May 27,
2015
SOCIAL
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Eli Cross, MHA for Bonavista South, substitutes
for Glenn Littlejohn, MHA for Port de Grave.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Eddie Joyce, MHA for Bay of Islands, substitutes
for Stelman Flynn, MHA for Humber East.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, George Murphy, MHA for St. John's East,
substitutes for Gerry Rogers, MHA for St. John's Centre.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Nick McGrath, MHA for Labrador West, substitutes
for Tony Cornect, MHA for Port au Port, for part of the meeting.
The
Committee met at 9:06 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Pollard):
Good morning, everybody.
It is
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 and welcome, everybody, to the Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs and Labour Relations Agency Estimates.
Thank you for gracing us with your presence on this raining morning.
Before we dig in to the Estimates, we will have some introductions,
beginning with Mr. Joyce.
MR. JOYCE:
Eddie Joyce, MHA, Bay of
Islands.
MR. SIMMS:
Randy Simms, Researcher, Opposition Office.
MR. MURPHY:
George Murphy, MHA for St.
John's East.
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP Caucus.
MR. CROSS:
Eli Cross, MHA for Bonavista
North, and I am filling in for Glenn Littlejohn.
MR. LITTLE:
Glen Little, representing
the beautiful, historic District of Bonavista South.
MR. CORNECT:
Tony Cornect, MHA of the
great and cultural District of Port au Port.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I would
like to ask the minister for an introduction and go from there.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Keith
Hutchings, Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs and I will ask my
staff to introduce themselves.
MS JANES:
Colleen Janes, Deputy Minister for Municipal Affairs.
MR. DUTTON:
Sean Dutton, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
MS BALLARD:
Donna Ballard, CEO of the Labour Relations Agency.
MR. BRANTON:
Glenn Branton, CEO of the Labour Relations Board.
MR. SCOTT:
Paul Scott, ADM, Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. MERCER:
Cluney Mercer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal Infrastructure.
MR. HOWE:
Peter Howe, Assistant Deputy Minister for Lands.
MR. WINTERS:
Scott Winters, Manager of Communications.
MR. CURTIS:
Ken Curtis, Departmental Controller.
MS TIZZARD:
Heather Tizzard, ADM, Policy and Corporate Services.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I am
Kevin Pollard, MHA for Baie Verte – Springdale, filling in for the Chair, Glenn
Littlejohn.
It is
the wish of this Committee, I understand, that we will go with Labour Relations
first. Before we do that, I will
ask the minister – he has up to fifteen minutes to have his opening remarks.
Before you do, we will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.
CLERK (Ms Hammond):
Subhead 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.01.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I do not have any extensive remarks here this morning.
I am certainly delighted to be here to share with the budget Committee
the layout for our budget estimates for this fiscal year.
With
that, I will certainly go to the Committee.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
The
first speaker over here has up to fifteen minutes.
MR. JOYCE:
I will not be fifteen
minutes on this.
First
of all, thank you, Minister, and all of the staff for being here today.
I will just go on the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.
How much is paid per meeting for each person on the board?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Again, just for clarity,
where are we to, Mr. Joyce, which number?
MR. JOYCE:
Heading 1.1.04, Standing
Fish Price Setting Panel.
Subhead
6.1, sorry.
CHAIR:
Say that again, Mr. Joyce.
MR. JOYCE:
Subhead 6.1.04.
CHAIR:
Subhead 6.1.04, I cannot
find that.
MR. JOYCE:
Standing Fish Price Setting
Council.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Subhead 1.1.04, Standing
Fish Price Setting Panel?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
OFFICIAL:
Yes, 6.1.04.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It is 1.1 here.
Sorry,
Mr. Joyce. Okay.
OFFICIAL:
It is 1.1.04.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Subhead 1.1, yes.
CHAIR:
For clarity, 1.1.04,
Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.
Thank
you.
MS BALLARD:
Your question, Mr. Joyce,
was the -?
MR. JOYCE:
On that line item, how much
do the people on the panel get per sitting per day?
MS BALLARD:
The panel itself – Mr.
Joyce, their per diems come from Professional Services.
The Salaries budget line of $94,500 is for one staff person who deals
with the negotiations in the fishing industry and is administrative support to
the board itself. The board members
are paid their per diems from Professional Services.
MR. JOYCE:
How much do they get paid?
MS BALLARD:
Their per diem rates; the
Chair is $1,000 per day with a $500 annual retainer, the regular members are
$600 per day with a $3,000 annual retainer, and the alternate members are $6,000
per day.
MR. JOYCE:
Six hundred dollars per day.
MS BALLARD:
Six hundred dollars per day,
sorry.
MR. JOYCE:
Can we get a breakdown of
how much has been paid so far this year?
Say, up to a year, how much has been paid per person?
CHAIR:
Could I interject there,
please, before you answer. Could
you wait for the red light and then say your name, please, for the purposes of
the media people downstairs.
Thank
you so very much.
MS BALLARD:
That information is
available and can be provided.
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That is fine.
We will make that available.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
Last
year, Minister – Bill 22 – during the Estimates it was stated there would be a
review of the Labour Relations Act.
We were told stay tuned. Have there
been any amendments made to the Labour Relations Act?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, not at this particular
time, but we are looking at various initiatives in terms of the act itself.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
In
1.1.02, Transportation and Communications, there was a reduction of expenditures
compared to the budget. The budget
was $63,000 and the actual spent was $12,000.
Now it is back up to $43,000.
What was this money supposed to be used for and why was it not used?
It is subhead 1.1.02.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
In Transportation and
Communications there was a decrease of $20,000 in 2015-2016 due to identified
savings through the deficit reduction exercise.
As well, there was a decrease of $51,714.50 in revised, due again to
spending and travel restrictions.
MR. JOYCE:
Are the restrictions lifted
now?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Well we are always certainly
cognizant of travel and expenditures.
We have gone through a process – as you remember, the Premier announced
last year – to look at restrictions in terms of travel that we are doing.
We still need to meet the needs, obviously, and the services we provide
through the Labour Relations Agency, and we will continue to do that.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
We see
here with the Salaries figure for the department there is no change, actually.
How many people are on staff?
How many are used for arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, the
numbers themselves?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The Labour Relations Agency
has twenty-two staff under the direction of a chief executive officer.
Donna,
we want you to take us through the particulars of the question there.
MS BALLARD:
Yes. The Labour Relations Agency
and the Labour Relations Board together have a staff of thirty-three.
That includes executive, but not the Labour Relations Board per diems.
That is separate.
Within
the Labour Relations Agency, we have a unit of labour relations officers.
I believe those are the people you are talking about who deal with
mediation and conciliation and so forth.
Within those we have a director and four officers, an officer specific to
the Fish Price Setting Panel, and an administrative staff; so five officers
altogether plus the director.
MR. JOYCE:
So there are twenty-two
people at the staff –
MS BALLARD:
Plus one administrative staff. That
is for the Labour Relations Division of the agency itself.
MR. JOYCE:
Only five of them do
conciliation? What does the rest
do?
MS BALLARD:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
What is the role of the
other seventeen or eighteen?
MS BALLARD:
Well, then we also have a Labour Standards Division.
Those are the people who deal mostly with non-unionized labour relations
issues. They take a lot of phone
calls when people call, for example, and say they did not receive their overtime
they worked on the weekend. They
give out information as to what the minimum wage would be, what their rights are
with regard to clothing allowances, those sorts of things, mostly in the
non-unionized retail sector.
They
will become involved, if it is necessary, in investigations.
They will issue orders. For
example, if somebody is not paid what they are supposed to be, orders will be
issued and registered with the court.
They also provide information sessions to high schools, college
graduates, people who are entering the workforce and so forth, mostly the
non-unionized sector.
There
are eight staff who deal with that including an office in Corner Brook, which
has one Labour Standards Officer and one administrative staff.
The other officers are here in St. John's.
There is a Director and administrative staff as well.
In
addition to that, we have a policy and planning division, which has four staff.
They are responsible for the corporate services of government annual
reports and that sort of thing, plus policy development such as amendments to
legislation, the worker protector legislation, those sorts of things.
Then
there is the Labour Relations Board itself, which has a staff of officers who do
the investigations and prepare for the staff meetings.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
Thank you.
On
1.2.01, the Labour Relations Board itself, it says the Salaries have gone up by
$69,000. The actual was $665,900
and the budget was $735,500. Was
there hiring there?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Joyce, that is related
to an increase of $21,400 in 2015-2016 due to the 3 per cent salary increase.
MR. JOYCE:
Increase, okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Salaries fund about eight
positions, I think, at the Labour Relations Board office.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
That is
all of the questions I have for now, Mr. Chair, but I am sure I will be back.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Eddie.
We will
pause there. We will go with
George.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
carry on in 1.2.01 in the Labour Relations Board, just a couple of more
questions on the line items.
Professional Services line shows that in 2014-2015 you were looking for $79,800
and the actual that you spent was $94,000.
I was just wondering if you can give me a breakdown of what happened
here.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, that was an increase
there of $14,200 in 2014-2015; revised due to 2013-2014 expenses for a very
detailed and complex Labour Relations Board case involving fourteen parties.
