May 4,
2016
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Jerry Dean, MHA for Exploits, substitutes for
Betty Parsley, MHA for Harbour Main.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South,
substitutes for Keith Hutchings, MHA for Ferryland.
The
Committee met at 5:36 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Edmunds):
Okay, we're going to get
started here now. First of all, we're going to make a motion to adopt the
minutes from the last meeting, held April 26.
A
motion to adopt the minutes from the Government Services Committee, April 26,
2016?
MR. KING:
Moved.
CHAIR:
Moved by Neil King.
Do we
need a seconder?
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
No.
CHAIR:
Okay. Questions or comments?
Shall
it carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
We're going to do some
introductions, and we've got some substitutions – I'll bring them up after the
introductions – then we'll call for subheads. We'll go the minister and ask you
to introduce your staff, and I also ask that before they speak into the mic that
they introduce themselves for the listeners there recording in the broadcast
booth.
Introductions from the Government Services Committee, starting in the back.
MS. HALEY:
Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin
– Grand Bank.
MR. DEAN:
Jerry Dean, MHA, Exploits.
MR. KING:
Neil King, District of
Bonavista, home of the Trinity Pageant.
MR. FINN:
John Finn, MHA, Stephenville
– Port au Port.
MS. DRODGE:
Megan Drodge, Researcher, Official Opposition caucus.
MR. PETTEN:
Barry Petten, MHA for
Conception Bay South, and Transportation and Works critic.
MS. WILLIAMS:
Susan Williams, Researcher, the Third Party.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
I would
just like to point out before we get started that the Member for Exploits, Mr.
Jerry Dean, is substituting for the Member for Lewisporte – Twillingate, Derek
Bennett, who will be here in about an hour, who is also substituting for the
Member for Harbour Main, Ms. Betty Parsley. And Derek Bennett will be coming in
at approximately 8 o'clock, if we are in fact still here.
So
we're going to go through the Estimates procedure by subheads, and we shall vote
on the subheads once they're completed and move on. We won't worry about the
clock, we'll let the clock run through and hopefully we'll be finished well
within the three-hour time frame.
I call
for the subheads.
CLERK:
1.1.01.
MR. HAWKINS:
We'll do introductions
first. I'd just like to make a few comments then we'll get into the subheads.
I'm
going to let you guys speak into the mic.
MS. COMPANION:
Lori Anne Companion, Deputy Minister, Transportation and Works.
MR. SMITH:
Paul Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic & Corporate Services.
MS. MCCARTHY:
Charlene McCarthy, Departmental Controller, Transportation and Works.
MS. FANCEY:
Jody Fancey, Executive Assistant to Minister Hawkins.
MR. BARFOOT:
Scott Barfoot, Communications, substituting for Jacquelyn Howard.
MR. HARVEY:
Max Harvey, ADM, Marine and Transportation.
MR. GRANDY:
Cory Grandy, ADM for Works.
MR. BREEN:
Seamus Breen, Executive Director.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you.
Before
I make a couple remarks, this is my first Estimates. It's a new experience for
me. We'll work through it. I'm sure it's a new experience for the Member
opposite, although I think you may have been in as an EA and sat in on some of
the Estimates before, so you know –
MR. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HAWKINS:
Okay.
I think
most of the Members on the government side, this is probably the first-time
Estimates for you folks in TW, but now you've had some experience in going
through it before. I'm sure the Member of the Third Party it's no new experience
for her. I'm sure you've been here before.
Anyway,
as I mentioned, this is my first experience with the Estimates. I certainly want
to thank everyone for this opportunity tonight to talk a little bit about the
Estimates that's contained in this particular budget and, hopefully, be able to
explain some of the line-by-line items, if you so desire to do that, and have
some discussions. If I'm not in a position to answer all of them, which I'm sure
I won't be, then I do have my staff that will certainly answer the questions for
you. If in fact we don't have the answer, we'll get it for you.
The
department's core functions are design, construction and maintenance of roads
and bridges; the operation and acquisition of marine passenger vehicle and
freight services; design, construction and maintenance of provincial buildings;
maintenance and operation of airstrips; acquisition and management of leased
space; and acquisition and disposal of land and buildings. The department is
also responsible for a tendering process for mail services, the vehicle fleet
and, of course, security services. Currently, there are just over 1,517 active
employees: 970 permanent, 379 seasonal and 162 that are temporary.
Given
the nature of the work of the department, safety must be paramount in everything
we do at all times. This is certainly a priority for me and we're working to
create a safe work environment for all of our employees, contractors and the
general public.
I just
want to go on record as saying that my first day in office, as a minister, I
made it very, very clear to my staff that safety would be priority number one
going forward and that every one of our employees who leave their home in the
morning is expected to be able to return to their family in the evening. So
we're going to make sure that a safe work environment is what we're all going to
strive for to ensure that our employees are safe during their work day.
The
department's gross expenditure budget for 2016-2017 is $499 million, which is
almost $98 million less than last year's budget. This is primarily as a result
of the infrastructure-related projects being fully or substantially completed.
I just
wanted to mention a couple of them. These include final payments for two new
ferries; the final payments for the new water bombers that we had; completion of
the funding commitment to the implementation of category three landing system at
St. John's International Airport; and significant progress on the wharf upgrades
to accommodate the Legionnaire on
Bell Island and Portugal Cove run. These projects have now been funded out and
so we were able to take that out of our budget.
Substantial funding has been maintained for roads-related infrastructure,
including $62 million for the 100 per cent provincially funded projects, as well
as the $125 million where we'll be leveraging federal revenue of approximately
$78 million.
As we
go through the Estimates for the Department of Transportation and Works, you
will note in many areas a change from previous budgets due to the line-by-line
review that was undertaken. Like every department within government, we have
taken steps to rightsize our budget and to work within the budget that we are
allocated.
There
will be a few areas tonight I'm sure the Member opposite will question with
regard to some of the changes and you'll probably hear the answer more than once
that it's because of averaging over the last five years. We've done a lot of
work with that. Areas that we've identified that there are some differences,
what we've done is decided to go back over the last five years and then we've
averaged out a costing on that. So probably that answer will come several times
tonight.
This
means conducting our monthly reviews of our overall spending and regularly
reviewing our overtime and travel and generally conducting an enhanced due
diligence on where the money goes. We will also be undertaking a real estate
asset management plan to ensure that we review government's real estate
portfolio and determine how best to enhance its public value.
Throughout our session, if there's anything we're unable to answer for you, we
will certainly provide these answers as quickly as possible.
So, Mr.
Chair, it's all yours.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, do you mind if I – we'll do the line by line, but I have some general
questions that I'd –
MR. HAWKINS:
Listen, you know me, I'm
free and easy and if I can answer it I will. If I can't, I'm sure my good people
will.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes. I know I lucked out on
the two fellows I'm critic for. You're doing the better ones. I got lucky, yes.
I'll
probably just do the line by lines, move along on that, and then I have some
questions. Maybe we'll do – what subheads did we call?
CLERK:
Sub one.
MR. HAWKINS:
Shall we do the Minister's
Office first?
CHAIR:
Yes, Executive and Support
Services.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. I'll ask some general
questions.
Why are
the Salaries higher in '15-'16 than expected?
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, in the Minister's
Office, of course, you would probably know, there were significant more staff
with regard to EAs. So we've eliminated those positions. I have one EA, and I
think in some of the budgets we included some with regard to – there was some
question. Sometimes we were wondering if the CAs were included in that, but in
this particular case we eliminated one of the two executive positions and there
were some pay steps in response to staff turnover. So that's what we basically
did, eliminated that.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I'd
rather go to some general questions first because I haven't got a whole lot
there in that section.
So,
24-hour snow clearing –
MR. HAWKINS:
Do you want to go line by line or do you want to wait until we come to the
24-hour snow clearing section?
MR. PETTEN:
Well, we're only into
subhead 1.1.01. I don't have a whole lot in that section, so I figured I'd
insert some –
MR. HAWKINS:
I can answer those questions for you but I think the 24-hour snow clearing will
be reflected later with the budget item.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. That's fine, yes.
You
went down through your employees, so how many compared to last year? What's the
difference in your employees from this year to last year in the department?
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, I'll tell you what we
have done. We have no one that's going to be laid off, according to what we've
had. We've had some attrition. We've got 16 positions each year for the five
years. So they will be – right now, the 16 positions will be through attrition.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
So that's part of that.
If you
want to just talk a little bit about the 24-hour snow clearing; as you know,
with the removal of the 24-hour snow clearing there will not be a dedicated crew
24 hours. As you know, of course, too, that's only in certain areas of the
province. Not all the province had 24 hours.
Right
now, in determining the exact number of people that will be impacted by that,
we're not sure, because what happens, there are a number in that crew but each
year there may be some that will not be recalled, or there may be some that when
we actually recall, they've gone and found other jobs. So it's a seasonal piece.
Over the years there have been, historically, a lot of changes within that.
Right
now, it's almost too early to say, okay, there are going to be exactly five
people that's going to be replaced, or 10 people that's going to be replaced.
What we will be looking at, the closer we get to that, we'll be able to know how
many will be coming back on recall and that sort of thing.
Is that
satisfactory for staff?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
You say
you got 16 positions per year under the attrition plan. So this year, are there
any positions lost through the 650 positions announced in the budget, which was
core – it was 200, I'm trying to get the numbers right – 200 from the core civil
service. Were there any positions lost in that?
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, I just mentioned that
I think there are 25 or 26 for the 24-hour snow clearing.
MR. PETTEN:
That's where they're all
coming from, is it?
