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

CHAIR (French): Oh, we have ignition.

Are you ready to go, Minister Pottle?

MS POTTLE: Yes.

CHAIR: First of all, I guess, just a quick brief and welcome everyone back to Government Services Committees. I know everybody is excited to be back for a couple of weeks of entertainment and questions and answers, certainly.

I guess before we start – I know the Leader of the Official Opposition is here, but I will ask Minister Pottle first to introduce her staff that she has with her.

MS POTTLE: Sean Dutton, Acting Deputy Minister – it was Ron Bowles, ADM for Labrador Affairs; David Hughes, ADM for Aboriginal Affairs; John Tompkins, Communications Director; and Donna Stokes, Executive Assistant to myself.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Do you want to introduce yourself, Ms Jones?

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, I am the MHA for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS BUCKLE: Joy Buckle, Researcher.

CHAIR: We will start with Mr. Forsey, and you can go around the loop.

MR. FORSEY: Clayton Forsey, MHA, Exploits.

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

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Ed Buckingham, MHA, St. John's East.

MR. DINN: John Dinn, MHA, Kilbride District.

CHAIR: And I am Terry French, the MHA for Conception Bay South.

So I guess we will start off – I do not know if you have anybody else coming from the committee, Ms Jones?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Just yourself. So you can start asking questions and continue on until you are finished, I guess. If you want to stop somewhere in between for a break, you are more than welcome to.

MS JONES: You did not have any opening comments?

MS POTTLE: I have just a few opening remarks.

CHAIR: Oh, I am sorry! I am jumping ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a bit rusty.

CHAIR: A bit rusty. Sorry about that.

Minister Pottle, you go right ahead.

MS POTTLE: I just want to welcome you all here this morning, and as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the Estimates of Aboriginal Affairs Branch of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

I will also speak on behalf of Minister Hickey. Minister Hickey is in Goose Bay this morning, meeting with the Germans' Ambassador to Canada.

The Department has an annual budget of $5.1 million with a staff complement of thirty-one people, plus two ministers.

Nearly all of the activities of the department, including land claim negotiations and implementation of the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, require collaboration with other provincial public bodies, as well as Aboriginal groups, governments and the Government of Canada.

For the fiscal year 2009-2010, some major departmental initiatives include the implementation of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, providing operating funds for the Combined Councils of Labrador, delivering and administering the Air Foodlift Subsidy, the Labrador Transportation Grooming Subsidy, and the Williams Harbour air transport subsidy.

With that, I am available, Mr. Chairperson, to discuss the details of the Estimates.

CHAIR: Carry on.

MS JONES: Thank you, Terry, and thank you, Minister, for your own view and your officials for being available this morning.

I am going to start with the estimate numbers from the book under Executive and Support Services, section 1.1.01., and it is the Ministers' Offices –

CHAIR: Excuse me, you are right, I am very rusty this year.

I have to start by calling the subheads.

MS JONES: Oh, I am sorry.

You go ahead, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Sorry to break your train of thought.

I call subhead 1.1.01.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just continue under that heading, under 01., which is Salaries for the Ministers' Offices. Now I understand from the Estimates that both the Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs are still combined as one department, although it has two ministers. Is that correct?

MS POTTLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS JONES: It also has one ADM?

MS POTTLE: One ADM.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MS POTTLE: Yes.

MS JONES: Deputy Minister.

MS POTTLE: One Deputy Minister. Well, there is an ADM for Labrador Affairs and an ADM for Aboriginal Affairs.

MS JONES: Are there other shared staff within those two departments, those two separate departments?

MS POTTLE: Communications director and the public relations specialist, Val Oliver in Goose Bay, are pretty much shared staff.

The executive secretary, like if Minister Hickey is in town she will assist with Cabinet papers, things like that, and if I am up in Goose Bay then the reverse up there as well. So you have some sharing like that.

The Aboriginal Affairs complement deal with the Aboriginal Affairs files. Labrador Affairs staff deal with the Labrador Affairs files.

MS JONES: Physically, how are those two departments located in Confederation Building? Are they in the one office or are they in two different offices?

MS POTTLE: Labrador Affairs is in Goose Bay and Aboriginal Affairs is here in St. John's.

MS JONES: Okay. So, where is your department physically located in the building?

MS POTTLE: Over in the West Block, fourth floor.

MS JONES: So, the Minister of Labrador Affairs has no departmental office here?

MS POTTLE: He has a suite here that he uses when he is here in town. Obviously, he is here quite often with Committee meetings, Cabinet and things like that, and with the House and that. Other than that, he does not normally have support staff here and that is why we lend our support staff when he is in town.

MS JONES: Okay.

This year you budgeted $523,700 for the Ministers' Offices, which was an increase of $50,100. The Estimates show that you plan to spend $41,000 of this on overtime and other earnings. Why would there be overtime? I thought it might have been just because of the salary increases and step increases or something. Why are you projecting to have that overtime? That is according to the salary estimates book.

MR. DUTTON: The category is overtime and other earnings, but there is no overtime in this line item. This is a combination of items and I think the largest is the Labrador allowance for Labrador-based employees. Also, the car allowances for the two ministers are voted under this item.

MS JONES: Okay.

Is there any reason why those two departments are budgeted together? Like, why all the expenses for the ministers are under one line item, why all of their transportation and travel is under one line item as opposed to being broken out by minister, which is done with every other department.

MR. DUTTON: There is only department. So there is one ministers' office vote, but it does reflect the spending of both ministers combined.

MS JONES: Okay, because government does outline it as two different departments.

MR. DUTTON: That is not correct. I am sorry. There are two different ministers but there is still one department. If you go to the Estimates book it lists it as the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs with two ministers but with one deputy minister. So it is still all under one corporate entity.

MS JONES: Moving on to Executive Support now, under section 1.2.01. Last year you budgeted $621,500 for Executive Support Salaries, you spent $534,900, so there was a difference of over $86,000. Was there a salary budgeted for that was not paid out? Was someone laid off or let go from the department? What was the situation?