It was a significant legal issue dealing with something that had not yet
been interpreted. So there were
additional professional services required for that particular case.
MR. MURPHY:
Can you give us any more
detail on what that case involved?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I would have to go to Donna
on that.
MS BALLARD:
That maybe before the board still.
MR. BRANTON:
That is a decision with respect to the offshore platform.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
For
this year then you are budgeting only $70,000.
You are anticipating that there is going to be a resolution to this case,
I guess.
MS BALLARD:
Yes, that case is finished.
MR. MURPHY:
That is done.
MS BALLARD:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
There
was another line item here that was of concern and jumped out.
I
wonder if you can give me a breakdown again in 1.1.02, Administration and
Planning. The Transportation and
Communications in the budget here showed $63,700.
In actual fact, you only spent $12,000.
Can you give me another breakdown of what happened here again?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
In that particular case,
there was a decrease of a little over $51,000 due to spending and certainly
reduced travel and being cognizant in our financial position and travel
restrictions based on that.
MR. MURPHY:
Is the department still tied
in with the travel restrictions now as a result of what we are seeing in the
budget?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Again, we are cognizant of
our expenditures, but if the services that we provide, whether it is the Labour
Relations Agency or anywhere else, those services have to be provided.
So we will provide those services.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
So you do not anticipate that there would be anything that would be held
back as a result of that and spending would go on.
Under
Purchased Services, Minister, $300,000 against $352,200 that was budgeted.
I wonder if I can get a breakdown of what these Purchased Services may
have been.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We are still with 1.1.02?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, Sir.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, sorry.
We had
an original of $352,200 estimated, revised to $300,000.
Then, yes, for this year is $325,000.
So are you asking about the $300,000, sorry, again?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
There was a reduction there,
as we can see, of $52,200 for 2014-2015.
Again, spending, in terms of being cognizant of our spending, certainly
resulted in less than anticipated expenditures.
Administration and Planning funds also purchase services for the Labour
Relations Agency. So we get a
reduction of $52,200.
MR. MURPHY:
So what sort of services
would you have bought under this particular line item?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Donna, could you give us
some detail in regard to that?
MR. MURPHY:
Please.
MS BALLARD:
Subhead 1.1.02, Operating Accounts?
MR. MURPHY:
Purchased Services.
MS BALLARD:
Purchased Services – the most significant cost is our lease for our building.
MR. MURPHY:
It is lease costs, isn't it?
Okay.
Has
government been looking at other places, for example, where it could save money
when it comes to leases, that sort of thing?
Any empty government facilities that are out there, for example, where
they could be moving their offices?
Right now, where are their offices too?
Are they renting off the private sector out there now?
MS BALLARD:
Well, we are in the Beothuk Building –
MR. MURPHY:
Right.
MS BALLARD:
– which a decision was made some years ago to have us separate from government
itself because of the independent nature of what we do, including –
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
MS BALLARD:
– providing conciliation services to the public sector as well.
So we have the floor there, as well as the Labour Relations Board, and
its hearing room. So all of the
space that we have there is necessary, and we also have a very small office in
the government building, which is rent-free, in the sense, for us as an agency
in Corner Brook.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
That is great, thanks.
Mr.
Chair, I have no other questions on this particular section right at the time
being –
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you very much.
We go
back to Eddie.
MR. JOYCE:
I am just going to ask,
Minister, you mentioned Bill 22, that there are no plans.
I notice there is no money in the budget.
So does that mean it is not going to be coming forward this year, the
changes –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE:
Subhead 1.2.01, Bill 22.
You just mentioned that you are going to bring some changes forward.
There is no money in the budget itself.
Will there be changes? You
mentioned earlier that they were looking at it (inaudible) the minister said:
stay tuned.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I did not say there were
going to be no changes, no. I said
we are always under review in terms of legislation and possibilities of what we
might do.
MR. JOYCE:
Is there any money in the
budget this year to bring changes forward this year?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Changes will be done through
our staffing. As you know, we bring
legislative changes to the House for a review, if we were to do it.
So we have the staffing if we were to do legislative changes.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Donna, anything further to
add on that?
MS BALLARD:
One of the big pieces of work that we are doing right now, Mr. Joyce, as you are
probably aware, there was a motion in the House in the spring related to worker
protection legislation. So, we are
doing that in-house with an interdepartmental committee.
We have the capacity within our policy division working with other
departments of government to bring that forward.
Of course, there is the OPE which will assist us in public consultation.
So we can use in-house resources to bring that forward.
We have the capacity.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
I will
just go back to Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.
It says here Profession Services of $90,000, and it is up to $115,000
this year. Why the increase?
Are they expecting more board meetings?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Donna.
MS BALLARD:
As you can appreciate, it is volatile, and it just depends.
We usually keep enough money in there so that we are able, depending on
how many disputes and how many hearings there needs to be, to ensure that we
have enough money to cover it; but we are not expecting necessarily anything
more specific this year, unless there are issues with the industry.
MR. JOYCE:
This price setting council,
is that paid totally by government?
MS BALLARD:
Sorry?
MR. JOYCE:
Is it paid totally by
government?
MS BALLARD:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
One hundred per cent – so
there is no cost recovery from the (inaudible) –
MS BALLARD:
The panel itself is established and funded through government, yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
This
$90,000, is this just for the price panel – it cannot be?
MS BALLARD:
The Salaries of $94,500, that is salary and benefits for the one officer I
discussed earlier.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MS BALLARD:
This is all just for the panel, yes – this particular 1.1.04.
So then you have your operating expenses, and so forth.
Your Professional Services, of course, as I indicated, would be for the
per diems and the travel for the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.
MR. JOYCE:
Just a question for the
minister: If there is no agreement with the panel, once they set it, is there
any arbitration after that or is it binding?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The final –
MR. JOYCE:
Decision by the panel.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I guess they are open to the
courts if they wanted to go through the court.
MR. JOYCE:
The courts, okay.
I am
fine, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
We will proceed by asking the Clerk to call the subhead.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.02 to 1.2.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall subheads 1.1.02 to
1.2.01 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.02 through 1.2.01 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, Labour Relations Agency, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, ladies and gentlemen,
that concludes the Labour Relations Agency Estimates.
Thank
you very much.
We will
take a minute just to – okay, I think we are ready to go.
I will
ask the Clerk to call the subhead.
CLERK:
Moving on to Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.01.
Okay,
Mr. Joyce, you have the floor whenever you are ready.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
Thank
you again.
Minister, I am just going to ask some probing questions first and then we can go
through the line items. It is much
easier to ask the staff than me trying to dig it out and go through each line
until we get the answer.
Waste
management; can you tell me what line item and how much is put in that for the
Western Region this year? Where is
that in the Estimates?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It is probably easier if we
went through line items and when we get to it, we can give you those details on
it, if you want. Or we can skip
around.
MR. JOYCE:
What happens a lot of times
is that we may not make it through the three hours.
I do not know if the staff – I am sure they would know.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, we can skip through
it. What section is it?
CHAIR:
Cluney.
MR. MERCER:
It is under subhead 4.2.03.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
How
much has the Province put into waste management this year and budgeted this year
for waste management for the Western Region?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I will just give a
high-level number, Mr. Joyce, and then we will get into further details.
To date there has been approximately $160,000 spent on waste management?
OFFICIAL:
No.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It is $160 million, sorry.
This
year we are in the range of $60 million in terms of future continued
expenditures. That will be related
to a transfer station in Clarenville, as well as the six transfer stations for
the West Coast. That RFP will be
closing, I do believe, at the end of the month.
It is expected that those facilities will be up and operational in
mid-to-late 2016.
In
regard to your question specifically in regard to break outs of that, I will go
to Cluney to speak to that.
MR. MERCER:
Included in subhead 4.2.03
for waste management expenditures for this year there is $12.75 million.
We expect to spend $4 million or $5 million of that in cash flow
associated with the construction of transfer stations in the Western Region.
That would be in addition to $4 million that they already have, that
government has provided in previous Budgets.
We expect the total cost of the six transfer stations to be roughly $30
million spent over three years.
MR. JOYCE:
How much of that is
provincial money?
MR. MERCER:
The $12.75 million budgeted
for this year is gas tax funding, so that would be money that came from the
federal government. The $5 million
previously advanced to the board is all provincial money from provincial
coffers.
The
minister referenced $160 million spent on the waste management strategy to date.
In excess of $90 million of that has been provincial expenditure and
$62.4 million of it has been federal expenditure out of gas tax funding.
MR. JOYCE:
In the 2014-2015 budget for
Grants and Subsidies it was $41.4 million, but only $17.3 million was spent.
Was that $40.1 million federal gas tax?
Why wasn't the money distributed?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The same one, 4.2.03?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
Last
year it was $41.4 million.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, Mr. Joyce, that
reflects lower waste management expenditure as a result of some of the
infrastructure work not proceeding as quickly as intended, as planned; as well
as grant payments to municipalities of $15 million under the gas tax program
that are held for various reasons: municipalities may not have submitted their
proposals or municipalities may have not been incompliance with the program
requirements; as well, interest earned on funds that have not yet been spent.