MR. HAWKINS:
So when we get closer to
that – I can't tell you right now how many of those 25 or 26 will be impacted
because, again, like I said, every year it seems to be different.
My
staff is telling me that sometimes we recall and not all of them are coming
back. Some people find jobs, because it's only a seasonal piece. That's what's
going to be impacted with the snow clearing, but to get the exact number, we're
not going to say how many – I can't tell you how many bodies will be physically
not there that are there this year.
MR. PETTEN:
Sure.
So
those positions, though, there are no other lost positions within the department
outside of snow clearing?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, other than – and I think
I'll let my staff speak to this, but I think we have had a practice of some
vacancy positions and that sort of thing. Over the five years, we tried to move
those through the system.
MS. COMPANION:
No other positions, other than the attrition numbers, which were vacant
positions that would have been already taken from our budget. It's just we had
to find the PCNs and we wait for them to become vacant. The 26 positions, which
we don't really know if that will be actual people or not until the fall comes,
but nobody knows.
MR. PETTEN:
Will they actually be
removed then, the PCNs? That you identified, will they be removed from the
budget all together or it will just be the positions moved? Do you know what I'm
saying? Just the people or everything, the dollars and the –
MS. COMPANION:
When the attrition plan was put in place, the money was taken out of our budget
for five years for the 16 positions that TW is responsible to take out. It's
already gone from our budget by the time we get our new budget. So throughout
the year we have to account for that money, as positions become vacant,
determining whether we can hold that position vacant and use it towards our
attrition. So the money is gone.
MR. PETTEN:
What about those positions
that may be lost through the snow clearing positions?
MR. HAWKINS:
That was part of the
Government Renewal Initiative that we put in there. That 24-hour snow clearing
has been removed from our budget.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Which includes the
positions, salary positions?
MR. HAWKINS:
Which includes the
positions; absolutely.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I have
one more question under the Minister's Office there. It seems like a lot of
salary savings. I know you reduced one of those positions.
MR. HAWKINS:
Which one are you at?
MR. PETTEN:
I'm at Salaries.
MR. HAWKINS:
Still on the ministerial
one?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, that's the subheading
we're under, yes.
I see a
drop of $108,000 from the revised to this year's estimate.
MR. HAWKINS:
There was a projected
revised budget that was put in at $311,700. That was actually what was spent.
The revised original budget was only $282,000. Included in that, we do have, as
I said before, the removal of one of the executive assistants and anything
having to deal with that, any salaries and severance.
Of
course, with the changeover in government, there were severance costs that were
payable that went out to three staff members in the Minister's Office because of
the changeover. So if you take the severance cost for the three staff members,
the removal of the executive assistant position, then we should be close to that
amount.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
That's
all the questions I have on 1.1.01.
MR. HAWKINS:
What's that?
MR. PETTEN:
I'm telling Mr. Chair that's
all the questions I have on 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Okay.
CLERK:
(Inaudible) go 1.1.01 and
you end with that.
MR. HAWKINS:
Go through all the ones.
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
We called all of them.
That's what I was asking earlier.
CHAIR:
(Inaudible) to 1.2.03.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, sorry.
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
A long
day; a long week.
Under
1.2.01, whose Salaries are included here? Who makes up those Salaries of $1.167
million? What positions and what – I should say what division?
MR. HAWKINS:
You're on 1.2.02 now?
MR. PETTEN:
1.2.01.
CHAIR:
1.2.01.
MR. HAWKINS:
Okay.
MR. PETTEN:
1.2.01.
MR. HAWKINS:
The Salaries: deputy
minister, Assistant Deputy Minister of Works, Assistant Deputy Minister of
Transportation, Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic – so all your deputy
ministers would go into that – our Director of Communications, our media
relations and so on.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Transportation and Communications; again, I guess that's just travel – for those
positions I'm assuming we're talking about travel for staff.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, and as you know we have
significantly reduced that because we've removed any discretionary travel.
Obviously, that's going to be impacting. The travel requirements are going to be
less for our staff. There was also some delay in the replacement of one of our
ADMs for roads for Works.
MR. PETTEN:
Works, yes.
Very good.
1.2.02,
under Administrative Support.
MR. HAWKINS:
1.2.02, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
What caused the Salaries to
increase?
MR. HAWKINS:
In which one? From where to
where?
MR. PETTEN:
On the Salaries line in
1.2.02. The Salaries increased to $1.692 million this year. $1.358 million –
well, they went up to $1.746 million.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, so the adjustment in
Salaries was due to some of the changes in the funding levels in the
departmental salary budget, going through the JES step increases that happened
through that evaluation that the government did. And, of course, we previously
had an unfunded communications piece, I think, as well. There was an unfunded
communications position that we've included in that.
MR. PETTEN:
So you're saying that cost
is mainly due to JES and that.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes. So we're – pardon me, I
am sorry about that.
The
other, of course, is the funding for the Occupational Health and Safety staff
has been moved from the Project Management and Design division to the
Administrative Support. There's a switchover there. It's been changed out to
this particular line, so you can see the differential there.
MR. PETTEN:
So how many new staff was
added to there? You're saying that was Occupational Health and Safety staff?
MS. COMPANION:
There's a director and four Occupational Health and Safety consultants that have
been in place since the fall that are doing inspections of our worksites.
MR. PETTEN:
This would be one and two,
wouldn't it?
MS. COMPANION:
They were previously funded under another subhead.
MR. PETTEN:
Right.
MS. COMPANION:
So we appropriately moved them under the Corporate Services. So you'll see, when
we get down through, there'll be a $300,000 reduction somewhere because we put
it there.
MR. PETTEN:
Employee Benefits; I think I
may know the answer to this one being there. Employee Benefits seem fairly high.
MR. HAWKINS:
Which one is that?
MR. PETTEN:
It's under your –
MR. HAWKINS:
Employee Benefits?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, 1.2.02. There's no
difference, it's right across the board. But that seems to be –
MR. HAWKINS:
That's pretty standard
across because of workers' compensation payments that are year to year to year.
So that's going to be consistent across the board on that.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Not cheap, is it?
Purchased Services, in the same subhead; why did that grow? Why was the revised
– why was there an increase in that and now it's gone back to the –
MR. HAWKINS:
Of course last year it was
revised. The actual spending came in at $185,000. The $136,300 under the
Purchased Services, these are pretty much standard services that we have. It's
part of the averaging piece again, so we've kept it at the $136,300. So we
basically restored it to what the usual average is on that one.
MR. PETTEN:
I guess why it was such a
jump in –
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, last year, $136,000 to
$185,000; it was higher-than-historical expenditure levels, implementation of
the government's new printer strategy. All printer toners were purchased from
Supplies. And these costs are now included in the contract costs for printing,
so they were included in there.
MR. PETTEN:
And Revenue; where does this
come from, the Revenue line there?
MR. HAWKINS:
Revenue there is
miscellaneous revenue received from the department each year and based on
average revenue amounts from prior years. That's an amount that we consistently
have in there. It's from the forfeited security bids. If my note serves me right
here, it's also ferry claims, insurance related to prior years, workers'
compensation related to prior years and late salt delivery penalties. That would
be some of the revenue stream.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, under 1.2.03, the next
one down.
MR. HAWKINS:
1.2.03. Okay.
MR. PETTEN:
Not a lot, but it seems like
Salaries are growing. I'm looking at the numbers and I'll ask the question now –
and probably that's my own answer. I guess that's another one of those –
MR. HAWKINS:
JES.
MR. PETTEN:
JES, yeah.
MR. HAWKINS:
Higher step levels.
MR. PETTEN:
We've seen a lot of that.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
The Professional Services
seems to be – what's that, the revised amount of $22,000. Is that just one time
–?
MR. HAWKINS:
That was a one time.
Apparently on that Professional Services, TW entered into a professional service
contract to develop options to accelerate the delivery of the health care
infrastructure through the Partnership BC on that P3.
MR. PETTEN:
Oh, okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
That would have been there.
Of course, that's not going to be included in the budget this year.
MR. PETTEN:
No, okay.
Grants
and Subsidies in this, where do they go?
MR. HAWKINS:
It's the Transportation
Association of Canada annual fee.
MR. PETTEN:
Oh, okay.
On this
section, too, I'll just ask you a general question I guess. Has there been any
work done on a fixed link study, feasibility study for the fixed link to
Labrador?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, not in this section
there's not.
MR. PETTEN:
In the department in
general?
MR. HAWKINS:
Not before this year.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
It will be in the budget for
a fixed link.
MR. PETTEN:
Next year. There's no money
this year.
MR. HAWKINS:
No money in last year's
budget. There will be money in 2016-2017.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, but that's later on in
the – under 1.2.04, Mail Services, is there one less position or something
there?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah, there's a vacant
position we're not filling.
MR. PETTEN:
But it was vacant, was it?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah. We've taken it out.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Minister, under 1.2.05, I'll just ask a general question because it pretty well
takes the full – it seems like there was, it was $150,000 budgeted, and then
we're down the line of $10,000 now this year. I guess it is appropriations. It
says, “Appropriations provide for the purchase of tangible capital assets.”
That's realty is it?
MR. HAWKINS:
That particular, if I
remember correctly, budget allocation was covered unanticipated capital
expenditures piece and, during the fiscal year, capital expenditures associated
with the bridge management system in the department. So what we have done now is
realigned where – as part of the budgeting division, there was a dropped balance
review in these and we weren't using it. So we decided we would take that out as
a dropped balance and we'd remove it.
MR. PETTEN:
It just wasn't being spent.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Call
for subheads.
CLERK:
1.1.01 through 1.2.05
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 through 1.2.05
inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.05 carried.
CLERK:
2.1.01.