MR. DUTTON: The previous incumbent deputy minister left the department in July, and my salary is being charged to Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

MS JONES: Mr. Dutton, just so that I am clear, you are currently the Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs?

MR. DUTTON: That is correct.

MS JONES: And the Acting Deputy Minister for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

How long have you been acting in that role?

MR. DUTTON: Since July.

MS JONES: Do you get paid two salaries for holding those two positions?

MR. DUTTON: I do not.

CHAIR: Nice thought.

MR. DUTTON: You may feel free to make that suggestion to the Clerk of the Executive Council.

MS JONES: I will see what I can do for you.

Is there an active recruitment, minister, to fill the deputy minister's position?

MS POTTLE: Yes. There were interviews, and there was one candidate that we thought we were going to be able to secure, but that candidate has actually declined. So, we are searching, and if you know of anyone that is interested and would like to apply for this position, it is still open.

MS JONES: Yes. Is that position a Labrador-based position?

MS POTTLE: Yes it is.

MS JONES: It is, is it? Yes.

Sometimes it is right before your eyes, minister.

CHAIR: Looking for a job?

MS JONES: Isn't that right, Mr. Bowles?

This year you have budgeted $667,700 for salaries, which is $132,800 higher than you actually spent last year. So you are obviously anticipating spending more money.

According to the Salary Estimates, it looks like it is for Temporary and Other Employees. So, can you give me some explanation of that?

MS POTTLE: Well, we hope to have our DM hired, so we have to allow for that. There is the salary increase, the 4 per cent. There are actually twenty-seven pay periods in the coming year. We have a National Aboriginal Women's Summit coordinator that has to be allotted for there, and there is supposed to be a temporary Land Claims implementation coordinator for the 2009-2010 season.

MS JONES: I am sorry, I did not get what you said there on the end?

MS POTTLE: Well, we have the salary increase, the 4 per cent; you have twenty-seven pay periods in 2009-2010; there is the National Aboriginal Women's coordinator position that is in that and a temporary position for the Land Claims implementation. So there are a number of things that account for the increase for the upcoming year.

MS JONES: Are you getting any federal money for the National Aboriginal Women's coordinator position?

MS POTTLE: That is provincially funded.

MS JONES: It is provincially funded.

What about the other position for the Aboriginal negotiator, you said, I believe it was, was it?

MS POTTLE: That is provincially as well, right?

MS JONES: Land claims.

MS POTTLE: It is provincial money.

MS JONES: Okay.

Where are those positions going to be based to?

MS POTTLE: The NAWS coordinator, the National Aboriginal Women's coordinator is here in St. John's. I am not sure on the land claims.

MR. HUGHES: (Inaudible). It might be in Labrador. That is yet to be decided.

MS JONES: Okay.

Last year, under 07., under the same heading, you budgeted $3,000 for furniture and equipment, but you spend $62,000. Can you tell me what you spent all of the money on?

MS POTTLE: A lot of it had to do with setting up the Aboriginal Affairs office over in the West Block. It is a new suite that we all are housed in now. We moved in there, I think it was May month. So there were furnishings for the department, for my office as well. We did go to Public Tender for that, and we did go with the lowest bid on it for that furniture.

The majority of it is for furnishings, and then we have the suite up in the Labrador Affairs office as well.

MS JONES: It was used to renovate the departmental office in the West Block.

MS POTTLE: Furnishings.

MS JONES: And furnish it, okay, and also to set up a suite for you in Labrador.

MS POTTLE: Yes, there is a suite up there as well for when I am passing through or have meetings and things like that up in Labrador.

MS JONES: Okay.

We will move to Aboriginal Affairs, section 2.1.01. You spent $148,900 less than you budgeted for salaries in 2007-2008. Last year you budgeted $556,600, which was $221,900 less than what you budgeted.

This year you are planning on spending $894,100, which is well over $300,000 more than you spent even the previous year. I would like to get an explanation for the increase for the past year, and what your plan is for the $337,000 this year.

MS POTTLE: We had some vacancies in the department, but now I am pleased to say that all our positions are filled so we have a full complement there.

Dave, do you have something to add there?

MR. HUGHES: (Inaudible) for half the year, which would cover that off. The other thing that we had happen over the year was secondment of staff to other departments, and then the difficulty – well, not difficulty but with the workload that was being carried by the Public Service Commission. Actually replacing somebody through the public service process can take three to four to five to six months, and that is where the excess in Salaries is coming from.

MS JONES: Okay, that was the reason why you did not spend the other $220,000 this year.

MR. HUGHES: Right.

MS JONES: Okay. What positions were they?

MR. HUGHES: I am sorry?

MS JONES: What positions were they that were vacant, that you had to second people for?

MR. HUGHES: We seconded out a land claims negotiator over to Hydro. We appointed a new land claims negotiator to fill that position, but the position was open for a while. We had a senior analyst who was seconded to human resources. Who else went?

MR. DUTTON: I missed one. We had another individual who took a position with Municipal Affairs, so we had seconded one person from the Department of Justice. We ran a competition, and a number of people joined the department as a result of the internal competition. Several of the positions were vacant between four and six months. We also had a new temporary position the minister referenced, of the Aboriginal Women's Policy Analyst, and we had funding for that for six months of the year as it was a new temporary position. That was filled, I think, around the end of December.

For the coming year, in terms of the increase, as with all of the salary items, it reflects a 4 per cent general salary increase, the twenty-seventh pay period, because of the way the calendar falls this particular year. The temporary position the minister referenced for a land claims implementation co-ordinator is $16,300, and the funding of the Aboriginal Women's Policy Analyst for the entire year rather than the six months, of which we only paid three last year.

MS JONES: Okay. I am a little bit confused because you guys just told me that the women's co-ordinator, the Aboriginal women's co-ordinator, was coming out of the line under Executive Support. Now you are telling me it is coming out of Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. DUTTON: To be clear, those positions are across the department. For Executive Support, the increase is entirely related to the 4 per cent increase, the twenty-seventh pay period, and the assumption, as the minister mentioned, of having to pay a deputy minister for twelve months of the year. So obviously we can already anticipate a few dollars of savings for this week anyway.