MR. JOYCE:
There was $26 million or $27
million not spent last year?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It was $24 million.
MR. JOYCE:
There was $24 million not
spent.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That would be related to the
infrastructure projects, identifying the projects, rolling them out in terms of
planning, tendering (inaudible) –
MR. JOYCE:
Is it carried over to this
year?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Is there any breakdown of
where the money is going to be spent, or what major projects it is going to be
used for?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I have listed some of them,
but we can certainly give you a list of what is in the hopper this year for
moving forward. We can certainly
give you that.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, if you do not mind.
I do
not know where it is at in the budget items as I go through – the cost to
operate the Western Regional Waste Management, do you have a breakdown for the
Western Region so far, the cost of that?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Do you mean cost of the
authority to run it or the investment we made in infrastructure?
MR. JOYCE:
Salaries, who is on salary?
I know Don Downer is. The
cost to operate it, can I get a copy of the breakdown on that?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The operation of the
Regional Waste Management Authority?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, we certainly can do
that.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, and who is on the
regional authority now because there was some discrepancy there where people in
the last election never made it and new appointees –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The appointees would come
from the local governance structure and sit on the authority.
MR. JOYCE:
It took a nice while before
they were – that is what I would like, if I could get a copy of that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
You want to know who sits
there, where they are from I guess.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, who sits there and the
cost to date for the Western Regional Waste Management; if I can get a salary
breakdown, travel, and meetings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
We have that available. Do
you have anything to add to that, Cluney?
MR. MERCER:
Mr. Joyce, the Western Regional Service Board for the calendar year 2014, which
would correspond with our budget year 2014-2015, we did not provide any funding
to the Western Regional Service Board for operations.
They would have on their website published their operational budget for
the year, the salaries of staff, stipends for board members, they are all a part
of that budget, and they are paid for by fees collected from municipalities,
local service districts, and users of the waste management services in the
Western Region.
Yes, we
can provide these two pieces of information for you.
MR. JOYCE:
The Wild Cove dumpsite is
totally self-sufficient now? Is
that what you are saying?
MR. MERCER:
The Wild Cove dumpsite –
while the ownership of this site, on paper, belongs to the City of Corner Brook,
the Western Regional Service Board has taken over operations of that.
The operational cost of the Wild Cove site as well as the Bay St.
George's site is all combined together in their operational budget and they have
budgeted the fees on the basis of a balanced budget.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
I just
one more question on waste management.
What is the capacity of Central?
Would you have that? I know
it is not in the Estimates, the capacity of Central waste management at Norris
Arm to handling waste management –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible) overall
capacity.
MR. JOYCE:
I visited the site a few
years back and it was about 30 per cent, 32 per cent, 33 per cent capacity; that
is it.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Do you mean at capacity at
that point?
MR. JOYCE:
At capacity, yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, we can certainly
provide that information. Cluney,
do you know –
MR. MERCER:
I think what you might be
referring to, Mr. Joyce, is the initial lined cell that was developed at the
site. The site itself, from a
landfill perspective, is good for about 150 years.
The lined site that collects the leachate that is treated before it is
released into the environment was a five-year cell.
So the
ongoing operational costs associated with the Norris Arm site is that every four
or five years they will put in a new liner and it will be connected to the
existing liner. It is like having a
self-contained unit. By the time
that landfill is completed, they will have dozens of lined cells.
MR. JOYCE:
So my question is: Can they
handle the waste management from Western Region?
MR. MERCER:
Absolutely.
When the facilities, not only the landfill facilities at the Norris Arm
site but the recycling facility as well that just became operational earlier
this year, it was all built to accommodate waste from Western.
CHAIR:
Your time has expired.
Do you have a follow-up question (inaudible) –
MR. JOYCE:
Just one follow-up question.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
You are telling me that the
intent from day one – what you just said was the intent was never to build a
site in Western Newfoundland, that was built to the capacity that could handle
Western Newfoundland.
MR. MERCER:
No, that was not the intent.
The decision of the Western committee to take waste to Central
Newfoundland was made in time for the capacity, or to increase capacity into the
leachate treatment system for the landfill and the material recovery facility,
which is the recycling facility.
That decision was made in time to incorporate the additional capacity into the
design requirements before the infrastructure was actually built.
MR. JOYCE:
Oh, that is not correct.
CHAIR:
Okay, I have to stop you
here now. You have to park here for
the time being. We have to go to
George. We will come back to Eddie
on that.
George.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
carry on with the questions around the Wild Cove site and the installation of a
liner. I believe it was last year
government decided against the installation of a liner out there in that
particular site. I think it was a
cost-saving measure. Do you have an
update on that or what government has done with that afterwards?
MR. MERCER:
At Wild Cove?
MR. MURPHY:
I think it was at the Wild
Cove site.
MR. MERCER:
I am not knowledgeable of any discussion about a liner for Wild Cove.
About
four or five years ago when the Western Region was looking for potential sites
for a landfill site for the Western Region, there was some consideration given
to Wild Cove at that time.
Underneath the soil in Wild Cove there is a clay layer.
So there was some consideration given to whether or not it was a natural
liner, but Wild Cove was eventually ruled out because it did not have the
capacity to take waste for the Western Region for a minimum of a fifty-year
period.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
I am
just curious, when it comes to the decision to move material then to the central
area of the Province, has your department done a cost-benefit analysis of the
benefits of moving it to the Norris Arm site versus keeping a full- fledged
operating facility on the West Coast of the Island?
MR. MERCER:
Yes, there has been significant analysis done.
There was one significant report that was commissioned by the Regional
Waste Management Committee in the Western Region.
The work was completed by SNC-Lavalin over the course of two years with
significant analysis to demonstrate that the cost of transporting Western waste
to the Norris Arm facility was cheaper from a household cost perspective for the
region.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
MR. MERCER:
In addition, it was followed up with a study on the impact on the environment in
terms of the additional trucking.
So from
a greenhouse gas emission perspective, we looked at both options of operating a
lined landfill in the Western Region versus trucking.
It was determined it would be cost neutral and carbon neutral from an
environmental perspective.
So
there has been significant work done to demonstrate that it is, in fact, cheaper
to take Western waste to Central Newfoundland.
MR. MURPHY:
Mr. Minister, I am just
wondering is that report available?
Can we have a copy of that report so we can have a look at it?
MR. MERCER:
Most certainly.
A copy of that report is actually posted on the Western Regional Service
Board's website, and has been there for at least a year-and-a-half or so now.
MR. MURPHY:
Alright, thanks.
I will
just go over to some line items then.
Starting at 1.2.02, Administrative Support, your Purchased Services line
shows $30,600 was budgeted for and $42,000 was actually spent in the past year.
I am just wondering if we can get a breakdown of what happened here.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Subhead 1.2.02?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, Sir.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
What was the line item?
CHAIR:
Purchased Services.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That was due to an increase
of $11,400 we can see there of higher than anticipated departmental advertising,
equipment rental, printing, and other general purchased services costs that we
had an increase in that amount from what the estimate was to what was revised.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
Down to
1.2.03, Strategic Financial Management, I wonder if we can get a breakdown of
what is happening here as regards to your salary line.
You have $212,000 difference in the revised figure for this year against
what was budgeted and, again, you are up to almost $1.2 million in salaries for
this year.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The decrease between the two
years reflects some staff vacancies we have and some delays in staffing those
vacant positons. So that is related
to actual positions.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
I am just looking at the salary details for this year and it looks like
it is up. Are there going to be any
hiring in this particular department?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Hirings?
MR. MURPHY:
Hirings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
There would be recruitment done there.
As well, funding that was moved from the division's budget last year to
be used in another division is being moved back to this division this year.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
There was a salary component
there. There is also an increase
associated – before I indicated the 3 per cent salary increase due to the
collective agreement.
MR. MURPHY:
Yes.
How
many of these vacancies are going to be filled this year?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
How many?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes.
How many positons are we talking about here?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Do we have that, Colleen?
Go
ahead.
MS JANES:
There are four currently
vacant. Whether all of those will
be recruited during this year remains to be seen.
A couple of those are the same type of position, so we would move to fill
one and then we would determine whether we have an operational requirement.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
So we
do not know yet, if that is the case, if these are going to be contractual
positions, just a temporary filling of these positions, or if they will be
full-time permanent.
MS JANES:
They would not be
contractual positons. These would
be either permanent or temporary positions.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
That is great. Thanks.
Coming
over to 2.1.01, Regional Support in Regional and Financial Support Services, the
Transportation and Communications line shows $106,700 that was budgeted for, and
$87,700 was the actual for this year.
I wonder if I could get a breakdown of what is happening here.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Is that Transportation and
Communications?
CHAIR:
Subhead 2.1.01.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, Sir.
CHAIR:
Transportation and
Communications.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, that reflected just
lower than anticipated travel and communication costs.
We have adjusted it for the estimate this year to $90,000.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay, so $90,000 would be
historical that you would be going back on?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, it would be reflective
of what we have seen, I guess, to date in terms of what was required based on
last year and looking to this year.
We feel certainly that would meet our needs.
MR. MURPHY:
All right.