CHAIR:
2.1.01.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have
a question again. Why are the revised salaries higher in 2015? They are $500,000
less this year – $504,000, I guess – than what they were in the revised figure
for last year.
MR. HAWKINS:
The deficit relates
primarily to unfunded severance and retirement costs. The severance that was
paid out is reflected into that revised budget.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
We've basically gone back
now to more historical levels that we had for that particular salary piece.
MR. PETTEN:
That's the reason the
salaries are less in general this year, you've budgeted down?
MR. HAWKINS:
Correct.
MR. PETTEN:
Is there a vacant position
causing that to be down like that?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, it's not a position.
It's more overtime related.
OFFICIAL:
A reduction in overtime.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, Okay.
There
is a reduction in the overtime piece, so it's reflecting that. We're trying to
eliminate overtime.
MR. PETTEN:
Good luck with that.
MR. HAWKINS:
I know.
We got
to stick with it.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, that's right.
Transportation and Communications, what caused that to go over budget?
MR. HAWKINS:
Transportation and
Communications; again, last year there was a purchase of safety equipment for
the workers – no, that's the wrong one. You're on the Transportation and
Communications piece?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. HAWKINS:
Okay.
That
one is projected transportation costs are in line with historical expenditures.
The department has a structural deficit in this area and the funding is used to
cover essential staff travel, vehicles and equipment. Last year, under the
revised budget, it was up by $300,000 and now we've restored it back to
historical levels of $1.3 million.
MR. PETTEN:
Was there anything cut to
get it back to –
MR. HAWKINS:
Was there any reason why it
would have gone that extra $300,000, or did we know?
MS. COMPANION:
It was just travel and expenditures for running this program. The budget for
2016-17 is at $1.3 million, and we hope to reduce travel.
MR. PETTEN:
That's how you're hoping to
save $300,000?
MS. COMPANION:
Well, we will save some, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
So what kind of travel would
that be?
MS. COMPANION:
It's travel for staff going back and forth to job sites; going to Placentia from
here doing the lift bridge. This is for road maintenance. So it's all the travel
they do within their region to projects.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
It adds
up, doesn't it?
MS. COMPANION:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Under Purchased Services,
that's a fairly big number, I guess. What types of services are included in the
Purchased Services?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, thank you.
There
is an increase in that particular Purchased Services. It's a result of the
reallocation of some of the funds within the department's operational funding
envelope. We're just changing around some of that. Also, the increase includes,
we're reprofiling $50,000 from Supplies in this activity as recommended in the
line-by-line drop fund analysis. So we're just doing a bit of shifting on that.
There is also, the remote weather information system contract is charged to that
activity as well.
MR. PETTEN:
What's that, the remote –?
MS. COMPANION:
That's the road reports.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. So that comes out of
that line as well. Okay.
Grants
and Subsidies; again, what is that money?
MR. HAWKINS:
There's a Grants and
Subsidies piece there, local roads grants. It's determined it's more feasible to
provide a local grant for road maintenance to isolated communities. That's a bit
of money that we have in there. Dollar value of the grants paid out annually can
vary significantly, and I'll refer to staff if you want specific examples. It is
a small amount, but if you wanted specific examples I would not be able to tell
you exactly what communities would be impacted.
MS. COMPANION:
It's for small communities
where they don't have roads, and it's easier for us to provide some funding for
them to maintain their own infrastructure than for us to provide it. There are
five or six communities, and it's the same ones regularly.
MR. PETTEN:
We give them money? The
department gives them money to do their roads?
MS. COMPANION:
Yes, we do.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
I would assume it's under
extenuating circumstances that they find themselves in for those communities,
for sure.
MR. PETTEN:
While we're in this section,
in the Road Maintenance section I guess, there are a couple of questions I
wanted to ask about road construction. It's probably a good time to ask that in
this division.
The
Robert E. Howlett, that was deferred. Is that deferred indefinitely or –? It was
cancelled, right.
MS. COMPANION:
Robert E. Howlett at the
Goulds Bypass –
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MS. COMPANION:
– it was deferred indefinitely.
MR. PETTEN:
That's cancelled
indefinitely, right?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Or that's cancelled?
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, it's cancelled for
now. Right now, there are some issues there that we had to deal with when we
looked at the Goulds Bypass. Part of that, of course, was through an
environmental study.
The
City of St. John's had some concerns because, as you know, it's very close to
the watershed area. I think the former Minister of Environment looked at the
project and said the only way he would give the go ahead for that would be under
certain conditions, and I think the conditions he outlined in his letter would
certainly require a significant amount more planning.
At that
particular time, when we looked at this and the infrastructure piece, the
business case just was not there. I think in order to proceed on that particular
project you would obviously need to have to look at a new route or look at new
ways to make sure you're mitigating any risk that would be involved in the
watershed area.
I know
the City of St. John's certainly wanted a full environmental plan in place to
ensure that the integrity of the watershed area was protected. So when we looked
at it, in our infrastructure piece, we felt the project was nowhere near
including in our infrastructure in the foreseeable future.
Having
said that, there's no reason why in the out years later on we could not have
some further discussion and look at putting together, if, in fact, there's a
business case for that and if we can be assured there can be an environmental
impact plan put in place. So on that particular project there's a significant
amount of work that needs to be done.
So
while we're saying it's not in the cards right now, that doesn't say it never
will be, but I think there's a significant amount of work that needs to be done
before we're at that point.
MR. PETTEN:
How much money was spent on
that, up-to-date, before it was cancelled?
MS. COMPANION:
There wasn't any funding spent to date on that before it was cancelled.
MR. PETTEN:
There was no money spent on
that?
MS. COMPANION:
No.
MR. PETTEN:
No engineering? Was there
engineering design work done?
MS. COMPANION:
There might have been $100,000 or $200,000, nothing of any –
MR. PETTEN:
No clearing done?
MS. COMPANION:
There might have been some clearing. I don't know if the clearing was done or
not. I'd have to check.
MR. PETTEN:
I thought there was clearing
done, if my memory serves me right.
MR. HARVEY:
I don't think any of this – just surveys were primarily done. I know there were
a couple of options they looked at after. There was no fundamental construction
or clearing done that I'm aware of, but we'll check it out and we'll get back to
you.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, I'd appreciate that.
The
City of St. John's issue, if that road was redesigned and alleviated their
concerns, because that probably was the biggest issue, if my memory serves me
right, like you said, it's cancelled for now but it's something you would
revisit if certain things changed, is that –.
MR. HAWKINS:
I have no problems in having
further discussions. Right now, with the requirements we have and the amount of
work that was done, the potential risk that was involved, looking at all the
options that were there and the lack of the business case that was put on the
table at that time for this, we're not near that position to be able to make a
decision on that.
As a
matter of fact, I had a brief chat with MHA Hutchings this afternoon and he
asked the same question. I said right now it's not in the cards. However,
circumstances could change. I know there are a number of restrictions, criteria
within that letter from former Minister of Environment that there would have to
be a significant amount of work that would have to be done in order to make that
work.
It's
not a discussion I wouldn't be open to having going forward, but right now it's
not in the cards.
MR. PETTEN:
The amount of money being
spent, can you let me know, could you give me that figure another time, please?
MR. HAWKINS:
We can do that.
MR. PETTEN:
2.1.02 under Sign Shop.
There's a drop in Salaries. Is there a missing position here?
MR. HAWKINS:
The salary piece, that's a
term we're using, we're going from $132,000 revised to $152,000. It's a salary
recharge rate on some of the infrastructure projects we have. We do have a fair
amount of infrastructure this year. So that's just a recharge rate on that that
we're just changing. So it's not an extra position.
MR. PETTEN:
It was at $200,000, now it's
down to $152,000. So you're saying there was extra money in the budget?
MR. HAWKINS:
That was the recharging
rates on that. Of course, the adjustment for the salary allocations is going to
be due to changes in funding levels and departmental salary budget. Of course,
then there are, as well, the same things through that JES evaluation piece done
by the province. There are some increases in that and then it moves through
that.
The
deputy minister said there was a vacant position through the attrition that we
didn't filled there.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
Or I should say you didn't
fill.
MR. PETTEN:
I'm just looking there now
under Supplies. I assume the Sign Shop, most of the supplies they would carry
would be for making signs, right?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
One third of the budget is
less.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
What
we've done in this particular case is there was a drop balance review in that
particular line item. So what we've done is decided to sort of bring it in line,
so we did a – I think it was a $90,000 cut that was in the drop line piece. We
put it to what we fell would be realistic in that piece there.
MR. PETTEN:
Would there be less signs
though as a result of that? I know the signs –
MR. HAWKINS:
Signs, traffic counters and
there are a few others things. My understanding is, historically, we have not
spent the money in that particular area and every year it seemed to be a dropped
line. So in order to bring it in line we decided we would cut $90,000 from that
and sort of bring it to more of what would be realistic in spending in that
area.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
The
Revenue line here, would that be followed under TODS or are people paying for
signage? Is that where you get revenue at a sign shop? Do you do signs for –
MR. HAWKINS:
That $150,000, that's the
TODS, revenue tourism oriented signs, advertising, whatever those beautiful
signs on the highway tell us.
MR. PETTEN:
The fingerboards.
MR. HAWKINS:
Fingerboard.
MR. PETTEN:
Speaking of TODS, what's the
update on that? Where are we with that now? Has there been anything changed and
anything new to report on that?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, nothing has changed.
MR. PETTEN:
That's not a good thing. I
knew where it was.
MR. HAWKINS:
At the moment.
MR. PETTEN:
At the moment, yes.