MS JONES: Okay. So those positions would really be coming out of Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. DUTTON: That is correct.

MS JONES: Okay.

The positions that were vacant, like the land claims negotiator, the senior analyst, and you said somebody moved to Municipal Affairs - I do not know what position that was.

MR. DUTTON: That was also a senior analyst.

MS JONES: Okay. Have those positions been filled now?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MS JONES: So all three of those are now filled and you also are hiring the women's co-ordinator and you are hiring another land claims person or something, is it?

MR. DUTTON: Well, this was working with the regional planning committee that is developing a land use plan for the Inuit land claims area, and just a temporary position for a portion of the year to help co-ordinate the holding of public meetings to gather public input on the planning process.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under Transportation and Communications, you did overspend last year. Can you tell me what that was in connection with? Was it anything specific or…?

MR. DUTTON: Primarily this relates to sort of an effective restatement that is going to be reflected in the 2009-2010 year. Last year we had $50,000 budgeted for the support in Grants and Subsidies for implementing the National Aboriginal Women's Summit recommendations. We have an implementation working group that involves Aboriginal women from across the Province who live in rural and remote communities.

As it has ended up, what we have done with the funding is used it to support their travel costs to bring them together for meetings during the course of the year. That money has actually been spent under Transportation and Communications, so it is being restated in this upcoming year's budget to be reflected in the Transportation and Communications line item. You will find the corresponding decrease in Grants and Subsidies.

MS JONES: The extra $30,000 under 03. under 2.1.01. would have been used for the Aboriginal Women's Conference, and you are telling me that this year you are budgeting an additional $65,000 and that will all be used for this women's conference?

MR. DUTTON: Well, $50,000 is for the women's summit recommendations, the implementation working group. The other $15,000 increase is funding for the travel for the regional planning committee. That is being voted in that item this year as well, and they expect to have more travel demands for this year because of the public meetings they will be carrying out on the land use plan.

MS JONES: Under Professional Services, obviously you were intending to do something large last year that never got done. You budgeted $85,000 and you spent less than $9,000. Can you tell me what that money was budgeted for, and why it didn't get used?

MR. DUTTON: There was $50,000 budgeted for surveys related to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and we did not have a requirement to do those surveys. Nor do we anticipate it next year, so that $50,000 is not going to be reflected in the coming year's budget.

Basically, the demands for spending were much lower than anticipated. The main expenditures were in support of the regional planning committee I referenced earlier, and also in translation services related to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

MS JONES: Why is it again the surveys do not need to be done now?

MR. DUTTON: Maybe Dave could help me out on that one.

MR. HUGHES: Because of the vastness of the area of the claim, some areas, especially close to communities, are actually physically pegged and lines drawn. In other areas it is done topographically. So there is a difference, then, and you do not really know up front how much of each that you are going to need to do. That is basically the difference. We make an estimate of what we think will be required, and when it is not required then the money is not re-budgeted.

MS JONES: Under Purchased Services, again you budgeted over $60,000 and you spent $25,000. What were you budgeting for, and didn't use it for?

MR. DUTTON: This would have been for meeting room rentals and other related expenses associated with land claims implementation; her photocopier charges, printing, advertising. Some of the funding for the regional planning committee would be reflected here. It was just lower than anticipated requirements.

These are sort of, again, part of the land claims implementation plan. We would have a five-year forecast of what we would expect to spend on implementation, and it sort of depends on take-up and requirements. It just did not require as much funding as we had expected this year.

MS JONES: So you are budgeting more money this year in this estimate?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MS JONES: Over $80,000.

MR. DUTTON: Again, a portion of that is related to the regional planning committee. So, we are anticipating $28,500 for advertising and other purchased services related to the public meetings process. This is offset by a $5,900 reduction. We are actually transferring funding, as all departments are, to the Public Service Commission for a centralized employment advertising initiative.

So up to this year, as we have had vacancies in the department and had to advertise in the newspaper, then those advertising charges have been allocated to the department. So over the coming year each of the departments have, based on a formula, had money reallocated from their budgets into the Public Service Commission. It is cost-neutral, and it is based on past practice of how much advertising we would have to do in the course of the year.

MS JONES: Okay.

Can you tell me who this regional planning committee is?

MR. HUGHES: It is under the Land Claims Agreement. One of the obligations of the Province is to prepare a land use plan for the settlement area. That plan is being developed by a committee, which is composed of representatives of the Nunatsiavut government and the Province, and they have hired a planner.

What they are doing is they are preparing a plan for the settlement area. That plan will then go to public hearings, which is what is being anticipated next year. So it is an obligation we have under the treaty, which we are trying to fulfill.

Now once that is done, then that expenditure will drop off in future years, but it is – a lot of the issues with the claim and why money is spent or is not spent, is the length of time it takes to get committees and boards up to steam. Which is why you see these expenses there being anticipated to be one level, the money is not spent in one year, may be carried over to the next, and budgets reduced. So it is a complicated process getting these things up and running.

MS JONES: Under Grants and Subsidies again in Aboriginal Affairs, you budgeted $634,000, you spent $144,000. So you have $500,000 there that did not get spent.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, just for this year, we have had some one-time savings related to two co-management boards under the Inuit Land Claims Agreement, the fisheries board and the wildlife and plants board. Again, because of a delay in start up funding that we provided for these boards last year was not used, the Nunatsiavut government asked that they carry over the funding from the previous year for this year's expenditure. So we had a one-time savings of $414,500 as a result of that.

In addition, there is a Dispute Resolution Board established under the Land Claims Agreement. We have not exactly been overwhelmed with disputes, so they have not yet become operational. There is sort of a list of arbitrators or mediators, for want of a better description, which would be available should a dispute arise to independently resolve differences of interpretation over the treaty. So that was another $34,000 in savings for this year.