Under
Purchased Services, $49,700 was spent against $63,100 budgeted.
That same figure that you had budgeted is also the same figure that you
have budgeted for this year as well.
I wonder if we can get a breakdown here.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
On the decrease?
MR. MURPHY:
On the decrease, yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, it just reflects lower
than anticipated training, meaning in general, Purchased Services required
throughout the year. I guess
historically we see it has gone back to $63,100.
MR. MURPHY:
Right.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It is just reflective of
what it historically has been, so we will maintain that for this year's
Estimates.
MR. MURPHY:
Down to 2.1.02, Municipal
Finance, Professional Services; $15,000 was budgeted for and there was nothing
spent this year. I am just
wondering what was happening with this line.
CHAIR:
Subhead 2.1.02, Professional
Services.
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, Sir.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That reflected lower than
anticipated consultant costs. As
well, costs typically incurred by the department for work completed by the Stats
Agency were not incurred this year due to the elimination of the whole
interdepartmental building system.
That caused some of that reduction as well.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you very much for
that.
Just a
quick note on the Municipal Finance section on the Salaries, not too much had
changed in Salaries versus this year – what was budgeted for this year, I should
say, against last year. Last year,
you had budgeted $416,200. I am
wondering if I can get a breakdown of just what is happening here, or what did
not happen, I guess, in this particular case.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
There was a salary decrease
of $30,900 between 2015-2016 and the salary budgeted for 2014-2015.
It reflects an increase in funding for required step increases.
Sorry, that is going from what was budgeted and what we are looking at
for this year.
MR. MURPHY:
Right.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
There is a 3 per cent salary
increase negotiated as we spoke of as well.
There was some offset in attrition management.
Did you ask about the revised number as well?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, the budgeted figure was
$416,000. It was actually all not
spent, I guess, in this particular case.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, okay.
The
$33,100 was due to one of the director's positions being vacant for part of the
year.
MR. MURPHY:
Right.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That was part of the salary
for that position.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Okay.
George,
could I hold you there?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Eddie.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) a couple of
questions. I thank the minister and
staff.
The ADM
just mentioned that – and I just have to get this correct in my own mind –
Western made the decision. After
Western made the decision to move it to Central in Norris Arm, then Central
built their facility to equal that.
Is that correct?
MR. MERCER:
To be clear, the area that constitutes that Central Newfoundland regional
landfill facility was identified back around 2008, and prior to the Western
Region having much work done in terms of planning.
The area that is available for landfill development at the Norris Arm
site is significant, it is tens of hectares.
The estimated life of that site, from a landfill perspective, is in
excess of 100 years. The landfill
site itself is developed on a cell-by-cell basis, each cell being a lined cell
so that you collect leachate and you treat it.
Each of those cells has a life of about five years.
The
landfill got developed. So the
landfill, even with taking waste from the Western Region, is good for nearly 100
years. During the period whereby
the Western Region made the decision to go to Central, the first cell for the
Norris Arm site was under development.
That cell was only intended for the use of the Central Region.
All the other facilities on the site – the leachate treatment, the
recycling facilities – were all designed and constructed building capacity in
for the Western Region.
Given
the fact that the landfill, which is developed on a cell-by-cell basis, can
accommodate waste for 100 years, there is no issue with taking waste from the
Western Region and accommodating it at the landfill site.
It may mean that you have to develop cells more frequently, absolutely,
but you will have double the users contributing to the cost of replacing that
cell.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
When I
visited the site – the Central site opened in February 2012 with the capacity of
30 per cent for all Central. The
decision was made months later, July 26, 2012, for Western.
I mean,
this is a very big issue in Western because in your own report that you just
referred to, it is $1.8 million extra to ship the garbage by truck.
It is in the report; I mention that to the minister.
It is in the report.
What
you are saying here today is that there was already a decision made to ship that
out of Western before July because the facility was built.
I visited the facility personally; it was at 30 per cent capacity only.
You cannot have it both ways.
MR. MERCER:
I will address one issue at a time.
Your $1.8 million in transportation costs from Western to Central is indeed
correct, but you fail to realize in the same report it identifies in excess of
$2 million per year in savings associated with not having to operate the
landfill or the recycling facility in the Western Region.
The net
benefit is that it is cheaper on a household cost.
Our objective here, everyone's objective here, including all of the
regional service boards and the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, is to provide the cheapest operational cost to the residents and
households of the Province for a modern waste management strategy.
That is
in the document. If you follow your
logic in terms of the 32 per cent capacity in 2012, well, we would be at
capacity right now – if they were only operating for one year and they were at
32 per cent. What you are referring
to is the five-year cell, but there will be dozens of cells developed within the
landfill to constitute a landfill.
MR. JOYCE:
I was at the site.
I went through it. It was
not the 32 capacity for that cell; it was 32 per cent for the whole site, the
whole area, the acreage for the whole area.
I went through it with the regional manager there.
That is just interesting, that is all.
Anyway, I will get back to it because obviously, in my opinion, it was a
predesigned plan, which I said from day one was never to be built in Western
Newfoundland.
How
much is in the budget this year to do – I know the minister mentioned that there
will be stations built in Western Newfoundland.
How much is in the budget for that tender and where in the budget – the
transfer stations?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Looking over the next three
years there is about $30 million. I
think that is right, Cluney, for the six transfer stations?
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Is there going to be a
tender this year for that?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, there was an RFP that
is closing the end of this month.
We look at awarding in, hopefully I would say, June.
Cluney,
do you want to add anything further to that?
MR. MERCER:
It is a design-build RFP. The tender was
issued the first week in January. It is closing, I think, the end of May or the
first week of June. We expect to
award a contract to the successful bidder, I would say, within six weeks or so
of that closing. We expect
construction to start this year.
Construction will continue into 2016 and potentially early 2017 before they are
fully completed.
With
respect to your question we answered earlier, the budget for this year – cash
flow for this year on the $30 million the minister referenced is $12.75 million,
contained within the gas tax funding that we previously identified for this
year. That is in addition to the $5
million that we provided the board with under a previous year's budget.
MR. JOYCE:
This $12.75 million would be
for the transfer stations?
MR. MERCER:
The $12.75 million is what
we have budgeted in gas tax this year.
We do not expect the Western Region will spend that much money this year.
So we will spend some of the $12.75 million on other infrastructure in
other regions. We are committed to
the $30 million expenditure for the Western Region and have been for a long
time.
MR. JOYCE:
My question is how much is
going to be spent out of the $30 million for the Western Region this year?
I am being asked a lot of questions on it.
This $30 million that is supposed to be spent for the Western Region, how
much is in the budget to be spent this year, this fiscal year coming up that we
are going to vote on in the House of Assembly?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
What is the exact number
that is in – overall the waste management number we have in there, but we have
called an RFP-Build Design, when that comes back, obviously, there will be a
selection process for.
So when
you are looking at cash flow, it depends on when the project starts and what
cash will flow in the current year.
Whatever that commitment is, we will meet that commitment.
What
that number will be, we are not really sure because you know what the cash flow
is going to be based on when the project starts and when construction starts,
but we will meet that commitment.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
The
remaining will be spent up to 2017?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, as the project is being
built and unfolds.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
Can I
ask why the delay for the Western Region?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Delay in –
MR. JOYCE:
The Western Region was
supposed to be completed in 2012; that was the initial plan in the provincial
strategy.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We looked overall at the
waste management strategy. I
referenced before, we had a plan, a strategy with some detail we would have to
bring through, as a government, and attach dollars to it.
That plan started in 2007.
So,
obviously, it is a significant plan when you look at the Island and Labrador in
terms of where we were in terms of opening burning, teepees, you name it, and
how we would progress to a modern waste management facility and infrastructure
in the Province. It is a big
undertaking. As we went through
that, and on a regional basis and building the capacity on the ground to get
everybody involved to do that, there are challenges with it.
So
recognizing, would we like to have done it sooner?
Sure, but it is a significant undertaking.
There is the infrastructure build.
There is the change in people's ability to buy into waste management, to
stream waste management, and how we handle all of that.
We built significant infrastructure and moved it forward.
We are
committed to Western Newfoundland, just like we are to other regions of the
Province, to build on infrastructure and bring the best possible service we can
to waste management to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
I will
hold. I have a few other questions.
CHAIR:
Okay.
If I
could interject for a moment, not to be mean or cold-hearted or whatever, I
would like to remind everybody that the minister has his discretion as to how
far he goes and strays from the line items in Estimates, as opposed to policy.
Hopefully, we can through this session within three hours and everybody
will be satisfied. I just want to
clarify that.
Okay,
George.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will
just carry on with a couple of line items and at the same time, I guess, come up
with a couple of general questions around policy too, if that is alright with
the minister.
Under
section 2.1.03 under the Local Governance, I want to first get into the salary
details of this particular department; $443,800 was budgeted for.
The revised figure was $371,900.
This year you are anticipating salary increases to $523,600.
So I am wondering if you could give us a bit of a detailed breakdown on
what is happening, particularly, number one with the salary line, I guess, to
start off.
CHAIR:
Okay, for clarity, 2.1.03,
Local Governance, Salaries.