We had
deadlines, if I'm not mistaken, I'm trying to remember now, bringing everyone
into compliance, I guess. Are we still charging for – are people still coming in
and getting permits for those signs and paying a fee? Is that still what our
operation is permitting on the roads? We're still in the old, new system?
OFFICIAL:
Right.
MR. PETTEN:
We haven't really fully gone
into TODS, but we've removed where it used to be a Volkswagen on the side of the
– we haven't gotten very far.
MR. HAWKINS:
We got it replaced by the
bus.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah.
Maintenance of roads and buildings, 2.1.03, under Salaries there –
MR. HAWKINS:
Which one are we on?
MR. PETTEN:
We're on 2.1.03, Maintenance
and Repairs.
MR. HAWKINS:
All right, we're on the
right one. That salary piece again, that's the infamous JES adjustments on the
salary piece there.
MR. PETTEN:
Even though it dropped by
$320,000, but then went up by almost $500,000 this year – that's still the JES
costing that much? Why would it drop last year?
MR. HAWKINS:
Actually, I guess the
original budget was aimed at $9.6 million; it came it $9.3 million. Now whether
that was something they were expecting it to be higher than that, but obviously
there was a $300,000 difference in that. So I don't know if we do have an answer
for that.
MS. MCCARTHY:
It was a turnover of staff.
MR. HAWKINS:
So Charlene is telling me
there was a turnover in staff which would have accounted for that difference in
whatever it was – $323,500.
MR. PETTEN:
Under your Allowances and
Assistance, what is that?
MR. HAWKINS:
Allowances and Assistance?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. HAWKINS:
We are looking at in this
one here, funding is annually for the settlement of outstanding damage claims.
MR. PETTEN:
Pardon me?
MR. HAWKINS:
Outstanding damage claims.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
We have damage claims in.
I'm not too sure if we keep up with that, but anyway, that's the amount that's
there. Last year it looks like there was $59,400 spent. So we've levelled it off
at $60,000 for this year.
MR. PETTEN:
So under 2.1.04, that salary
savings, is that reflected in the removal of 24-hour snow clearing?
MR. HAWKINS:
You're right on. You're a
smart man, I tell you. That is it.
MR. PETTEN:
That is it.
Supplies and Purchased Services, Supplies are all over the place, and I realize
under Snow and Ice Control that's mostly salt –
MR. HAWKINS:
Salt and sand.
MR. PETTEN:
I'm might be going to answer
my own question now – see, you shouldn't ask questions (inaudible) know the
answer.
But
sometimes that's tenders that are included for batched tenders, correct? Is that
still done? You tender for municipalities sometimes? That's why that figure is
not –
MR. HAWKINS:
Maybe I should say correct,
instead of shaking my head. They can't pick up sign language down there. They
can't see me shaking my head.
MR. PETTEN:
Seeing we're into Snow and
Ice Control, a couple of other questions on the 24-hour snow clearing I'll ask
you now I guess. I know that we always went before by the old method of 4:30 in
the morning to go out or 5:30.
MR. HAWKINS:
It is 4:30 a.m.
MR. PETTEN:
In the event of emergencies,
what would be the protocol for that? I mean we have our depots and that. What
would happen 2 o'clock in the morning when they're all off shift? Are there
people on standby? Are staff going to be on standby, paid for that (inaudible) –
MR. HAWKINS:
We will have supervisors
that will be monitoring. As well of course, you know that I'm using this term
loosely in the fact that I think in the latter number of years, for the most
part, a lot of our forecasting is getting a lot better with regard to prediction
when snow is coming and that sort of thing. I think that we will be a little bit
more conscious of what's going to be happening if there's expected snow to be
falling and the amounts and levels.
We have
to realize that between 10 o'clock at night and 4:30 in the morning, although
there are really three pressure points in the province when it comes to travel
and that's around the major airports – that would be certainly in the St. John's
area, the Gander Airport area and the Deer Lake-Stephenville Airport area
because the flights come in late at night. I think we need to be aware of that
and we will be certainly monitoring the situation.
We're
not anticipating too much disruption. As I said earlier when I started, safety
is still number one for us. I think it's a priority for us and I think we need
to understand that we're going to be pretty cognizant of the fact that if we
remove the 24-hour snow clearing that measures will be place so that if there is
a continued storm or if there's a pending storm and we know it's coming, then we
will have the adequate staff and crew in place to make sure that we do have
those areas covered and that those times will be covered.
MR. PETTEN:
So your staff, your
supervisors, there'll be someone on at all times during the winter?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, they won't be the 24
hours.
MR. PETTEN:
My question is simple: 2
o'clock in the morning when everyone is home in bed and we get snow unexpected,
black ice and snow and people are leaving to come home, leaving any hour to go
out over the road to wherever – what's in place for that?
MR. HAWKINS:
I guess these sorts of
questions become, at this point in time, hypothetical but when it actually
happens, it won't be hypothetically. There's nothing that we have, even during
the day, that we can totally mitigate all aspects of ice or whatever the case
may be. So what we are do, there are policies in place that we have, certain
amounts of centimetres of snow and all that sort of thing.
What
we'll do is monitor that. I think I mentioned that there are really only three
areas of the province that we do have snow clearing for 24 hours. So the
majority of the province never, ever had 24-hour snow clearing. I guess what
we'll do is implement the same sort of measures that we have in areas that are
presently not covered under the 24 hours and we will run the program that way.
I think
it was done in a pilot project, and I think in probably 2011 it went from a
pilot into a full 24 hours in those areas. So it's something that's been in
place for four or five years. When you're looking at where do you make your cuts
and what do you look at, I guess it would have been easier for us to not make
any cuts; but when you are looking at what services you cut or how do you cut
these, when we looked at some of the areas in the province that are not covered
with 24 hours, we said this is possibly one.
And
what we've had in the last two or three years – and maybe next year, who knows,
we might have snow starting in November and have a snow storm every day from
November on; but I think the last two or three years we've noticed that there's
been less and less snow in November, December and January. So in a lot of these
cases, we've had dedicated crews that no matter if there are any weather
conditions or not, the dedicated crews are in the depots and are being paid. I
know that's an area that we looked at.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I come
over to 2.2.01, Building Maintenance, Operations and Accommodations.
Transportation and Communications, why –?
MR. HAWKINS:
In that particular one
there, we went through a number of years –we never, ever seemed to have enough
in that Transportation and Communications. It was always under budget every
year. So historically we looked at it and said, okay, let's do some averaging on
that. We did the five-year averaging and put in $572,000 because it used to come
in more on those levels versus what they always budgeted. So that's basically
what we're doing there, averaging it out. It was always under budget every year.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Maybe
I'll do 2.2.02, and I got a couple of –
MR. HAWKINS:
2.2.02.
MR. PETTEN:
I got a couple of general
questions. It may follow either or both of them.
Under
Salaries, why such a drop in the estimated, and now it's gone back up by
$800,000?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes. The jump from the
original budget to the revised budget was vacancies, and there were some delays
in recruiting on some of the essential positions we had. So they weren't filled.
The
adjustment in salary allocation from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017 is changed to some
of the departmental salary budget allocations. They're now properly reflecting
some of the anticipated expenditure levels. Again, part of that comes back to
some of the JES readjustments in salary as well. So we're not replacing any of
those vacant positions. It's a matter of some readjustments in that.
Let's
see, I think we might have – and I'm just reading my note here. Funding was
previously allocated for the following vacant positions: two labourers, one
maintenance repairer, one tradesperson and one security guard. It was
reallocated to other higher-priority salary requirements in the department. So
they were readjusted in that.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Another
question, I noticed you have no Employee Benefits budgeted. I know it was only
$3,300 used. It wasn't a huge amount anyway, was it?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes. That, I think, had to
do with some training for our security staff in 2015-2016.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Purchased Services, that's a pretty big figure, $33 million. What's included in
that?
MR. HAWKINS:
That Purchased Services,
we're looking at HVAC controls, fire protection, overhead doors, pest control.
General program maintenance all fall into these purchased services provided to
government owned and some leased premises. That would fall under there and we do
have – I think that would probably go into a funding envelope put into that
purchased.
We're
good with that?
OFFICIAL:
Yes (inaudible).
MR. HAWKINS:
And snow removal,
electricity, cleaning services, water rates, garbage removal. She knows all the
answers.
MR. PETTEN:
I was just going to say, you
got a good deputy. You know that, do you?
MR. HAWKINS:
I should have gotten her to
answer all the questions.
MR. PETTEN:
I know all about her, yes. I
just said to, Megan, she got him prepared.
MR. HAWKINS:
Don't tell anybody else. I
know this is recording, but I have the best.
MR. PETTEN:
We know that; me and David
Brazil know.
Revenue, what is this revenue line? Is that rent or –?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
It's rent?
MR. HAWKINS:
This would be St. John's
Airport, we have some rental there. Public buildings –
MR. PETTEN:
It's income from rent.
MR. HAWKINS:
It's a rental fee. We
(inaudible) for Central Laundry and –
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
And I think there's just a
little small bit, there might be some meter parking, meters that we use. That
would be some of it too.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I have
a few questions based on this section here, separate ones if you don't mind.
Hoyles-Escasoni Complex, what's the status of that? Is it on the market?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes. Part of my answer to
that question is once I'm through this budget process we're going to be engaging
in a real estate optimization plan. Part of that optimization plan is
identifying properties we have. We're going to look at proper disposal, how to
get the best dollar for what we have. We know that some of the properties, the
longer they stay vacant the less attractive they become.
So that
will be something that I'll be putting together very shortly, and the
Hoyles-Escasoni house will certainly be part of that discussion and part of that
plan. We do have other properties throughout the province that we will be
looking at and certainly trying to optimize the best return.