Also, the Aboriginal Women's Summit implementation working group had a reduced requirement in grants because these costs were charged to transportation and communications, as I mentioned earlier. So there had been $50,000 budgeted here last year and that spending all occurred under transportation and communications.

MS JONES: What was your budget under that line item for 2007-2008?

MR. DUTTON: I do not have last year's estimates here with me. I do not know.

MS JONES: It just seems like a lot of money to be holding in reserve and not being spent. We are not talking about a few thousand dollars, you are talking about half a million dollars being carried over year over year. I am just interested to know if this is the first year that this is being carried over or if that line item is being stacked and the money is not being used.

MR. DUTTON: Well, I guess the way the Budget process works is we have to provide for the funding in the event it is required because it is a treaty requirement. If the funding is not required our partners at the Nunatsiavut government have demonstrated some fiscal prudence to ask that they carry over money, rather than have us spend it when it is not warranted. So, this is I guess going towards the debt for this year.

MR. HUGHES: At the beginning of each year (inaudible) provide a grant to the Nunatsiavut government for these various boards. If the money is not used, and we do not know upfront whether the money will be used or not depends on the success and the establishment of the boards. When the board is not established then that money is not spent. It is not absorbed into the Nunatsiavut government budget to be spent on other things. It is kept and it reduces our cost for the next year. We are anticipating now, as these boards really get up to steam, that this will be an ongoing cost which we will see every year.

MS JONES: The co-management board you said are fisheries, and what was the other one?

MR. HUGHES: Wildlife.

MS JONES: Wildlife. Okay.

So you anticipate that you are going to spend this money this year, do you?

MR. DUTTON: Yes, the estimates for this year show a slightly lower number than what we had budgeted last. This, again, reflects the $50,000 we have re-profiled into transportation and communications for the Aboriginal women's implementation group. It is also another reduction of $21,500 and that reflects lower cost for the Dispute Resolution Board, which again, there have not been any disputes to this point, or any interpretation of the treaty.

MR. HUGHES: There has to be funding made available in the event that there is a dispute. If there is no dispute then obviously we do not spend any money because it is not a carrying cost for that board. It is brought together as required.

MS JONES: Yes, well that is a small amount. That is $20,000 as opposed to over half a million dollars that you are floating from year to year.

MR. HUGHES: The problem is if we do not vote it and it is needed then we would have to go to Special Warrants.

MS JONES: Why is there such a delay in establishing these co-management boards? There has been an agreement signed now for nearly two years or longer.

MR. HUGHES: I think it is just the nature of the beast. You have three governments working together. You have to appoint the boards. It is a very complicated process. I think I said this last year when we were here; you cannot force one of the parties to do something if they are not ready for it. It is a process that we are working together to bring about and we want to do it the right way.

MS JONES: Yes, I am just thinking that it would be in the best interest of Nunatsiavut to get these things sorted out, especially when you are looking at things like fishing and hunting which are very much the crust of their rights and their land claim settlement rights and so on.

MR. HUGHES: Absolutely, but if you look at what the Nunatsiavut government has been doing, they have been passing legislation which basically allows them to operate. That process of coming into being has taken quite a while. What we are seeing now is this tripartite process starting to kick in as the things get into place.

Having been involved in this, it was a lot more complicated than it seemed when we write the words in a treaty which gives you three or four lines which says you are going to do something. Actually putting that into effect is a long process.

MS JONES: Explain to me how these co-management boards will work. Is it an interim thing in which the three parties sort out who has jurisdiction, what the rights are and all of this kind of stuff, and then it ends, or is it co-management forever and eternity? Because if it is going to cost $250,000 every year or more to have a co-management board, eventually we are going to end up co-managing every resource sector in the Province with Nunatsiavut. That is going to run into a very expensive bill for the taxpayers of this Province.

MR. HUGHES: Well, it will not be the Province because the actual scope of these boards is defined in the treaty. That might be an issue on which you might want to be briefed separately from this process, because the actual boards, if you look at the way the land claim is structured and how the land is structured, then the treaty has rights which are specific to specific areas. There are jurisdictions which are established on Inuit lands, and there is co-management which is established over a settlement territory, which is that bigger area that you see in the maps.

The co-management is a tripartite process, and there are really two sides to it. There is the bringing up the capacity of the Nunatsiavut government to manage, but there are obligations in the treaty which say that we share responsibility for the management of certain resources in this big settlement area.

MS JONES: You are telling me, really, that these boards are forever.

MR. HUGHES: They are forever, until there is a decision –

MS JONES: And they will be paid for by the Province.

MR. HUGHES: I am sorry?

MS JONES: And they will be paid for by the Province.

MR. HUGHES: They will be paid for by the Province, the Nunatsiavut government and the federal government.

MS JONES: And we can anticipate –

MR. DUTTON: What is reflected in the budget is just our share of their operating funds.

MR. HUGHES: It depends on how these will operate. I think that is something that we could brief you on separately, because that is a matter of explaining what is in the treaty in terms of what the three governments' obligations are, in terms of management of various resources up in the settlement area. Not Labrador as a whole, just the settlement area.

MS JONES: Yes, I know the area you refer to.

So, I would anticipate that as you get further along in the process, that there will be co-management boards for mining development, for oil and gas?

MR. HUGHES: No.

MS JONES: It won't? Just fisheries and wildlife?

MR. HUGHES: No. The boards and their powers and authorities and responsibilities are actually specified in the treaty. Then there are two levels of consultation that go on. One is through the boards, where there is a process that we work together to do something. The other kind of consultation that we will see is government-to-government consultation, the same way that we have – it is the same as the relationship with the federal government. There are certain boards in which the Province and the federal government operate, like C-NLOPB. There are other ways in which we consult with the federal government at a government-to-government level, and we anticipate that with the Nunatsiavut government.

Certain relationships will be department to department. Other kinds of relationships are actually specified in the treaty, and there are obligations that we have to work with them and the federal government to manage something in the settlement area.

MS JONES: Okay.

Well, I am going to move on to Labrador Affairs. I have some general questions that are Aboriginal Affairs. Do you want me to do those now, or come back after all the line items?