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, Sir.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, $443,800 to $371,900,
we would have a decrease of $71,900 between the two years due to savings related
to staff vacancies and a delay in staffing those vacant positions.
So that would be related to staffing.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
This
year your salary details were up though.
So do you anticipate filling some of these vacancies?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, the salary increase of
$79,800 between the two years as well reflects a re-profiling of a contract
position from the gas tax program, which is about $87,500.
There is an increase in required funding for salary step increases again;
the 3 per cent salary increase negotiated through the collective bargaining
process. There is a new staff at a
lower salary step of $8,500. So all
of that combined gives us the $523,600.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay, so how many vacancies
altogether are going to be filled here?
By the looks of this it is going to be substantial.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Colleen, do you have that
number?
MS JANES:
The minister referenced that
there is a re-profiling of salary from a gas tax contractual position that is
now moving to Local Governance, so that is predominately the basis for the
increase there. There is an intent
to fill that position this year.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
Mr.
Minister if I can ask you a question around the Local Governance section here
altogether, it says, “… the
Department's legislative program and provides interpretative advice on the
various legislation to the Department and local governments; and administration
of the Municipal Training Program.”
It also gets into the question around amalgamation, as well as community
relocation requests.
I was
just wondering: Has your department, as of late, been taking any inquires as
regards to the possibility of amalgamation, number one; or, number two, when it
comes to requests for the possibility of community relocation?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes – and I will get staff
in terms of numbers – we always get inquiries in regard to possibilities of
amalgamation, local service districts to municipalities, a local service
district wanting to consider incorporating.
We certainly get inquires like that and discussions.
I think it is something we all agree we need to go to in terms of greater
regional services and regionalization.
On the
issue of relocation, I think there is, if I remember correctly, four that are in
the process – or five. Those are
communities that have showed an interest.
In our relocation policies, there are various stages to that in terms of
identifying who exactly the residents are, because that is important from the
official vote. There is a
cost-benefit piece we go to.
Again,
we have a commissioner who would hear any appeals in regard to people that the
department may indicate, based on the policy, that we do not feel they are
permanent residents, which you would have to be –we appoint a commissioner to
hear those appeals and then make recommendations back to the department in
regard to what they have found.
It is
not a short process, but we have to make sure that everybody has a right to make
representation. Obviously,
residency is very important, permanent residency; and with that comes,
obviously, the ability to partake in the decision-making process.
There
are five right now that are ongoing in various stages.
MR. MURPHY:
Five communities?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
Which communities are they?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Those communities would be
Round Harbour, Snooks Arm, Williams Harbour, and Little Bay Island.
Nippers Harbour, we made a decision on that and based on the mayor and
representation, the cost-benefit analysis we had done, I guess it was not
reflective of some of the cost that they thought should or would not be
involved. They made representation
to me, as minister, and I said if you have additional information, make it
available to us and we will take another look.
I guess that is where that community is to right now.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
So somewhere down the road we will probably hear that some of these
communities are gone by the wayside, unfortunately.
Mr.
Minister, just further down in Professional Services then, $28,900 was the
number spent, there was nothing anticipated in the budget last year, nothing
anticipated this year. What would
that money have gone towards?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The increase was due to
higher than anticipated consultant costs related to fiscal framework.
We did some survey work in regard to general populous in regard to some
of the initiatives. As well, that
would be part of the What We Heard document.
It was overall I guess the consultative process in terms of going through
the fiscal framework over a two-year period and getting everybody's view on some
of the initiatives.
MR. MURPHY:
That would be the new fiscal
framework that government just presented in the last little while.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, it would be related to
that. It would all be contained in
our document: What We Heard.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
In the
Purchased Services line $15,500 anticipated and you only spent $6,000 there.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Again, that was more of an
operational issue in regard to a decrease of $9,500: lower than anticipated
basic meeting rooms, equipment rental, printing costs, those types of things.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
Farther
down in Grants and Subsidies then $46,500 was spent against $119,500 that was
appropriated for. It is the same
dollar amount as what is being asked this year in line 10.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Do you want to speak to
that, Colleen?
CHAIR:
Colleen.
MS JANES:
These would be grants that
we provide for feasibility studies associated with communities who come forth
with an interest on amalgamation, or some regional sharing of services.
It is lower than anticipated spending this year, but for next year we
already have a number of communities who have expressed an interest in having
feasibility studies done associated with various initiatives.
So we are anticipating to require that full amount this year.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
Mr.
Minister, I take it from the dollar amount that you are budgeting for this year,
government obviously has some sort of a vision itself on where it would imagine
they would like to see municipalities be in the next little while when it comes
to the operations, for example, the local service districts and the
regionalization of services.
I am
just wondering if you might be able to explain a little bit on where you hope
the government would be, for example, five years' time from now on these
particular steps the government would like to see, I would imagine, happen.
I think everybody in the Province has come to the realization pretty soon
that we have to come to a happy spot, a happy medium, where we can share
services.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, good question.
Our community sustainability partnership, obviously one of the issues we
have identified in that through Budget 2015 was the whole issue of local
governance. I guess over the past
two years with the consultations for fiscal framework, we have heard a lot about
that in regards to sharing services, more effective services, integration of
communities and regions to provide that service.
For
those of us who represent rural parts of the Province and local service
districts and municipalities and areas that are neither, we have seen the
challenges sometimes in providing services.
We have seen success, and I think that is what we need to continue with
and duplicate, whether it is fire prevention services, whether we are seeing it
with waste management in regard to the model in regard to communities coming
together, and doing things more effectively and efficiently.
Through
the community sustainability partnership, what we have identified is a process
that we would look to other jurisdictions to look at a regional governance
model, what is out there, what may be applicable here, and to use that
information to lead into the fall to start a process with all stakeholders and
see a vision of where we need to go.
As you
said, everybody understands that regionalization service, all of those types of
things, at the end of the day are
about providing the best service we can to our communities, to our regions.
We know urbanization has happened internationally and it has probably
happened nationally, and probably happens a bit slower here in this Province.
It has challenges in coastal and rural communities.
A different structure in regard to regional governance, I think that will
provide better opportunity for delivery of those services.
Factored into all of that, there is only one taxpayer, and we all know who that
is. Whether it is provincial or
municipal, it is about sustainability and being able to find that model that
supports sustainability.
To your
question, after we go through this process in the fall and into 2016, we are
hopeful that collectively – and it is a buy-in.
My vision is it not a top-down process where government is going to say
we got to do this, or we are going to do it this way.
I mean, there may be some of that, but I think it is a collective buy-in
from all concerned.
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the work they have done – I
certainly recognize what they have done in the work on this.
I think that is where we need to get and I think everybody recognizes
that. That is sort of the road we
are on right now in terms of the next year or so.
CHAIR:
George, your time has
expired and we will park there for now.
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, go ahead.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Sorry, I probably
(inaudible) –
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
MR. JOYCE:
I will just go back – I am
going to ask some probing question, but I will just continue on with George.
In 2.1.03.01.10, Grants and Subsidies, there is $119,500.
That is for feasibility studies for, say, a place like amalgamation,
relocation – York Harbour-Lark Harbour may be one of them.
Can we get a copy of the lists that are being used?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
For different requests in
communities?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, sure.
MR. JOYCE:
I am assuming that if you
send something to the Third Party –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, any requests for
information, we will distribute it to all concerned.
MR. JOYCE:
To all, yes.
To be fair to them also, so we can give it out.
I am
going to get back to just a few probing questions because by the time you go
through it, you will never get through it all with –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
You can ask me in Question
Period.
MR. JOYCE:
What?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
You can ask me in Question
Period.
MR. JOYCE:
No, but I thank you for your
openness.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keep in mind we have to get
through the line items too, but you go ahead.
MR. JOYCE:
Oh no, we will get through
it. That is not a problem.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
There is another little
thing that is a bit hidden out on Western Newfoundland is this regional land use
management committee. Can you tell
me the status of that?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Under the Humber Valley?
MR. JOYCE:
Humber Valley, yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I guess what we have
received just recently was a proposed – I am not sure what the exact term is,
land management plan, I guess, that is coming to the office –
OFFICIAL:
Regional Land Use Plan.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Regional Land Use Plan.
Over the past several months there has been back and forth between the
committee out there and the department.
Obviously from a departmental perspective, we look at the provincial
concerns to make sure those are being accommodated in the new development plan.
Maybe
in the last week or so it has come to the department.
So now we go through a process where officials will review it to make
sure it is consistent with the directions of the Province, the departments, and
those sorts of things.
My
understanding then – and someone can probably go through it as well – is that we
would strike a commission to hear public input on the proposed plan.
The commission would hear from all those concerned, would make
recommendations in regard to that plan, and then would – the department and the
minister would review it again and proceed to adopt a plan.
MR. JOYCE:
Can you or your officials
show me which line item there is a budget for that for last year and this year?
Where and how much was spent on this?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
If we do not, I can
certainly get it for you.
Do you
want to deal with that Colleen?
MR. JOYCE:
Is that better, to get it
for me?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, I can get it for you
and get it outlined so you know how much the expenditures were.