Also,
of course, what we will be doing as well, as an exercise we have, is an
inventory of all the leased properties we have. Part of my responsibility in
looking at that as well is looking for areas where we can save money. Any vacant
spaces that we have we will certainly be addressing all those.
That's
a larger piece of work, and that will be starting very, very soon. As a matter
of fact, I was supposed to have my first meeting today at lunchtime, which got
pushed out. I didn't get it, but that's something that's going to be moving
fairly quickly.
MR. PETTEN:
Are you planning on doing
any of these sales this year? Is that a plan or –?
MR. HAWKINS:
My plan is to move them as
quickly as possible.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
Is
there any for sale right now, or is everything just kind of held until you do
your –
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, as you know, there was
a tender out on Escasoni, and we did receive an offer on that. I'm looking at
that offer, and we'll make a decision within the next month or so on how I want
to move forward on that. I guess I will make that available fairly quickly.
MR. PETTEN:
Are there any ongoing talks
to bring more government offices into government buildings?
MR. HAWKINS:
Absolutely.
MR. PETTEN:
There is?
MR. HAWKINS:
Absolutely. I'm looking for
every way that I can save a dollar.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I have
an example. We have the Labour Relations Agency for instance –
MR. HAWKINS:
I'm looking for every way
that I can save a dollar.
MR. PETTEN:
We'll be all out in the
parking lot after this, Megan.
MR. HAWKINS:
I'm beginning to sound like
the Finance Minister now, pardon me –
MR. PETTEN:
I won't comment.
MR. HAWKINS:
– but we really do have to
do – and I think it's important – an inventory of what we have, and that's
certainly an exercise for me to really look at what we have and address what our
requirements are. If, in fact, we do have areas that we can consolidate, then
that makes sense.
MR. PETTEN:
Are there any anticipated
revenues this year from any of these sales? Are they incorporated into the
budget or will this be it?
MR. HAWKINS:
I think I know where you're
going.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah.
MR. HAWKINS:
I understand fully where
you're going, but I think for me, as minister, it's important for me not to make
any knee-jerk reactions for the sake of saying we need to get this pocket of
money into the budget and this pocket of money into the budget.
I think
for me it's important to analyze, to look at opportunities, to maximize our
opportunities and that's an exercise for me. Right now, the most important thing
for me is not necessarily to divest of that property for the sake of divesting
so that I can come up with a certain figure. For me, it's looking at how I want
to divest that property to gain the best value for the budget.
In a
roundabout way I may not have answered your question, but I know where you're
going on this. I just want you to be clear that for me, as minister, it's not
necessarily a fixed amount that I want to put in that budget, but I want to find
and maximize my potential in getting the best value.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. That's fair enough.
I have
some generic questions and I'll try to get through a lot of this fast. I know a
lot of the fluctuations seem to have paralleled through all the sections you
know, you have JES, you have –
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah, a lot of it is through
JES or the averaging piece.
MR. PETTEN:
A lot of it is repetitive.
MR. HAWKINS:
We've gone through this line
by line and like I said, I don't want to be repetitive in my answers, but,
again, in a lot of cases it is the JES and the five-year averaging that we
applied to the budget line.
MR. PETTEN:
2.2.03.
MR. HAWKINS:
2.2.03.
MR. PETTEN:
It might be a generic
question but under that does the department have rental contracts? I know it
just has it there as rental income.
MR. HAWKINS:
So where are we looking at?
Which one, the Rentals there?
MR. PETTEN:
There's nothing really says
here of any – you know.
MR. HAWKINS:
That's leasing costs
incurred by the department. That would be moving expenses, minor maintenance
related to government leases and that sort of thing. That would fall under the
Rentals.
MR. PETTEN:
There is no revenue
generated from this section at all, right?
MR. HAWKINS:
No.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Maintenance of Roads is a big section.
MR. HAWKINS:
Uh-huh. Well, there's almost
10,000 kilometres of them.
MR. PETTEN:
I've got all the roads and
the water.
MR. HAWKINS:
And I told you in the House
the other day I got 1,500 requests valued at $1 billion.
MR. PETTEN:
I know. I've got to try to
be nicer.
2.3.01.
MR. HAWKINS:
2.3.01, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Purchased Services.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah, salt sheds.
MR. PETTEN:
Under Administration?
MR. HAWKINS:
Is that the one?
MR. PETTEN:
2.3.01, Administration.
MR. HAWKINS:
Where am I to?
MR. PETTEN:
Purchased Services is down.
I know it's closer to the revised amount. Is this another one of rightsizing
your budget?
MR. HAWKINS:
That's only equipment –
MR. PETTEN:
It's at $681,000 now. It was
at $821,000, but then the revised last year was $670,000. Is that a rightsizing
exercise as well?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, the surplus in that one
is due to savings on the vehicle fleet insurance policy. So there's a change on
that.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. A better deal.
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, a better deal or
better performance, one or the other. Let's hope it's better performance to give
us a better deal.
MR. PETTEN:
With any luck.
Under
2.3.02, your Salaries decreased in the revised, but then they went back up. Is
that new positions?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, that one is unfunded
severance costs and unfunded reclassifications.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I guess
Purchased Services there again seems to be pretty well all over the place, I
guess.
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, that one there, the
Purchased Services – are we still on the same one?
MR. PETTEN:
2.3.02, yes.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, that's the one with the
fleet, the vehicle insurance policy thing.
MR. PETTEN:
No.
MR. HAWKINS:
No.
What are we on now?
I can't
keep up with you. You're going too fast.
MR. PETTEN:
You have better notes than I
have.
MR. HAWKINS:
Holy ‘mackerola.'
All
right, so now we're on to – I've got to get these numbers or new glasses or
something. What was the question? Sorry.
MR. PETTEN:
I was saying Purchased
Services seems to have a lot of fluctuation there; $1.1 million budgeted, $2.5
million spent.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah. I'll tell you what's
happening in that particular situation. We're really not keeping up with vehicle
replacement policy because we never seem to have enough money in there to
replace vehicles. So, as a result of that, a lot of our fleet is getting older,
and with the wear and tear on them we're finding that we're always repairing
older vehicles.
Rather
than being proactive and trying to get new funding for that, we're running into
some issues of having to repair some of the older vehicles. That cost seems to
be escalating as our vehicles seem to be aging more and more.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Revenue; where would revenue come from under Maintenance of Equipment? Where
would you get revenue there? Towns, I guess, is it?
MR. HAWKINS:
We do work for other
departments. They would replace small amounts for fuel and vehicle maintenance
from other departments, if we're doing the work for them. It's only a small
amount.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, I got ya.
2.3.03.
MR. HAWKINS:
2.3.03.
MR. PETTEN:
What happened to that
$125,000? We're only seeing $13,000 – was Revenue?
MR. HAWKINS:
Periodically, we do some of
the old and obsolete equipment and we get rid of that. So that would show up on
this as a revenue.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. That's makes sense.
I'm
done there now – wait now.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. PETTEN:
Just a second there now.
MR. HAWKINS:
Do we ever take a recess or
is that –?
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, I'm good on that
section.
CHAIR:
Call for the subheads.
CLERK:
Subheads 2.1.01 through
2.3.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.03
inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, we're going to take a
short break to give the Broadcast booth some time to catch their breath.
MR. HAWKINS:
What do you mean Broadcast
booth? What about up here?
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, what about us?
CHAIR:
We will come back and we
will resume until we finish or until 8:30 p.m. comes around, whichever comes
first.
Recess
CHAIR:
We're going to get started
again.
Construction of Roads and Buildings.
I call
for the subheads.
CLERK:
3.1.01.
CHAIR:
3.1.01.
MR. PETTEN:
Are we just doing that one
subhead that we called?
CHAIR:
We'll do 3.1.01 to 3.2.02
and then we'll call the subheads.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Administrative Support, there's not much in the line, but Grants and Subsidies,
there's nothing there really now. What's the –
MR. HAWKINS:
It's zipped out.
MR. PETTEN:
That's gone, is it?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, that was the Canadian
Standards Association, I think. Am I correct on that? We're not doing that?
OFFICIAL:
It's moved up into Purchased Services.
MR. HAWKINS:
Okay.
See,
she has all the answers. It's moved up into the Purchased Services, the $3,500
for that.
MR. PETTEN:
You're much better off than
a lot of the other ministers, I tell you.
MR. HAWKINS:
What's that?
MR. PETTEN:
You're way better off than a
lot of the other ministers.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you for that.
MR. PETTEN:
Don't tell them.
MR. HAWKINS:
I won't tell them that.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
3.1.02, Project Management
and Design, I note there's a big drop in Salaries.
MR. HAWKINS:
Reorganization of the
Occupational Health and Safety staff that occurred during 2015-2016.
MR. PETTEN:
I found it, didn't I? You're
almost going to be done now.
MR. HAWKINS:
That's it.
MR. PETTEN:
I had to keep going to find
that.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah, right, got to look for
it.
MR. PETTEN:
I have some generic
questions on this one. So I'm just going to ask some other line, Revenue. Where
is that coming from?
MR. HAWKINS:
Obsolete equipment, sale of
equipment.
MR. PETTEN:
Last year we never sold much
equipment?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, $12,000 worth.
MR. PETTEN:
You anticipate that much but
you don't know what you're going to get.
MR. HAWKINS:
We're going to look for the
other $38,000 this year, a few pencils and pens.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, I'll help you with
that one. Do up a list.
I guess
under Purchased Services, just a generic question again. What's included in
that?
