now they do not have any title, the Aboriginal (inaudible) has not been determined, and until that is done – we support that. We have written the federal government on a number of occasions just like past administrations have done, on behalf of the (inaudible), to encourage the federal government to make a decision on their claim, and to date there has not been a decision made.

MS JONES: What representation have you made to the federal government to ask them to fast track their consideration of the Métis claim in Labrador?

MS POTTLE: Just last month, in April, we wrote Minister Strahl again encouraging them to view the Labrador Métis Nation's claim.

MS JONES: Are you aware that they have money allocated now to do further work on their claim by the federal government?

MS POTTLE: Yes, I am.

MS JONES: In terms of the Mealy Mountain park, why is it that your government wants to take the Eagle River out of this national park area?

MS POTTLE: Mealy Mountain park is something under the Department of Environment and Conservation and I would rather the minister for that department speak on behalf of their discussions there.

MS JONES: Approximately 25 per cent of the children in Innu communities in Labrador are in foster care. We realize, and I am sure you do, that Aboriginal communities have very unique and special issues that they oftentimes have to face. We have had this raised with us on a number of occasions, and I am just wondering what your involvement has been in the issue and what is being done to increase the number of spaces that can be available for foster children in the Innu communities. Also, are there any programs, new programs, I guess, being initiated in those communities to help the healing process with parents, so that we can see some of these children returning back to their homes?

MS POTTLE: I had numerous discussions with the Minister of Health about this social work issue within Labrador itself, on the North coast. We know that there are a number of vacancies there. Recruitment and retention of social workers is extremely difficult. We are trying to be creative, to think outside the box of ways to encourage social workers to come to Northern Labrador. There are vacancies right across the Province and it is something that is a work in progress.

MS JONES: Are you asking for special benefits to attract social workers into Northern Labrador?

MS POTTLE: Well, social workers are unionized and their union would negotiate that for them, but we are trying to find ways of attracting social workers to the isolated communities.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Chair, this is part of my education, this process.

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Do we restrict ourselves to Estimates here or do we go into policy? Is it part of the Estimates Committee to go policy route? Again, it could very well be yes but I do not know so I thought I would ask.

CHAIR: I guess in past traditions we have done the line by line items and then the committee has the opportunity to ask questions to the government of the day. The only thing I can say to it is that the Speaker made a ruling today that the references stay close to the department and not ask ministers questions related to other departments, if that is what you are referring to.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: No, no. I was just wondering where this is- we have gone through the line items there and I was wondering about the function.

CHAIR: Generally speaking the committee can ask –

MR. BUCKINGHAM: But you fetter out more information about where the department is going.

MS JONES: Just for the information of the Member for St. John's East, and I understand that you are new to the committee, I have been doing the estimates for thirteen years now in the House of Assembly and every estimate committee I have ever been involved with has asked questions relative or somewhat related to that department and what the responsibilities of that minister would be. That is just my own experience, but if there is a written policy somewhere that says you cannot ask these questions I am certainly not aware of it.

CHAIR: My understanding is it is the responsibility of the minister.

MS JONES: It is always up to the minister if they want to answer or not. They do not have to.

MS JONES: My other question is around the Aboriginal Housing Program. I understand that that particular program was signed off by the federal government nearly two years ago. We have yet to see an application coming forward in the Aboriginal communities for people to apply, and I am wondering why it has been delayed for so long.

MS POTTLE: From what I understand, last season there was some concern from the Nunatsiavut government as to how this money flowed through to the Province without their consultation from the federal government. That issue has been resolved. All Aboriginal groups have been consulted and have been a part of developing this program. In the very, very near future the Aboriginal groups will have the opportunity to have applications available for their people to fill out and apply for a home repair program. For this season, the upcoming season, the money will be there and the money will be disbursed.

MS JONES: I understand from the officials with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in Labrador that there could be well over a hundred applications on their books that are relative to Aboriginal families. Will those people have to reapply or will they automatically be turned over for consideration under the new funding?

MS POTTLE: What program would that be? Aboriginal people are still eligible for the home repair program through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. The money that is flowing through now, through the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing trust, is a different program. If they want to apply for that, they will have to fill out an application for that program.

MS JONES: Because my understanding is that there is a wait-list that is up to two years under the regular home improvement program - I do not know what the actual word for it is now, but where people get money to do upgrades to their houses - and that there are a number of Aboriginal families that have applied that are on that wait-list. What you are telling me is that if they want money under the Aboriginal program now, they have to resubmit a new application, even though they have been on a wait-list for two years for a regular program.

MS POTTLE: If they want to apply for the additional funding.

MS JONES: So you can get funding under both programs for the same family, the same home?

MS POTTLE: There is the program through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I think it is up to $6,500 that you would be eligible for, and then over and above you can apply for the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing trust. That is how I understand it, yes. They would have to actually fill out another application for the new program.

With regard to the wait-list, what I understand with our last meeting with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing was that I think they had six applications last year from some Aboriginal communities and four of them did not get done because they did not have contractors or workers in the community to do the work for them. It was just two of the six that the work was completed for.

MS JONES: In my district, as well?

MS POTTLE: I am not sure about your district.

MS JONES: Well, I have an Aboriginal district too and those were not the numbers they gave me.

MS POTTLE: They did not discuss the numbers on the South Coast of Labrador. They were numbers that were discussed during a meeting with the Nunatsiavut government.

MS JONES: In the future, as the minister, maybe you should ask about all of the Aboriginal communities, because I was told different numbers in terms of Aboriginal applications. I have communities that are predominant 80 per cent Aboriginal people. I know there are a lot of applications from those communities that have been on a wait-list.

You are telling me that they can access money from both programs for their home at the same time. Is that what I am understanding from you?

MS POTTLE: That is how I understand it, yes.

MS JONES: The regular program offered by the Province is a grant program. The new program, being where the funds are allocated by the feds, how does that work? What is a homeowner eligible for?

MS POTTLE: Pardon?

MS JONES: What is your eligibility under that program?

MS POTTLE: I do not have the details in front of me but we can get that as soon as it is available.

MS JONES: Okay. But it is for upgrades, it is not for new houses? It is to fix up the house that you currently have, is it?

MS POTTLE: The Off-Reserve Aboriginal Trust is for home repair.

MS JONES: Home repair, okay.

Those are about all of the questions that I have.

I want to thank the minister for her answers, and her officials, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I guess we will call subheads 1.1.01 to 2.1.01, excluding, of course, 2.1.02 which is Labrador Affairs.

Shall they carry?

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 to 2.1.01, excluding 2.1.02, carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

On motion, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs carried?

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs carried.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Again, thank you, Minister, and thank you to your officials for taking time.

I have a couple of small housekeeping things we have to do.

First, can I have a motion to adopt the minutes of the Government Services Committee Department of Finance this morning? Before I do I would like to note that Mr. Clayton Forsey is not on the list, so if the MHA could be added to those minutes.

Could I have a motion to adopt the minutes please?

Moved by Ms Marshall and seconded by Mr. Dinn.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: One more thing, the next meeting of the Government Services Committee is on Wednesday afternoon after the session of the House in the Executive Dining Room and it is Government Services. So it is Wednesday night, Executive Dining Room, Government Services.

Just a note too, that as I mentioned earlier the Labrador Affairs piece will be done Tuesday morning at 9:00, May 20, here in the House of Assembly.

Thank you very much.

The Committee meeting stands adjourned.