MR. JOYCE:
How much expenditures were
last year –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
– and for this coming year
because this has been ongoing now for seven years.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
I have not been there that long.
MR. JOYCE:
What?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I have not been there that
long.
MR. JOYCE:
No, I definitely understand
that, Minister, and I know you are making a lot of difference over there.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Maybe Colleen might just
want to speak to it for a second.
MR. JOYCE:
Then, I do not know if it is
too much, how much have been paid to date for that because it is –
CHAIR:
Colleen.
MS. JANES:
I can outline some basics,
there is some additional information that we are still gathering in terms of the
detail expenditure breakdown.
In
terms of what is contained within the line items of the budget here, there is
nothing. The expenditures
associated with this particular initiative have been financed out of earlier
budget years and currently rest with the planning authority in terms of future
expenditures.
To
date, government's expenditures associated with this have been $572,000.
That is associated with both the planning consultant and our share of it;
the Province funds 80 per cent of the plans work.
The 20 per cent is shared amongst the municipalities that are
participating. So $572,000 has been
our expenditure to date.
We have
not flowed any money in recent years because we flowed it in prior budget years
and they still have money that they are drawing on.
They have about $12,000, almost $13,000, remaining in the contract fund.
The planning consultant has advised that should be sufficient to conclude
the piece of work because they are virtually at the end.
They have sent the plan in for us to review.
MR. JOYCE:
Perfect, thank you.
I will
just get back to the little question that I asked, the transfer stations, are
there still going to be six in the Western Region?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Six.
Okay, perfect.
Little
Bay Islands; I know you mentioned the relocation.
Can you tell me the status on that?
I know we spoke on the Little Bay Islands one.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
For Little Bay Islands, Mr.
Joyce, there was some issue in regard to residence determination.
There were some who felt the determination made – they wanted an appeal
process.
The
review was done by a commissioner.
The report has now been received by the department and that is being reviewed in
regard to those who represented in front of the commissioner.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Once that is done, we will
determine whether we are accepting the recommendations of the commissioner to
determine who the residents are.
Then we will proceed to a cost-benefit and a vote.
MR. JOYCE:
Any idea how long that will
be?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
This step here in terms of
accepting the commissioner should be done very quickly, so in the next couple of
weeks. Then we will notify the
residents. I have gotten calls and
contacts from some people as well and I have kept them updated in the community.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
Before
I get off this topic I just thank you and your staff for the work you are doing
with York Harbour and Lark Harbour and that amalgamation.
I know that is proceeding slowly, but that is not the department doing
this. That is within the council
itself getting ready, so I just wanted to recognize the work that you are doing.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you very much and the
staff as well.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
Thank you for that.
I am
just going to ask again – so I will not have to waste my time to go through all
of the line items to find out – how much is put forth for the capital works this
year for the smaller municipalities except for the larger seven?
I know there are two.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We are still going through
that. We would probably be
somewhere around – and I say this is not completed yet – $18 million to $20
million, somewhere in that range.
MR. JOYCE:
Can you tell me how much was
carried over from last year, or how much is going to be carried over from last
year?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We have a line item here
that shows all previously approved Municipal Capital Works and all Municipal
Capital Works. I think it is over
$100 million. There is a line item.
What line is that?
OFFICIAL:
Subhead 2.3.01.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Subhead 2.3.01.
MR. JOYCE:
Subhead 2.3.01?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, hold on now – subhead
4.2.01. The voted is $107 million.
That is the number we are looking at?
Mr.
Joyce, if you go to 4.2.01, Municipal Infrastructure, the amount voted for this
year is $107,766,300.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
How
much is that a carry-over from last year?
I know (inaudible) in new money this year.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes and Cluney can speak to
this in a second. The large
majority of that would be carry over based on prior year's approval of Municipal
Capital Works multi-year. I mean in
the multi-year, some of those seven may not have identified yet exactly what
their project is, so we would not have flowed.
There
is a whole combination of a bunch of things going on there.
Those are basically monies that have been committed through multi-year,
or we have sent out an agreement to a municipality saying we are going to do
this project so you need to do your thing with your engineering, sign it off,
and we get that back.
Cluney,
do you have anything further to add to that?
MR. MERCER:
I just had one point to what
the minister said. Most municipal
infrastructure projects take more than one year to do from the time the minister
issues the funding approval letter.
It typically takes three years actually.
In the
initial year that the letter goes out we are finding that approximately 5 per
cent of the value of the project is incurred in cash flow in the first year,
roughly 50 per cent or 60 per cent in the second year, and the balance in the
third year. It has typically taken
the vast majority of municipalities, even the smaller ones, three years to
complete a project.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Thank you.
This
might be a good time to pause and have an intermission for five minutes.
Is that the wish of the Committee and for those people downstairs as well
to have a little break? Is that
okay?
Okay,
we will take five and we will come back to George.
Recess
CHAIR:
If all Committee members
could take their seat, we will commence part two of Estimates of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs and Labour Relations.
We will
commence with George; you are on deck, Sir.
Thank
you very much.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
It
always helps, I think, to take a little bit of a break and recharge the
batteries before you go on, so we can appreciate the last five minutes, anyway.
Thank you very much for that.
It just seems so unusual to go to the Government Caucus Room to have a
cup of tea instead.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We are a good bunch.
MR. MURPHY:
Not bad, not bad.
MR. CROSS:
Everybody is welcome.
MR. MURPHY:
I will give them a couple of
extra points too, I guess, for the donuts at the same time.
Mr.
Chair, just to come along with a couple of more line items before I get into
general policy questions again. I
will start off with 2.2.01, Policy and Strategic Planning.
In this particular case I am looking at the salary details, if the
minister can give us a breakdown on what is happening with the salary details
here. I can see probably about 3
per cent there, and looking at the possibility of vacancies here, have there
been any hirings, that sort of stuff.
CHAIR:
So that is 2.2.01?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, sir.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The $614,800 to the
$566,200, the decrease there of $48,600 was staff vacancies there as well and
some delay in filling some positions.
Then when we get to the voted number of $634,900, there is a salary
increase of $20,100, compared to the prior year, reflects a required salary step
increase, and also reflects a 3 per cent salary increase related to the
collective agreement, and a newer staff hire at a salary step increase of
$2,300. So, cumulatively, all of
those items bring you up to the estimate for this year.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
How
many vacancies were we dealing with in the department before, and how many now
after the hirings?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I will defer to Colleen for
that. Do we know?
MS JANES:
I believe we have two vacancies within that division at the moment.
I am looking to Heather Tizzard.
MS TIZZARD:
There is one vacancy right now, and there is one when we had a delayed hiring.
MR. MURPHY:
I did not hear that.
MS TIZZARD:
Sorry. There is one vacancy right
now, and there was some delayed hiring this year with respect to an information
manager.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
So
those positions would be filled this year, obviously, according to that?
MS TIZZARD:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
All right, that is great,
thanks.
Moving
over to section 2.3.01, Municipal Infrastructure and Waste Management, I guess a
breakdown starting off here of the salary details.
It is about a $67,000 difference between last year and this year's
actual. Of course that number jumps
up again to $516,000 this year.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, the $519,700 budgeted
went to $452,700, a decrease of $67,000.
There were some vacancies which had to be filled.
Then for this year back to $516,200; that number has gone down a little.
So yes,
the decrease of $3,500 between reductions associates with some attrition
management and newer staff at lower steps.
This is offset by required salary step increases and the 3 per cent
salary increase negotiated that we spoke about as well.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
Just a
breakdown too on the Professional Services line; nothing anticipated in the
revised figure, I should say. There
was nothing there. This year it is
$450,800. I am wondering if I can
get a breakdown of what is happening here.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, this is the initiative
that we announced in the Community Sustainability Partnership in regard to three
regional service boards to engage regional water and waste management operators,
to work with a pilot group of communities to address water and waste water
infrastructure operations, and certainly to look at the challenges.
The
second component of that too was for a consultant to be engaged to work
exclusively on solutions to reduce the number of boil-water advisories.
That is the money for that, to fund that.
That is where you would find it, right there.
MR. MURPHY:
That is that particular line
item.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
The $450,000 is for that
water partnership. Okay.
I was
going to ask you a question around that, but it will come back to me.
I might have to come back to it I guess.
Subhead
2.3.02, Industrial Water Services; there is a huge difference in the salary
details from what was budgeted and the revised figure for this year.
I wonder if I can get a breakdown there on what is happening with that
particular line item.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
So
$174,100 was budgeted and revised to $70,500.
That is a decrease of $98,200 between the two years.
There was elimination of two vacant Engineering Tech II positions which
was $98,400. These were traded off
for two new Planner III positions under Land Use Planning.
As well, there was some small amount of attrition management.
It was
offset by the 3 per cent salary increase that we spoke of again.
So through all of that – that is where we arrived.
There is a lower envelope there based on salary transfers.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
I take
it further down to provincial revenue in line 02.
This would be the industrial water from OCI, I am guessing.
They had an ongoing balance over the last couple of years.
I am just wondering if I can get a breakdown of what is happening here.
Is this the OCI industrial water here?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Well that would be all of the industrial water systems.
There are six remaining that are with the Province.