MR. HAWKINS:
Let me just see, we're going
from original down to – we cut $1 million off. That was training courses,
seminars. The projected revised figure under the Tendering and Contracts
Division, there was insurance premiums of $1.4 million, estimated deductible
expenditures, $650,000. So there are some readjustments in that piece for
Purchased Services.
MR. PETTEN:
I have some questions now on
new builds, I guess Project Management and Design.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Mobile middle school– it's
better if I ask you a general overall question. Where is that in the scheme of
things?
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, in the scheme of
things, my understanding is there is going to be a redesign and we're not going
to be constructing it as originally anticipated. I think up to this particular
point in time, if I'm remember correctly, we spent $24,000 on the site selection
piece. That's all the money we spent on that. I think now there's just a
rescoping of that and some redesign changes.
MR. PETTEN:
So the site selection is
done?
MR. HAWKINS:
The site selection was done.
That was the only thing that was done.
I have
to refer to Cory on that one for exactly where we are on that.
MR. GRANDY:
On the design contract, the only work that was completed was some site selection
activities, but as the minister said, the project is being rescoped, as not a
new build, not a new school, but an extension to one of the existing schools in
the area.
MR. PETTEN:
So that's the change of
plans. It's going to be an extension, as opposed to a new build, correct?
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Is there any timeline for
that?
MR. HAWKINS:
We're just pulling out that
infrastructure piece that we had planned on that.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Well, I can ask
another (inaudible).
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, we'll give you the year
on that.
MR. PETTEN:
The tender for planning and
design was awarded in October. How much is remaining? Was there anything done in
that tender?
MR. HAWKINS:
Just for the site, $24,000
was the –
MR. PETTEN:
How much?
MR. HAWKINS:
Twenty-four thousand dollars
was the amount that's been spent.
MR. PETTEN:
That was part of the tender?
That's all that was done out of the tender?
MR. HAWKINS:
That's all that's been done
for the site selection.
Cory,
correct?
MR. GRANDY:
Yes.
MR. HAWKINS:
That's it. That's all that's
been done.
MR. PETTEN:
But there was design work
included in that but that was not – was it? I guess my broader question is what
was included in the tender that was awarded in October and what was done? What
was in the tender and what's been –
MR. GRANDY:
The contract that was awarded that you're referring to in October was for the
design of that school. The only work that was completed, to date, was
approximately $24,000. That related to site selection work. Work on that
contract now has been suspended because the scope of the project has changed.
MR. PETTEN:
Is there any cost to the
department if you suspend it after the tender being awarded?
MR. GRANDY:
No, the way the contract was
structured, following the four-stage infrastructure process, it gives government
the ability to terminate the contract, stop the work on the contract, at various
decision gates.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. GRANDY:
So we stopped it at one of those early decision gates. The only expenditure
would have been the $24,000.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Where
are we now? The extension piece, is there any schedule for that? Timelines for
that?
MS. COMPANION:
Yes, there is some work that's supposed to happen on that this year. You
wouldn't see it in here though because that's in Education's budget, the
Department of Education's Estimates.
MR. PETTEN:
But there's no actual
timeline on when that extension will be done, though, is it?
MS. COMPANION:
I'm going to have to defer
to Cory.
MR. GRANDY:
There's nothing carved in
stone at this point in time. The first step will be re-scoping that extension.
MR. PETTEN:
Paradise middle school; that
one was also deferred, but that was deferred – I have that much on my list. It's
deferred two years. What is the status of that?
I have
some recollection from my time there, but what work has been done on the tender?
Has the design work been done on that school? I know there is an actual site for
the proposed school, correct?
MS. COMPANION:
I'm going to defer to Cory.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. GRANDY:
I don't have the figures on
that particular one in terms of how much work has been done to date, but it's
similar in terms of the status, the place that we were at in that work.
We were
doing some site selection work. There was not a final decision made yet in terms
of what the preferred site would be, but some of the early work has been done.
But, as you said, there's a deferral in that project.
MR. PETTEN:
I mean when these are
deferred, Education obviously deferred them, correct?
MR. HAWKINS:
They recommend and we build.
MR. PETTEN:
The next one on the school
in Gander, is this going to be ready for September 2017?
MR. GRANDY:
Yes, to have occupancy in
September 2017.
MR. PETTEN:
September 2017.
St.
Peter's Junior High; what's the current status of the extension and the
renovations?
MR. GRANDY:
I'm going to have to
apologize because I get mixed up in the St. Peter's Primary and the St. Peter's
Junior High. Barry, you're asking about the junior high.
MR. PETTEN:
Junior high, yeah.
MR. GRANDY:
That's the one that's under
construction now. What's your question exactly?
MR. PETTEN:
What's the current status of
the extension? Is it going to be completed by 2017 or sooner?
MR. GRANDY:
I don't have the detailed
schedule with me tonight. That is something we can follow up on, if you would
like us to. I don't have that information here right now.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, thank you.
Megan
just reminded me about the elementary. We're doing an extension on that too for
all-day kindergarten, correct?
MR. GRANDY:
St. Peter's? Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Elementary. Is that going to
be ready?
MR. GRANDY:
We're into the design stage of that extension right now. The Department of
Education would have other contingency plans in place for full-day kindergarten.
So if you have questions on that specifically for this September 2016, they will
be better prepared to speak to that. TW is not managing those preparations.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, but it won't be ready
for this September, obviously.
MR. GRANDY:
The extension for St. Peter's Primary is not for this September, correct.
MR. PETTEN:
No, and you're not sure
about next year.
MR. GRANDY:
No, not –
MR. PETTEN:
Well, hopefully.
I'm
gone down to 3.2.02 now so I'm going to call them.
MR. HAWKINS:
3.2.01.
MR. PETTEN:
3.2.01.
MR. HAWKINS:
Do you want the 3.2.01 there
now, Road Construction piece?
MR. PETTEN:
Actually, I'm going to go
down and skip down to – in under Road Construction, 3.2.03, Improvements –
Provincial Roads.
MR. HAWKINS:
3.2.03.
Moving
right along. Okay.
MR. PETTEN:
The Salaries.
Again,
that figure is up and down; $6.3 million to $4.4 million to $5.2 million.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, we've put $5.2 million
in. Basically, that's block funding to do our summer work program. We are doing
a fair amount of work this year. And of course, as you know, the $62 million
worth of tenders for the roadwork is what we're allocating for the province. The
tenders have been out; the first block of tenders for the first $18 million from
last year carry-over and the $10 million from this year mostly.
Some of
the tenders are coming back and we've already been able to award some of these
tenders. And the other block, they all have been out. The tenders are out and
we're anxiously waiting for the awarding of these tenders.
So
there is going to be a fair amount of work done. Obviously, not as much as we
would like to have done with all the requests that we have, but we do have $62
million in the budget for that. And basically, as I mentioned, I think there's
about $18.2 million that we carried over from last year, some of the projects
that didn't get completed before the end of the year. So what we've done is
we've taken part of the funding – $18 million out of our funding for this year –
to finish up these projects.
Anything else to add to that?
MR. PETTEN:
One other question on
3.2.03. Transportation and Communications; why is that only half of what it was
last year? Is that less travel again or is that the plan or the hope?
MR. HAWKINS:
Let's see.
MR. PETTEN:
Down to $500,000, revised
was a million dollars. It's still $358,000 below what was –
MR. HAWKINS:
I guess in that area we're
just budgeting for that. It's the scope of the program that we have there. We've
tried to align the scope of the work to the travel requirements that we feel we
have. We think we can do it in the $500,000 range that we have there, I think
it's $501,400.
MR. PETTEN:
I'll flip over to 3.2.04
there now.
I guess
more of a general question. I know this is the Canada Strategic Infrastructure
Fund. Is that what we always refer to as build Canada? Why is there no money in
this year's amount? Was that just something that's expired or –
MR. HAWKINS:
Correct me if I'm wrong, is
that wrapping up the old Building Canada Fund, the legacy fund that we had
there?
OFFICIAL:
It is.
MR. HAWKINS:
So we're just finishing that
out. That will take care of that piece there.
MR. PETTEN:
Now, 3.2.05, is that the new
build Canada?
MR. HAWKINS:
The New Building Canada
projects will be in that. What we've done is we've allocated, I think, part of
that $6 million – of the $6 million revenue coming in, we're hoping to get $5
million under the New Building Canada Fund. What we've done in our
infrastructure piece is we've put in, I think it's $5 million for the next five
years – I think it's over the next five years – per year.
So we
will monitor that one closely. As you know, of course, in discussions with the
federal minister over the previous years there were some restrictions with the
Building Canada Fund that really impacted rural Newfoundland. We were only able
to access funding for a lot of the larger centres that had 10,000 vehicles.
So I
think probably on four different occasions I really pleaded with the minister to
remove that restriction. I guess it's probably about two weeks ago now we've
been notified that they removed that restriction. I think we're down to like
1,000 vehicles. So that's significantly changed some of the areas we can look at
under the Building Canada Fund.
The
other positive thing that we're trying to work through – and of course, you get
to Municipal Affairs and they have their roadwork as well in the Building Canada
Fund with small communities and roadwork they do as well with Municipal Affairs.
One of the things that we're also able to work through was under the original
restrictions it prohibited Municipal Affairs from getting some of the funding
under roads.
What
has happened now, most of the projects that Municipal Affairs sent up would have
been in the waste water. The federal government now is looking at moving some of
that waste water infrastructure funding out of the Building Canada Fund and into
the Green Fund. If that happens, then it's going to free up some more money.
Even
though some of the budget is reflecting what we thought was going to happen,
there may be some more flexibility when we get into further discussions on what
we can access through the Building Canada Fund. So there may be some other
opportunities for us to access some more funding there.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
3.2.10,
Trans-Labrador Highway –
MR. HAWKINS:
3.2.10? Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
It is a lot of generic
stuff.