CHAIR: Well, I think everybody is fine.

Do you have any preference, Minister Pottle?

MS POTTLE: No, it is up to you.

CHAIR: I think it is whatever you choose.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under section 2.1.02., Labrador Affairs, again the salaries for that department have increased this year. Is that the standard step increases, wage increases and so on?

MR. DUTTON: Yes. In addition, we have funding voted in this line item for the snowmobile trail inspector that was announced earlier this year. That funding had been provided elsewhere and it is going to be voted in Salaries this year as a seasonal position.

MS JONES: How much is budgeted for that position?

MR. DUTTON: That is $22,700.

MS JONES: A seasonal position?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MS JONES: What is the travel budget for that position?

MR. DUTTON: The funding in Transportation and Communications, under line item 03., there is a $14,000 increase year-over-year from the budgeted amount. That is partly for the snowmobile trail grooming program, but also reflective of costs for continued monitoring for the Air Foodlift Subsidy. I do not know if we have a specific breakout between the two, but all of that travel cost would be charged to that item.

MS JONES: I know it is budgeted at $14,000 more, but it is really less than $6,000 more than what was actually spent last year.

MR. DUTTON: I think a lot of the costs are going to be related to using the department-owned snowmobile. One of the things we did this year was to purchase a snowmobile for the use of the trail inspector. I would not expect that they would have a lot of costs related to air travel and that sort of thing, which is what usually drives travel expenses under this item.

MS JONES: If they are going to get all around Labrador, they are going to need more than a snowmobile or they will take the whole season to do it, to get from one end to the other a couple of times.

MR. DUTTON: Then the trail inspector will just be doing the transportation trails, as opposed to all of the recreational trails. They are responsible for the trails that we provide funding for their operations. That would be trails between Lake Melville and the North Coast to Williams Harbour, Norman Bay and Black Tickle.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under Supplies, under that section, you spent over $16,000 last year and you budgeted $5,000. Do you want to tell me what you spent it on? Was that where you bought your snowmobile?

MR. DUTTON: This actually reflects safety clothing, an arctic sleeping bag and gas for the snowmobile. There have been a lot of charges related to ink toners, and that is showing up in all of our supply items - that has proved to be a very expensive item - and other miscellaneous office supplies. The snowmobile purchase is under Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

MS JONES: What kind of snowmobile did you purchase?

MR. BOWLES: We purchased an Expedition, a Bombardier Expedition. We went with a standing offer that government has, so that would be Notre Dame Agencies. Government has a standing offer with Notre Dame Agencies, and that is where we went.

MS JONES: You did not have to go to public tender?

MR. BOWLES: Not with that one, no. We consulted with the Purchasing Agency on that.

MS JONES: Even though it was over the required amount?

MR. BOWLES: Yes, we followed the proper protocol, and with the standing offer we were informed that we could go with Notre Dame. We had quotes and whatnot, and the standing offer, I believe, was one of the cheapest options available anyway.

MS JONES: I didn't get your last comment.

MR. BOWLES: I am sorry. The machine that we purchased was at a very competitive price. There were also certain requirements we were looking for which the standing offer had, that you would be very familiar with: a super wide track, and the track had to be a certain length and whatnot. All of those met the requirements under the Standing Offer.

MS JONES: Was that a 600 or an 800 motor?

MR. BOWLES: That is an 800.

MS JONES: How does your standing offer work with Notre Dame Agencies? I did not realize that government departments could make purchases of this magnitude under those kinds of agreements. Normally, what would you have the standing offer with them for?

MR. BOWLES: This is our first time purchasing anything on a standing offer. We were informed of the process and just followed the regulations that were in place.

MR. DUTTON: This is a standing offer with government just for the department.

MS JONES: Yes, but why would government have a Standing Offer Agreement with them? Normally, what would they be purchasing from them?

MR. BOWLES: They would need that sort of equipment for wildlife enforcement and other government functions.

MR. DUTTON: The wildlife officers purchase machines for enforcement regulations and whatnot. There are quite a few actually in the forestry section, in Northwest River particularly. I am not sure if Transportation and Works avails of that as well but they may have requirements as well.

MS JONES: Okay, and that would have accounted for all the increased expenditure under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, I am assuming, the extra $14,400 this year?

Under 2.1.02 under Property, Furnishings and Equipment you budgeted $10,000, you spent $24,400. I am assuming that the other $14,400 would have accounted for the full expenditure of the snow machine?

MR. DUTTON: The snowmobile was about $12,000. There was also a komatik to carry safety equipment. That was about $1,100. Safety equipment, like a satellite phone, tent, GPS, stove, that sort of thing, that was roughly about $5,000. Then other sorts of miscellaneous purchases for the department that would ordinarily be charged here made up the balance.

MS JONES: Okay. All right.

Under that same heading, I just want to go back to Purchased Services. Last year you spent nearly $200,000 in Purchased Services. Can you tell me what that was for?

MR. DUTTON: This reflected the increase in the rent for the building at 21 Broomfield Street in Happy Valley, as well as a one-time cost for renovation related to the ministerial office in Happy Valley so that - as Minister Pottle alluded to earlier - she would have a place to work while in Labrador.

MS JONES: Okay. So the money for that did not come out of the other budget, as was indicated earlier? It came out of this budget?

MR. DUTTON: The other item was for the furnishings related to that office and the Aboriginal Affairs office in the West Block.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under that section, the Grants and Subsidies, $1.7 million, a little more than that spent last year, another $1 million budgeted this year. Can you give me the breakdown of those grants and subsidies?

MR. DUTTON: I am not sure I have all the exact figures at our disposal, but in terms of how we arrived at this amount for 2008-2009, we had one-time funding for a groomer's shed for Northwest River, that was $75,000 that was not required. It ended up that the Town of Northwest River had a separate project approved for a municipal garage and they were able to house the trail groomer there.