That would be collectively all the revenues.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
One of them may or may not be OCI, but there are six or
seven companies there that owe on industrial water, is that right?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, they are arrears. The number
they had has been paid. I guess it
would show in this fiscal year in terms of revenue generation.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That payment schedule is to conclude in June, I think, and returns to what was
outstanding.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I think it is in excess of $400,000, if I remember correctly.
MR. MURPHY: It
was something along those lines, yes.
It used to be substantially a lot more.
I can remember it being, I think, $718,000 at one particular point two or
three years ago. I guess the
department obviously has some sort of a plan put in place to get some of the
revenue back and get some of these balances looked after?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes. In regard to that one, I think
it was Port Union; there were three stakeholders that were involved with that.
I think there was a municipality, OCI, and there was a third one.
When an assessment was done, we tried to do it on a
cost-recovery basis. When they were
looked at particularly, it was seen that the amount charged was in excess of
what the cost recovery would be, so all three were adjusted accordingly.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
So right now they are in good standing, let's say.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, perfect, okay.
I want to come back up again to the Purchased Services
line, the $550,000 for this year against $490,000 that was in the actual budget
for 2014-2015. Of course, it is
$490,000 as well that is budgeted for this year.
I wonder if you can give me a breakdown on what is happening here.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That would be related to an increase of $60,000.
That is the expenditure associated with emergency repairs at the water
treatment systems. That would be in
addition to the routine maintenance schedule for the year.
Obviously, we would have a routine maintenance schedule,
but if something happened to one of those industrial systems,
oftentimes, most of them, there are residents accessing that water supply so we
would have to respond and do what we need to do to make it operational.
MR. MURPHY:
That is where you would
find, for example, it might be a $1,600 water pump repair or something for a
local district. This is where you
would find –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, this is related to the
six industrial water systems.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We would do the maintenance.
Then, as I said, if something came up outside of – this year, obviously,
we did not hit the $490,000 because there were other things that came up that
had to be dealt with, but we will go back to the $490,000 in the envelope for
this year.
MR. MURPHY:
Do you have a list of those
six industrial water systems that the government would be dealing with directly?
Can we have a list of that?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, sure.
I probably have it here and I can tell you, but we can get the list for
you, not a problem.
MR. MURPHY:
Sure, that is great.
Thanks.
Moving
on over then to 3.1.01, under Crown Land, first off I note that the salary
details are down about $1 million overall in funding in 2014-2015, the revised
to the budget figures. At the same
time, the salary details were also up again to $3.988 million.
I am wondering if I can get a breakdown of what is happening here in the
salary details.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
There was $4.115 million
budgeted from the last fiscal year, the revised was $3,166,200.
To that item, a decrease of $126,800 between the two years reflects
savings due to the vacant positions.
There is some offset there as, again, this would involve the 3 per cent
salary increase.
Then
when you look at the voted number for this year, $3,988,200 – let me see now.
Yes, what I just said to you, $3.988 million was reflective of what that
number is here. The $3,166,200 that
was $948,800 due to some vacancies as well and delays in getting those positions
filled. It was also partially
offset by a short-term salary cost related to the Lands Act Review.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Okay, George we are kind of
into double overtime. If you do not
mind, we could park there and come back to you.
Eddie.
MR. JOYCE:
I only have a few more
questions.
Just to
continue on with Crown Land, Minister, which line item is the Lands Act Review
paid?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
In terms of funding for that
Lands Act Review?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Colleen, do you have that?
MS JANES:
There is some funding
associated with Lands Act Review that is coming out of the salary vote there.
There are some that are coming out of Professional Services.
We have three people on the Committee right now.
One is through a professional service contract; it is a solicitor.
The other is through contractual employment, so that is coming out of
salary dollars. The third is
someone seconded from Eastern Health.
I am actually not sure what line that is coming out of –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible).
MS JANES:
That is also coming out of
the salaries.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Joyce, we can get you a
list of what that is, if you wanted it.
MR. JOYCE:
No, that is fine.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
When do you expect this to
be completed?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We had originally indicated
in June. At this point we are
completed the What We Heard document and it has been quite extensive.
We are very pleased with the consultations on What We Heard.
The Committee is reviewing all of that and I will be meeting with the
Committee shortly and determine whether the June deadline is something we can
meet. I have heard from the
Committee, there is a lot of good information.
They may want to do some more exploratory work before they respond back.
I have not had that discussion with them yet, but I will shortly.
We will be updating then exactly where we are with it.
MR. JOYCE:
Just on a point, and it is
in the budget itself, just to the minister and the staff, Copper Mine Brook, I
know there is major, major issues out there, but I just want to recognize that
your department now is taking the lead on that and trying to get some answers
and dealing with the people out there on it.
I just want to recognize that and have it on the record.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
Yes, we are working on that issue.
MR. JOYCE:
On Lands, on 3.1.06, I was
just wondering the Northeast Avalon plan, is that included in this funding here,
the Land Use Planning – 3.1.06?
OFFICIAL:
Is it 3.1.05?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Land Use Planning.
MR. JOYCE:
It is 05, yes.
It is probably my eyes.
CHAIR:
For clarity, what
(inaudible) –
MR. JOYCE:
It is 05, sorry.
The
NEAR Plan, is that included in this funding here?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Do you want to speak to that
Colleen?
MS JANES:
NEAR was funded out of our budget this year.
There was a transfer of funds to Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador. I am just struggling to
find the precise line item that is reflected in.
It is in Special Assistance.
So you would find that reflected in 4.1.04 in terms of the dollars associated
with the NEAR review.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
How
much was transferred for that NEAR Plan for the Northeast Avalon?
MS JANES:
There was $247,700 provided to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador as our
contribution towards the development of the NEAR Plan.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay, thank you.
That is
enough of Crown Land right now. I
just have a few other questions in municipal affairs.
Subhead
4.1.05, Grants and Subsidies, $5,715,000.
Is that for the community enhancement program?
I am assuming it is.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Joyce, what was that
again? I did not hear it.
MR. JOYCE:
It is 4.1.05, Community
Enhancement, Grants and Subsidies.
The number is consistent there from last year to this year.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Is there any plan to get
that out a bit earlier this year or –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
It is a great project.
It does great work.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, there is.
There is always that challenge between knowing when people's opportunity
to receive employment have expired for the year and getting the project started.
I
agree, in terms of the – we all know the type of work that has been done.
A lot of it is outdoors. To
actually get the work done – we all know what our weather conditions are like.
To
answer your question, yes, we are always trying to get it out earlier.
Once we understand that a region – the opportunity for people to get
further employment has stopped, then we work with them to try and, if there is a
shortfall in their hours, to get them to where they need to be.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
I have
one more question, Mr. Chair.
Subhead 4.2.03, Grants and Subsidies, there is an increase there.
CHAIR:
Under Municipal
Infrastructure, 4.2.03?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Grants and Subsidies, okay.
It went up to $45 million.
The increase reflects an increase of almost $4 million for waste management
funding related to infrastructure development in Southern and Central Labrador.
That is offset by a carryover from 2014-2015.
MR. JOYCE:
Instead of going to the line
item, was there any assistance given to Lab West?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
That is under Special Assistance, I will just reference that for you.
What section is that again?
OFFICIAL:
Subhead 4.1.04.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Subhead 4.1.04, Special
Assistance. You can see there was a
jump in this year's envelope, what is being voted, the $4,308,000.
The increase to that of $1,908,000 reflects the increase funding for the
Town of Wabush that was due to the idling of Cliff mines.
Obviously, that was in our response to the town and the region and community in
terms of the challenges that presented itself with that.
Obviously, that was a direct grant to the town for operations and all the
other things. We have done that in
similar cases where we have had significant industry shut down in the Province
before.
That is
a funding stream that would phase over three years; 90 per cent the first year,
60 per cent the second, and 30 the third.
It would be a three year period where we would assist the town in terms
of removal of that prior grant that they got.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
I just
have one last question, 4.2.02 Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Programs,
Grants and Subsidies, $16,700. Can
we get a list of that in 4.2.02?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, sure.
Under that heading where we reference various programs, you just want to
identify where the programs were or towns, those types of thing?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Just if we can get a list.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, okay.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
I am
finished with the questions that I was going to ask.
Can I just take my last minute or so to make a few statements?
CHAIR:
Sure.
MR. JOYCE:
First of all, Minister, I
notice in your department this year you do not have fire and safety, but I just
want to recognize last year when York Harbour and Lark Harbour had that major
fire and the truck broke down. You
went out, evaluated it, and there is a new truck ordered for that.
I know it is life and safety, so I just want to recognize that, on behalf
of the town. You took that
initiative to do that personally, to get involved in that.
I just want to recognize that.
The
other thing with Crown Lands – again, this is not to blow the staff up too much,
but there is a major difference in being able to deal with the public out in
Crown Lands. I just want to
acknowledge that. Within the last
five or six months the actual people now can sit down with the staff and go
through the issues and follow through.
Before, it was always that you could never get an answer.
I just want to recognize that the staff – especially who I deal with out
in the Western Region, because of policy changes there from the department, it
is much better.