MR. HAWKINS:
Okay, the Trans-Labrador
Highway one.
CHAIR:
3.2.10?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
How many kilometres of roads
have been paved this year?
MR. HAWKINS:
How many kilometres will be
paved this year, and you talking about the Trans-Labrador Highway?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. HAWKINS:
Cory will probably be able
to answer that for you exactly because I don't know exactly the number of
kilometres. But I just wanted to let you know that again that's another area we
had a fair amount of success because previously, as you know, when we looked at
Labrador, the federal government had restrictions placed on roads of $45
million. And we asked for that to be removed because of the fact that we felt it
didn't adequately address some of the needs that we had in Labrador.
So they
removed that cap. And, as a result of that, we were able to put in $63.5 million
for the Trans-Labrador Highway to work on the two phases left. Of course, that
will leverage another $63 million, so there's going to be a fair amount of money
into that that we can do a lot of work.
Specifically the exact kilometres, I don't have the answer to that. I don't
know, Max, I might be putting you on the spot too on that one.
MR. HARVEY:
That project is not approved yet. It's still up for approval. There are a number
of phases there that include widening and asphalt surfacing phases, and I
believe two of 80 kilometres stretches are for asphalt and one for widening this
run.
MR. PETTEN:
Land Acquisition –
MR. HAWKINS:
Where are we?
MR. PETTEN:
Sorry, 3.2.11.
MR. HAWKINS:
3.2.11.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. HAWKINS:
Okay.
MR. PETTEN:
I will probably ask the
question, but answer them all – Land Acquisitions, is this for the purchase of
land, for road construction? Is that what this is, expropriations we will call
it?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, it's actually
expropriated property. When I took over as minister and started to review some
of the outstanding expropriations that we've done, we've never adequately been
able to keep up with even coming close to compensating. So this year I requested
that we put $2 million into that so we can try to at least make some ground on
catching up and trying to compensate for some of that. Some of them have been
there for years.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, I understand that.
I'm
down now to 3.3.01 now. Salaries, why are they over by $400,000 last year?
MR. HAWKINS:
I think that's more of an
accounting line. Charlene, did we move some on that?
MS. MCCARTHY:
Basically the way the
allocations are done under Alterations is it's a block of funding. Unfortunately
in '15-'16 there was too much taken out of the salary line and it has resulted
in this overage. What happens here is we have people throughout the department
that work on different projects and we recharge their salaries; it is part of
the accounting function that we have to properly cost the projects. So if
someone is legitimately working on a project, we have to recharge. So that's
where that overage came from.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I am
going to go up now to your Transportation Services, Air Support, 4.1.02 –
MR. HAWKINS:
So you want to do the threes
first?
CHAIR:
Okay, we will do the subhead
first.
MR. PETTEN:
Oh, sorry.
CLERK:
3.1.01 through 3.3.02
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 through 3.3.02
inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.3.02 carried.
CHAIR:
Transportation Services.
CLERK:
4.1.01.
CHAIR:
4.1.01.
MR. PETTEN:
I haven't got a lot of
questions on this one actually. The 4.1.02 section, Professional Services, I
guess it was something that wasn't obviously budgeted for –
MR. HAWKINS:
Where are we now?
MR. PETTEN:
On 4.1.02, Airstrip
Maintenance.
MR. HAWKINS:
4.1.02, Airstrip
Maintenance.
MR. PETTEN:
There's nothing budgeted
last year but there was $103,000 expenditure and now it's $25,000 this year.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah, that was under
Services – I think that was some consultant work that studied some of the
restricted instrument procedures at some of the airstrips in Labrador. That was
like a consulting fee that we had. What we've done is we won't be incurring that
cost this year, so we just put in $25,000. If we do have some consulting pieces
of work, then we just put that in there.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
This
Revenue it says federal, is that landing fees or is that –
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, that's towards the
federal funding for the airstrip in Natuashish. That will be a revenue stream
there. I don't know for sure if there is anything else.
MR. PETTEN:
4.1.05.
MR. HAWKINS:
4.1.05.
MR. PETTEN:
I guess just a generic
question on that full section. There $10 million – sorry, not $10 million. There
was $9 million in the revised – was it $9 million?
There
was nothing budgeted and nothing estimated for this year, yet there were
expenditures. What basically is it?
MR. HAWKINS:
If I remember correctly that
had to do with some – because we had some federal funding for the airstrips in
Labrador, I think they provide $1 million. I think that last year for some of
the smaller ones we bought some snow blowers and a few things like that. That
would be in the cost of $254,000.
MR. PETTEN:
Two hundred and fifty-four
thousand dollars.
MR. HAWKINS:
Two hundred and fifty-four
thousand dollars. And then we had offsetting revenue.
MR. PETTEN:
Right.
MR. HAWKINS:
So that is where you would
find that.
MR. PETTEN:
There's nothing budgeted
this year or is that spend as you need? There's no estimated expenditure this
year?
MR. SMITH:
The way that agreement works on the various airstrips in Labrador on the federal
agreement is that we provide, I guess, a business case each year to the federal
government pretty much setting out what we propose as repairs and maintenance
with respect – non-salary repairs to the airstrips.
Typically, they're current, so they're ongoing maintenance-type repairs. Last
year, we actually determined that the best value would be to purchase some of
those snow blowers. They're Capital so you would see those in another activity
there where there was no budget last year.
We
would expect capital would be the exception. So again, this year we'll carry on
budgeting on a current basis. Of course, if there's an identification of any
capital this year or subsequent years, we will then get a budget transfer and
account for it in the Capital field.
But if
you look at both activities together, you'll see it's basically a million
dollars Capital, Current for the same purpose.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Now
we'll go to Marine Operations, I guess, 4.2.01
MR. HAWKINS:
Can't wait for this one.
MR. PETTEN:
This should be good. We'll
need another couple of hours.
I'm
afraid to ask anything in the House on that. This is not (inaudible). I want to
ask and I'm afraid.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah, right. You know –
MR. PETTEN:
I could be going all day.
MR. HAWKINS:
You know better, right, on
that one.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, we'll be blamed,
that's the –
MR. HAWKINS:
I don't blame.
MR. PETTEN:
I know, but everyone else
does, so then I'll have to listen to it the rest of the day.
We have
a good laugh, me and the former minister. We have a good laugh, yes.
The
MV Veteran, just a generic; what is
the status of the Veteran? I wouldn't
ask that in the House though.
MR. HAWKINS:
I just want to know how much
the House is censored with regard to my comment on that.
MR. PETTEN:
Turn off the mics.
MR. HAWKINS:
Listen –
MR. PETTEN:
Saves the best for last.
MR. HAWKINS:
I still feel like we're
working through that. This is just an absolute total nightmare – it's been a
total nightmare. As you know, of course, it has been out of service 62 per cent
more than she's been in service.
Obviously, there are some systemic problems that have to be fixed. She's
currently in St. John's now. I keep shaking my head on this, because I mean
Rolls-Royce is supposed to be the best engine in the world.
MR. PETTEN:
Absolutely.
MR. HAWKINS:
Obviously, there are some
structural deficiencies somewhere that have to be addressed. I've engaged in
discussions with Damen. I don't know if I'm at liberty to say how aggressive I
have been.
I've
been extremely aggressive with Damen. We're working through, what I would
consider, some solutions that I think as a minister I need to be confident that
I have the assurance in place that when that vessel's released – I use the word
released – from captivity in St. John's, it will provide the service we paid for
and the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador paid for, and that we will have
uninterrupted service going forward. Until I'm confident that will happen, I'm
certainly not interested in having the vessel go back and only be back in
service for another couple of weeks and then off again and creating other
problems.
So we
do have a timeline in place that if all goes well we're expecting to the end of
May to have the work done. Our experts in the field will be engaging in
discussions with the experts from Damen and the experts from Rolls-Royce and
determining – and having to have some assurance that we have corrected this
problem once and for all. Certainly, we need the same assurance that the
Legionnaire will not incur the same problems that the
Veteran has been incurring.
It's certainly been a challenge. Of all the challenges that I've had as
minister, I think that's been probably the one that has created the most
heartburn for me.
MR. PETTEN:
Blame it on the former –
MR. HAWKINS:
What's that?
MR. PETTEN:
Blame it on the former
fellow.
MR. HAWKINS:
No, I don't blame it on
anybody.
MR. PETTEN:
It's unfortunate, yeah.
MR. HAWKINS:
Listen, we can do the blame
game forever, but the bottom line is we have what we have. And we've got to make
sure that we can be confident that the money we've invested is going to provide
a service for us. If not, then that's a discussion for another day.
MR. PETTEN:
Fair enough.
I'll
ask you another couple of generic questions and then I'll flick through some of
the line-by-line stuff. I think you're well versed in this stuff.
Wharf
upgrades on the expectation of the
Legionnaire, any timelines on that? There are two different contracts, Bell
Island and Portugal Cove.
MR. HAWKINS:
I was afraid you were going
to ask that question.
MR. PETTEN:
I think you knew I was going
to ask that question.
MR. HAWKINS:
One of the things I hate
doing is timelines because they never seem to materialize. All I can say is that
we did run into some problems last year with winter coming on. We're continuing
to get the work done as expeditiously as possible, without trying to set some
sort of a time frame for the completion of that.
I don't
like setting timelines on that, but I just want to let you know that throughout
the summer we will be continuing the work in that, to getting those wharfs up to
accommodate the Legionnaire.
MR. PETTEN:
So the summer, it won't be
done before.