There was also reduced uptake on the Air Foodlift Subsidy from what we had projected to have to spend during the course of the year. Some less than anticipated costs in the winter trail grooming program, and offsetting that in terms of increased spending, the trail groomer in Postville was more expensive than we had anticipated, not by a lot but it was about a $5,300 difference in terms of what we expended. The Inuit Community Government in Postville contributed funding towards that purchase, and we re-allocated savings towards the end of the year for the purchase of a new trail groomer for Rigolet, which Minister Pottle and Minister Hickey had announced on the weekend.

MS JONES: Okay. Can you give me the breakdown of what all that money is used for? How much of it would normally go into the air food lift subsidy, how much would go into other programs?

MR. DUTTON: On the Air Foodlift Subsidy, overall for the year we anticipated a revised expenditure of $426,000.

MS JONES: Okay, before you go on. Can you give me what you budgeted last year and what you are budgeting this year, because you are obviously reducing your budget by over $700,000 this year? So I want to know where you are cutting the money, where the money is being cut.

MR. DUTTON: Sure, okay. In terms of the 2009-2010 allocation, the previous year we had one-time funding for the purchase of the trail groomer for Postville, so that was $275,000 budgeted. We also had one-time funding budgeted for the groomer shed in Northwest River, that was $75,000, and we had one-time funding for snowmobile trail improvements, that was $200,000. So all of those items were reflected last year but would not be reflected in the coming year. We also reprofiled about $39,000 related to the winter trail grooming activity to salaries and operations for the trail inspector and their travel and operations.

MS JONES: Okay, go back again.

MR. DUTTON: Sorry?

MS JONES: What did you say?

MR. DUTTON: It was $39,000 for the winter trail grooming program that we have now voted in salaries and in the operating of -

MS JONES: Okay, so that came out of there last year. It came out of the Grants and Subsidies last year.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, that is right. So it is just being voted in a different part of the budget. The air food lift subsidy, we are budgeting $500,000 for this year compared to $600,000 last year. It showed we only had spent $426,000 this year and even with the enhancement to the program being available for the full twelve months of the year we would not anticipate having to spend that entire amount. So, we in effect knocked out what would have been a dropped balance.

MS JONES: Okay. Can you tell me where the money is budgeted for the trail grooming program? Is it under that heading, under Grants and Subsidies? How much is it?

MR. DUTTON: Yes, the grooming subsidy program, which is the grants that we pay out to the communities and to the development associations who carry out the grooming activity, that is voted in the Grants and Subsidies. For the coming year we have $351,000 under that item, and then the remainder of the budget, the other $39,000 is reflected in salaries and operating for the trail inspector.

MS JONES: How much did you pay out in 2008-2009 under that program?

MR. DUTTON: We anticipated $360,000.

MS JONES: So how come you did not vote $360,000 this year?

MR. DUTTON: Because that also reflected the cost of the trail inspector and the other operating expenses.

MS JONES: Okay.

So there is no money budgeted this year for trail upgrading, for a maintenance program or for any new groomers?

MR. DUTTON: We have not put forward any funding for purchase of groomers at this point in time. As far as improvements to trails, one thing we are looking at is there is a new federal program for trail improvements that is $25 million being administered through the group called the National Trails Coalition. We are awaiting the details on application criteria for that program and as that becomes available we will be looking at whether either the department or the communities and development associations, and of course also Labrador Winter Trails might be able to avail of that funding in the coming year. That is all one-time funding that has to be spent by the end of March, 2010. That is a national program across the country.

MS JONES: Was there any new administrative positions created as a result of the department taking over the trails from Labrador Winter Trails?

MR. DUTTON: No, we have a position that was created a year or two ago of a program administrator and that person manages our sort of grants programs, this one, and the Air Foodlift Subsidy would be the two main ones. They are not as administratively burdensome but the Williams Harbour air subsidy and the Combined Councils annual operating grant would also be managed through that position as well.

MS JONES: How much is the air subsidy for Williams Harbour now, what is the take up on that annually?

MR. DUTTON: It is $30,000, and we anticipate spending the full amount this year and we budgeted for the same amount for the year ahead.

MS JONES: That is in this Grants and Subsidies line item, too?

MR. DUTTON: Yes, it is.

MS JONES: Okay.

The Combined Councils, what is the grant there now, $100,000?

MR. DUTTON: It is $120,000. It was increased to that amount last year and we are budgeting the same amount for the year ahead.

MS JONES: Who is the program administrator for the trail grooming?

MR. DUTTON: It is Jeannine Chaulk Moores, in our Happy Valley office.

MS JONES: Just give me a minute there, Mr. Chairman, please.

CHAIR: Sure. Would you like a recess or you just want to get organized?

MS JONES: I just need to get my other notes out.

CHAIR: No problem.

MS JONES: I have a question regarding the Labrador Winter Games. Last year the games in Labrador were cancelled because they did not have enough money to run the games, which was unfortunate after over twenty years of running the games for communities. Obviously, a lot of people were very disappointed that government was not prepared to match the additional $200,000 or $225,000 that was required.

I notice in the Budget that there was a vote of $500,000 for the Labrador Winter Games. That is the amount that has been there for at least the last decade or longer. I am just wondering, will the games go ahead this year? Have they been able to raise the extra money, because I did not see it anywhere in the Budget that government was prepared to pay it?

MR. DUTTON: Yes, the Labrador Winter Games board met last week and are meeting again this week. The games are on schedule and plan to be in 2010. The board has sent out all the sponsorship letters ahead of schedule. The sponsorship committee has met probably half a dozen times over the last four to five months. So we are working on that and we are now looking at moving forward a full time coordinator. That will be a discussion at the board coming up later this week. We have not been able at this point, where the letters were just sent out, to see on the sponsorship but we are looking to increase sponsorship, particularly through some main sponsors, such as the Nunatsiavut government and the Innu Nation, and going after some of the exploration companies and whatnot.

MS JONES: So, really the money has still not been put together to ensure that the games will go ahead this year?

MR. DUTTON: The money that is committed by government to the games is $500,000.

MS JONES: Yes, but the shortfall was over $200,000 wasn't it?