I just
want to also recognize all the work that all of the staff do throughout Western
Newfoundland – who I deal with and I am sure all throughout the Province who
deal with municipalities. I just
want to recognize that because there is a lot of work to be done and a lot of
work has been done. There is a
different culture to be able to deal with it in the last four to six months.
I know
with Crown Lands and I know with Municipal Affairs, there is a difference.
I just want to recognize that and thank the minister and the staff for
the work they are doing out there because there is a difference.
Just a few examples that I made to you: Coppermine Brook and a fire truck
out in York Harbour and Lark Harbour because of necessity.
People now feel that they can get answers whereas before they could not.
I just want to recognize that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Eddie.
We can
give you more coffee for these kind remarks.
Thank
you very much.
Okay,
George.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do
not have too much more, besides just coming down to a couple of line items here
now that I think I can get to relatively quick.
They seem to be self-supporting on some of the evidence already that the
minister has put forth as regards to the 3 per cent salary increases, and the
filling of vacancies and everything.
There is really not too much there when it comes to the numbers.
I
wanted to start off, though, with 3.1.03, Surveying and Mapping.
I know that when it comes to geodetic surveys, topographical base
mapping, aerial photography and that sort of thing, we are in changing times.
I know that the department is dealing with other issues, I would imagine,
when it comes to surveying and mapping, like when it comes to climate change and
that sort of thing too.
I
wanted to ask a couple of questions about these line items.
First of all, the salary details here in 3.1.03 show $664,000 was in the
budget for last year, but the revised figure is $395,800.
I am wondering if the minister could give us a breakdown on what happened
here with the line item. All the
money obviously was not spent, but at the same time, the salary details are up
for this year.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, the revised $395,800
was a decrease of $268,200. There
were some staff vacancies and getting those filled, obviously, resulted in no
payout for those positions.
When we
look at the budget amount and estimate for this year, there is an increase of
$22,600 compared to the prior year, again through the 3 per cent salary increase
negotiated on the collective bargaining process; a couple of new staff at higher
step levels, that is about $9,000; and, there are some offset reductions
associated with attrition management, about $6,200.
Collectively, all of that puts us at $686,600 for this estimate.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
That is
great to hear.
Coming
down to 3.1.04, Geomatics Agreements, the Professional Services; $150,000 was
appropriated for, but only $75,000 spent, and $150,000 appropriated for again
this year. I wonder if you can –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, that is just reflective
of a lower than anticipated consulting cost related to aerial photography and
specific mapping projects. I guess
historically we have been up around the $150,000 mark so we have maintained it
again for this current year.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
I will
move on from there then. That is
great. Thanks for that.
Subhead
3.1.05, Land Use Planning; I am wondering if we can get a complete breakdown of
what is happening as regards to the salary details here.
It is a little bit up and down there.
I am wondering if we can get a breakdown.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
The
$624,600 was budgeted in the last fiscal year.
The revised was $597,900. It
is a decrease of $26,700. There
were some vacancies and with that vacancy, or a small amount, that money
obviously was not allocated. Then,
when we look at the current year and what has been asked in Estimates, it is an
increase of $104,200 compared to prior years for two new Planner III positions.
Yes, so
we talked about it earlier – relating to the decrease – the two positions under
Industrial Water Services. As well,
there is a 3 per cent salary increase negotiated, as we have spoken of, that is
about $21,000. There is also some
funding for salary step increases and that has been offset by some vacancies.
There is also newer staff at lower steps; I think that is about $8,000.
So all of that, collectively, brings us to our voting allocation for this
year.
MR. MURPHY:
All right, so we are looking
at two new and planning three positions that are obviously in these salary
details.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
All right, that is great.
Thanks.
Subhead
4.1.01, Municipal Debt Servicing, I guess, Mr. Minister, just a general comment
on how you are finding that municipalities are dealing with their debt.
Some of them did have issues over the time period.
I wanted to have a look at the Grants and Subsidies number.
I know that the number here is down.
I wonder if you can give me a comment on why these numbers are down this
year versus other years.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
This would be the
Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation.
So prior to fiscal year 2005-2006, the Province's contribution towards
municipal infrastructure projects was funded through interest-bearing loans from
the Crown corporation. In 2005-2006
government decided to discontinue financing a portion of initial projects from
this agency and to instead fund it through the annual Budget process.
This entity is here, I guess this is the debt that is outstanding that
the Province has that it is paying down.
I guess this is a falling number.
If you
look to up top, Municipal Debt Servicing, the decrease of $1,325,700 reflects
lower debt servicing expenses due to declining debt balances, debt reduction,
and obviously no debt because we are not using that mechanism any more to
finance, it is in our annual Budget.
Down on
the next one, assistance and infrastructure, Grants and Subsidies again, if we
look at that –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible).
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The top one is interest and
the bottom one would be principal.
In both cases, obviously, where you are paying off through the Newfoundland
Municipal Financing Corporation, those numbers are falling.
MR. MURPHY:
So the government obviously
has a pretty good handle over that the last couple of years.
I have noticed that these numbers have been declining over the last
little while.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
So there is no need to
address this any further when it comes to that.
Obviously, it seems like you have a good handle on it.
Thanks for that one.
The
only other section that I have questions on was 5.1.01, Executive Support – IGA,
Intergovernmental Affairs. First of
all, just a breakdown of the salary details here, number one.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Budget 2014-2015 was
$280,500 and it dropped down to $260,400.
That decrease of $20,100 reflects delay in filling a vacancy.
It was a temporary director of intergovernmental planning and
coordination.
Then if
we look to the $373,700 that has been asked to vote on, the increase of $93,200
is again a 3 per cent salary increase through the collective bargaining process;
re-profiling of temporary salary funding from 5.1.02, Intergovernmental Policy
and Analysis; and forecasted temporary salary funding for costs associated with
a temporary director of intergovernmental planning and coordination that will
oversee hosting of a couple of events that are coming up this year.
The
Council of Federation will be held in the Province; the Conference of New
England Governors will be here; and the Eastern Canadian Premiers as well will
be here in 2015. So that person
will provide oversight for those three events.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
Coming
a little bit further down, Transportation and Communications shows $128,800
expenditure for this year, can I get a breakdown of what is going to be
happening here in this line item?.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Again, with that one, the
additional funding of $95,000 in the current year is preparations related to the
Council of Federation, Conference of New England Governors, and the Eastern
Canadian Premiers in 2015 for transportation.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
The
Purchased Services line, I take it there is a connection there as well:
$927,900.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, again, additional
funding for these three events in preparation for those.
It is all related to those three additional events that are happening in
the Province this year.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay.
I think
that is about it – 5.1.02, just a breakdown of the salary detail line here.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
There was a decrease there
from the original budget amount – it was revised due to, again, a staff vacancy
and the funding saved due to that vacancy.
Then the voted amount for this year is $763,400, the $15,000 reflects
re-profiling of some temporary salary funding to Executive Support in IGA, and
we have newer staff at lower steps.
That is offset by an increase in funding for required step increases, and we
have the 3 per cent salary increases through the collective bargaining.
Through all of that, we arrived at $763,400.
MR. MURPHY:
Okay, alright.
That is great.
Mr.
Minister, I only have one more question here.
I have been told that our House Leader, Ms Michael, has been extremely
lucky, as of late, in Estimates, asking about the minister's briefing books.
I just
wanted to ask if I can get a copy of the minister's briefing books on some of
these issues.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, sure.
We will make a copy available to you.
MR. MURPHY:
If it is possible.
That is great.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. MURPHY:
At this time, Mr. Chair, I
have no other questions other than as a final comment to thank the staff of the
Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs for showing up this
morning and being so forthright in answering questions.
I would like to thank them for their efforts in keeping this Province
going at the same time.
It
certainly cannot be an easy job, but no doubt it can be sometimes a thankless
task. So I want to thank you on
behalf of our caucus, in particular, for the job that you do.
Thank
you again for your time this morning.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that, and certainly your kind remarks for staff because they
do an exceptional job right across our Province.
They are on the ground dealing with a lot of issues.
Thank
you for your remarks.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
Now we
will proceed with the vote. I will
ask the Clerk to call the subheading.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, 1.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
Subheads 1.2.01 to 5.1.02
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall subheads 1.2.01 to
5.1.02 inclusive, carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 5.1.02 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed.
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, total heads,
carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs and Labour
Relations Agency carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed.
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs
and Labour Relations Agency carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
We have a couple of
housekeeping items to conclude our meetings.
I have
the Social Services Committee, May 25, 2015.
I am looking for a motion to accept.
Glen
Little; seconded by Eddie Joyce.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed.
Carried.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
The next meeting is Call of
the Chair, but I do believe, from my recollection, this concludes the meetings
of the Social Services Committee for this, as far as we know.
Before
we ask a motion to adjourn, I just want to thank all Committee members for your
thought-provoking questions. I would
like to thank the minister and his departmental officials for your patience and
willingness to co-operate and for your accommodations and all your stellar work
that you do on behalf of the Province.
Thank
you very much.
I will
have a motion to adjourn.
Mr.
Joyce; seconded by Glen Little.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
Thank
you.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned sine die.