MR. DUTTON: Well the board is now getting together to put together a detailed budget and they are also reviewing the future of the games as well, in consultation with Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS JONES: Yes, I just think it is absolutely ridiculous. It is the first time in our history in Labrador and I think we are into what year of the games now, something like twenty-six years or something of that nature, and it is the first time ever these games were postponed simply because government was not prepared to meet the commitment financially to allow it to go ahead. Frankly, I hope it does not happen again this year. It should have never been postponed in the previous year but I guess it was done, and without the amount of money to actually put it off there was nothing anyone could do about it but it has certainly been a huge setback for people in Labrador communities. It is the one thing that brings people together every three years and it certainly added a lot to Labrador's culture over the years to be able to carry this off and it has been a source of pride for people. So, hopefully it will get off the ground this time around.

Who is the appointed chair or coordinators for the Winter Games?

MR. DUTTON: The chair right now is Joe Goudie, the vice-chair is Alice O'Brien. Right now we have a temporary coordinator that has agreed for now - which was the assistant games director in the last games - which is Bob Quigley.

MS JONES: A couple of questions around the trail grooming because it was a very contentious issue in Labrador. For the record, I would like to say that I am not at all pleased with the level of interference that was shown by the Department of Labrador Affairs, the minister in particular, and government. I think Labrador Winter Trails has done a fabulous job over the last twelve years in developing a trail program and network across Labrador in working with community groups like zonal boards, development associations and municipalities. They have secured millions of dollars in investment, mostly federal money, that allow them to build the trail network, to buy equipment, groomers, to put in safety shelters and signage right along that highway. They were also able to use some of that money over the years as a marketing strategy to not only develop trails that were crucial transportation links to communities, but also serve to be able to promote them as a tourism product.

I really felt that government overacted and overstepped their bounds last year when this organization ran into some financial problems. I understand that their problems were more of a maintenance issue and that there was not a proper maintenance funding allocated to them. When they had a groomer that went through the ice, I think, minister, in your district, they found that they required a substantial amount of money to either purchase a new groomer or to repair that one. They also required some money to repair groomers in communities like Williams Harbour and Norman Bay where those groomers were sensibly used. They were smaller and probably could not handle the kind of trail work that was required and needed maintenance over a longer period of time.

So I was disappointed that when they came to government to look for funding to be able to do the proper maintenance and repair and get those groomers back in operation that they were deemed by the minister and the department as being incapable of doing what needed to be done in overrunning budgets and things of this nature. I read so many e-mails back and forth in the last year; it absolutely sickened me, the childishness that went on between the department and Labrador Winter Trails over this entire issue. I do not think it was handled in a very professional manner at all, and I guess I am somewhat not sure what to expect in the future.

As you know, the trail grooming program, right now the subsidies that were given out and are still being given out through development associations is just coming directly from the department now as opposed to Labrador Winter Trails. Those subsidies are also given to areas that do not have the same critical transportation links, and I look at trails that are being maintained in the communities like Port Hope Simpson, St. Lewis, Mary's Harbour, between Mary's Harbour and Red Bay. A lot of the grant money also goes to help those connections.

I am just curious as to what government's position is going to be on a go-forward basis, if they will continue to commit to the grants that are currently being given out to those organizations or if they will be withdrawn?

MR. BOWLES: Thank you.

To answer your question on the department's plan on a go-forward basis with the winter trails, is our focus remains on the isolated communities on the North Coast that are not connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway, and, of course, the three communities on the South Coast: Williams Harbour, Normans Bay and Black Tickle, that would be our focus on a go-forward basis.

As the access to Labrador opens up, particularly on the Phase III route with the road improvements, we will be looking at re-evaluating where we are going there and focusing on those isolated communities.

We have made a number of positive steps on improving the winter trails. The deputy had talked about some of those as well, the hiring of a trail inspector. The program administrator now is making sure that all the financial obligations are made. We have developed a good working relationship with the communities and the development associations. That is our plan on a go-forward basis.

We flew into communities at the beginning of the year. That went over extremely well. We will be doing a similar approach at the end of the year to do a close report of how the year went.

We just purchased a new groomer, as the deputy said, for Rigolet. We just purchased a new groomer for Postville. We will be looking on a go-forward basis, on future budget years, at looking at funding requirements for other groomers. Of course, they will be budget decisions and we will deal with those evaluations as they come up.

We feel that we had a challenging year but we made significant progress. We are getting updated reports from the trail inspector. We have also spent $200,000 on trail improvements this year, all that money is out. We are replacing some of the damage that was done to some of the sheds. Some places have stoves that are missing, replacing those, putting signs up along the trails. The latest report that I received, that went to the minister, is that some of the dangerous necks out in the water are all marked and whatnot.

Unfortunately, what happens in Labrador is that some of the recreation component gets mixed up with the transportation component and that causes some issues but we are trying our best to explain that whenever we can. So that is essentially our go-forward basis.

MS JONES: So really there is no commitment to the Battle Harbour Regional Development Association area or some of the areas in the White Bear area which you are currently paying out grants to right now?

MR. BOWLES: That is quite correct. What would happen in those areas is they would be no different than any other area of the Province or in Labrador. They would have to pay for their passes for recreational snowmobiling.

MS JONES: What about communities on the North Coast? Do they have to buy trail passes to use that trail?

MR. BOWLES: No, because they will not be connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway; but once they do get down to Northwest River they are then required to buy a trail pass if they are going to use the trail pass system.

MS JONES: So, really, the people in Black Tickle do not have to buy trail passes either, even though the people in Cartwright do, and they are all using the one trail.

MR. BOWLES: That is right, Black Tickle, Williams Harbour, Norman's Bay, to get to those main trunks, to get to the road, but if they were going to use any of the trail systems beyond that they would be required to buy a trail pass.

MS JONES: Has that been communicated to those groups? Because I don't think they are under the impression that they are going to lose those grants.

MR. BOWLES: Yes, we certainly have communicated that to those groups and we will be further doing that. We have staff that are going down to the zonal board meetings coming up in Cartwright, and we have an invitation to the Labrador Trails board meeting. We will certainly give an update on what we have done this year. Also, we are going out with the Northern Strategic Plan consultations later and we will give an update on the trails there as well. Certainly we have had direct communications with all those groups and that has been communicated and will be reiterated over time.

MS JONES: So this year you are still giving them the grant, I understand.

MR. BOWLES: We did, and what we did this year is a phased-out approach. Instead of it being a sudden hardship right away, we thought that the road was not finished. It is the objective to be finished this fall, so we gradually phased it in.

I have certainly been very clear with the groups that I have met that we will be phasing that out, and that, starting with the opening of the road in 2009, government has made a significant contribution there that we would not be doing both.

MS JONES: How much are you paying Labrador Winter Trails for lease on their equipment? How many pieces of equipment do you have leased from them?

MR. BOWLES: We are not paying anything for the leasing of those groomers. What we do with them is we maintain all the groomers. If something happens to those groomers for those isolated communities we maintain those groomers - always have and will continue to do so. I would have to go back and look at the exact number. I believe it was six but I would have to go back and look at the exact number of groomers. What we have done in the past, too, now we have entered into legal contracts with Labrador Winter Trails and that is to protect the interests of Labrador Winter Trails and the government as well and that has worked very well this year.

MS JONES: How long is your lease with them? Is it a year-to-year lease?

MR. BOWLES: A year-to-year lease, yes. That will change as required. Like, next year with the road opening we will require fewer machines. Also, government has made a significant contribution. For instance, on the North Coast now, Makkovik owns their own groomer, Rigolet owns their own groomer, Postville owns their own groomer, and North West River now owns their own groomer, so we have four groomers on the North Coast that we do not need to lease from Labrador Winter Trails any more.

As we look at our South Coast fleet, in Norman's Bay, Williams Harbour and Black Tickle, we will look at future budget years and what we are going to do there. We anticipate leases will probably drop down. As those machines get older we will replace with newer.

MS JONES: I have a question with regard to the ongoing issue with the Quebec Innu hunting Caribou in Labrador. This is a problem that has been there for the last three years. I thought back about a year ago I was informed by government that ministers had met with the Province of Quebec, that they met with the Quebec Innu, and that they were sorting this issue out. Obviously, it is a bigger problem this year than it has been in the past.

I would like to ask what your involvement has been, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and if there have been any discussions with the Innu in Labrador to see if they can have some impact with their sister tribe in Quebec in terms of understanding the conservation and impact of their actions in our territory and what is happening there?

MS POTTLE: (Inaudible) briefed by Minister Dunderdale's officials on the status of what is happening on the Quebec border with the protected herd. We are very disturbed and concerned about what is happening there. Minister Dunderdale's office has been dealing with that. We have been consulting them. They have been told on various occasions that it is a protected herd, so they are well aware of it. Officials have been in meetings and sit on boards where that has been discussed.

Right now, though, we have not spoken to the Labrador Innu with regard to this situation so it is probably something that could be considered.

MR. DUTTON: I think it is important to note also that the Labrador Innu have withdrawn from the Woodland Caribou strategy. I think that Mark Nui has expressed publicly his opposition to the protest hunt that is being carried out right now. Also, Minister Pottle has written to Chiefs Bellefleur and Lalo in Quebec and advised them that they should respect the conservation rules, and that while they may be asserting Aboriginal rights which may or not exist in Labrador, the courts have been very clear that Aboriginal rights assertions do not take precedence over conservation or safety.

Again, members of these groups have been involved in the Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research for over a decade and would have access to the information provided to board members on the status of the herds in the flying area, which would include the herds we are talking about, and certainly there have been a number of meetings taking place with the bands over the past number of years, to communicate to them the health of the herd and the reason for the conservation measures that are in place. Furthermore, just the fact that we have had a number of people from Quebec Innu communities charged in the past for hunting in closed zones, and have had convictions, should certainly ensure that people are well aware of the fact that these rules are in place and that they need to be followed.

MS JONES: I guess I am wondering where it went off the rails. I remember questioning the minister in the House of Assembly back about a year ago regarding this same issue, and actually even the year before, and I will go back and check the transcripts of Hansard, but I understood in the response at that time that there were agreements being worked out with the Innu in Quebec. I just do not know where it went from there. I mean, obviously there could not have been any agreements. There could not have been any results if they are back doing the same thing again, and obviously more volatile this time than they were the last time.

MR. DUTTON: Well, I guess we cannot really speak for the Quebec Innu bands. They will have to explain their own actions. The discussions that have taken place would have been, I presume, with either the Wildlife Division at Environment and Conservation or the enforcement officers at the Department of Natural Resources. It is something that they have management of, the Woodland Caribou strategy. Our department is not directly involved with that. We are involved in the environmental institute in Happy Valley that studies the impacts of military flight training, so we will have to follow up with them on that question.

MS JONES: So are you able to identify who these hunters are, so that they can be charged?

MR. DUTTON: My understanding is that the enforcement officers are taking surveillance and gathering evidence toward the potential for future charges to be laid. It is just that they have avoided confrontation because of the large number of people involved in the hunt, and that there have been some indications, when they have tried to land a helicopter and that sort of thing, of volatile situations, so they have decided that it would not be appropriate to put enforcement officers in harm's way and sort of exacerbate the conflict, but they are still gathering evidence from afar.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any other questions so that will conclude my Estimates.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I certainly appreciate the minister and her staff taking the time to answer the questions.

The Clerk is going to call the subheads.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to 2.1.02 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 2.1.02 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.1.02 carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CHAIR: Before I adjourn the meeting, I guess I should remind the Committee members that our next meeting is Wednesday, April 1, at 5:30 p.m. here at the House of Assembly for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector. I think I also have to note that I will not be here. Mr. Harding will Chair, and I will be chairing the Business one in the morning. I think the paperwork is in place for that.

Without any further questions or submissions, I would ask for adjournment.

Can I have a motion to adjourn, please?

MR. DINN: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Dinn.

Thank you very much.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.