MR. HAWKINS:
But I'm telling you it's not
going to happen. It will not happen this spring, I'll tell you that, as it was
indicated.
We'll
be working through the spring and we'll see how – always, when you do a
construction on something that's not new, there are always the unknown factors
that seem to always stick it's ugly head up sometimes. It's very difficult.
All I
can say is the commitment we have is that we're going to work as expeditiously
as possible to get that operational.
MR. PETTEN:
What about the
Legionnaire, is the warranty still
going to be – when will that take effect? When she's in service, even though
she's –?
MR. HAWKINS:
That is part of my
discussions I'm having with Damen.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, because she's over
here now somewhere –
MR. HAWKINS:
She's floating.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, that's good. She's not
down in the dockyard.
OFFICIAL:
Minister, I'm a marine engineer by trade, so you can utilize my services.
MR. HAWKINS:
Oh, really. Do you need to
be compensated?
OFFICIAL:
That would be (inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
One other, again on the
ferries. What is the status? Where are we with swing vessels?
MR. HAWKINS:
That's another good
question.
MR. PETTEN:
I do know marine, right.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, you do.
MR. PETTEN:
I'm not allowed to ask it.
MR. HAWKINS:
We have the
Sir Robert Bond that is pretty much
not available for any service and that will probably be part of our disposal.
We were
also looking at the same sort of scenario for the
Earl Winsor but with the difficulties
we've encountered with the Veteran,
we felt it would be prudent for us, at this time, to do the necessary work. The
Earl Winsor, now on dry dock, is
being tested.
As you
know, of course, Transport Canada, after a certain period of time they have very
stringent tests that need to be done. Of course, the
Earl Winsor is going through that.
Part of that is the steel structure and how solid the structure is and all that.
So they're going through all those tests.
What
we've basically done is we made a decision that until we have full confidence in
the Veteran, we felt it would be in
our best interest to bring the Winsor
back rather than put it up for disposal right now. What we're doing with that is
it's probably going to be running somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million to
do repairs on that. That's something that's ongoing.
The
Sound of Islay, we were looking at
the option of disposing of that vessel, even though the years – it's probably
surpassed its years.
One of
the other things with the federal government that I engaged in a fair amount of
discussion with is try to explain to them that we do have in Newfoundland and
Labrador, we do have limited when it comes to transit. Really, only St. John's
would have a transit system. So I tried to argue to include the ferries into
that. Of course, they didn't include it into that but they have included ferries
into the Building Canada Fund, which is some way possibly for us to access
funding.
Once we
looked at that, because we did do a costing on the
Sound of Islay and I think it came in
at probably somewhere – I think it was $5 million, Max?
MR. HARVEY:
That's for your total.
MR. HAWKINS:
It came in at $5 million,
and we looked at the longevity of the vessel, how many years were left. If we
had to incur a cost of $5 million, then it probably would not make sense for us
to do those repairs for the length of time it would be available.
Now
with the change in the criteria in the Building Canada Fund, we may be able to
access half of that money. So then that changes the dynamics a little bit. Right
now we are in discussions on how we want to move forward with the
Sound of Islay as well.
You
know, we are somewhat restricted with our swing vessel options now because of
the fact that we thought with the Veteran
and Legionnaire we would have a
reliable service in place and we would probably not have had the same need and
requirements for the swing vessels, but with lack of confidence right now in
that, it certainly changed the picture a little bit. We've changed focus on
that. We wanted to move forward on that. So that's part of a discussion we're
having.
MR. PETTEN:
It's challenging, though,
isn't it?
MR. HAWKINS:
What's that?
MR. PETTEN:
It's challenging.
MR. HAWKINS:
It is indeed.
Of
course, people who are living on an island expect to have the service. There's
nothing worse than a disruption in services. It's not acceptable. I can only
imagine the people that depend on the ferry service for work and commuting. It
has to be the most frustrating thing in the world. I know if we get a snow day
and can't get around how frustrating it is, but when you have to face these
challenges – I fully understand how frustrated people are.
MR. PETTEN:
Absolutely.
I'm
going to go to 4.2.02. I just got a couple of quick questions there.
Thanks
for those answers, by the way.
MR. HAWKINS:
No problem.
MR. PETTEN:
I noticed your Salaries went
up in revised by $1.3 million and then they dropped back by $1.3 million – $1.1
million and then they dropped by $1.3 million.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes. The drop back, again,
there were a couple of issues there with the increased piece, and that was
unfunded severance we put in there.
The
drop back from $18.6 million to the $17.3 million, and the drop back from the
revised $17.5 million, what we're doing is we're reducing any overtime that we
would have had there. We're trying to get a handle on some of the overtime
pieces there.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
So we're reducing that and –
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I
notice Supplies, there's a fairly big, significant drop in Supplies from –
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, you know, part of that
– and if any of you have any further questions on that. Our ferries, and that's
an exercise I'm going to have to engage in, in probably June or July, because,
as you know, our ferries are subsidized to a range of 95-96 per cent, 97 per
cent, and we're introducing some new rate changes. Even with the rate changes,
we're still going to be subsidizing our ferries to a rate of about 94 per cent.
Some of
the ferries, even though the scheduling piece we have in place, there are some
runs that are at capacity, there are other runs that are not even close to
capacity. So part of what I'm going to do, I'm going to try to engage some
discussion with the ferry committees and provide the statistics and the numbers
to them and tell them, look, these are the runs you have, boom, boom, boom,
boom. These are the numbers you have, and we'll look at ways to be more
efficient and be able to have a better schedule that can accommodate the
majority number of people in the times when they need it. So there's going to be
some rejigging on schedules.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I
noticed on the revenue part in the provincial ferries, this $2.9 million as
opposed to $2.2 million, is that the fee increase reflecting an extra $700,000?
MR. HAWKINS:
Correct.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
In
4.2.03, again, we see a drop in the Supplies section there of a million dollars.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
Again,
in those areas you'll see some of these reflect in the reductions. One of the
measures we have is in the freight service to Labrador, to the Northern Coast of
Labrador. We've reduced it to a set rate of 169 days. It varied between, I
think, 181 or 179 to – anyway, I think we've sort of cut about 10 days.
MR. PETTEN:
Less trips?
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, no, just 10 days. I guess that would reduce trips as well, right,
depending on how it's going. However, what we've done is we've put 169 days into
that. We will not tell them when to go and when to stop. They know they'll have
169 days and then they'll determine, based on ice conditions and when they want
to finish their schedule. So there's a little more clarity with the number of
days versus what was there before.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
4.2.05,
Purchased Services, $5.8 million this year, it was almost $13 million last year.
MR. HAWKINS:
Am I ahead one?
MR. PETTEN:
4.2.05.
MR. HAWKINS:
Sorry about that. What was
the question?
MR. PETTEN:
Under Purchased Services,
this year it's $5.84 million, last year it was budgeted $12.7 million and the
revised was $9.3 million.
MR. HAWKINS:
That's where you'll see the
Bell Island changes.
MR. PETTEN:
The what?
MR. HAWKINS:
The changes to Bell Island,
the wharf.
MR. PETTEN:
Oh, okay.
The
province has spent $7 million to date from $12 million, correct? Is that about
right?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
Under 4.2.06, I think I
might know the answer to this; I just want to make sure. The Revenue – federal
and provincial there under Ferry Vessels.
MR. HAWKINS:
Which one was that?
MR. PETTEN:
4.2.06, under Ferry Vessels.
MR. HAWKINS:
Oh, that's our tariffs that
we are going to get back.
MR. PETTEN:
There was monies paid in –
MR. HAWKINS:
Yeah, we were in a contract.
Of course, you know the way in which it was supposed to have been paid. We went
into a contract to have it done on a monthly – it was $106,000 per month versus
having to pay all that money up front and we were still able to get the
licensing in there.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. HAWKINS:
We've been continuing those
payments and we'll continue those payments until it's gazetted because we have
notification from the federal government that the tariffs will be remitted back
to us, but I think you have to go through a gazetted process to make that legal.
Is that the right word to use?
So what
we'll do is we'll continue to pay the monthly payments until that's gazetted and
then we will get that back.
MR. PETTEN:
Does that money come back to
the department or the general –
MR. HAWKINS:
I'd say it would come back
to general.
MR. PETTEN:
General.
MR. HAWKINS:
I'm sure the Finance
Minister will be looking after that one; looking for it.
MR. PETTEN:
There's something not fair
about that, is it?
MR. HAWKINS:
No, I'd take it. I need it.
I could do another half of a road, half a kilometre.
MR. PETTEN:
4.3.02, water bombers fall
in this section? Am I right?
MR. HAWKINS:
What's that?
MR. PETTEN:
Is this where water bombers
would be?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes, that's our water
bombers.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I
haven't got a lot on the line by line that's really – I have a couple generic
questions for you there pertaining to the water bombers.
How
many do we have available now?
MR. HAWKINS:
There are five.
MR. PETTEN:
Where are they located?
OFFICIAL:
There's one in St. John's, Gander, Goose Bay and one in Deer Lake.
MR. PETTEN:
What is the status of our
old – we still have old water bombers that are no longer –
MR. HAWKINS:
Two.
MR. PETTEN:
Two, right. Are we still
renting space for them to be stored?
MR. HAWKINS:
I apologize, I can't answer
that question. I hate when I can't answer a question, but I will refer it to
Cory.
MR. GRANDY:
The 215s, the older water bombers, they're in the unheated hangar space in – we
refer to it as Hangar 21 in Gander. They're not in the same facility as the
heated hangar space where the new 415s are located.
MR. PETTEN:
We pay rent for that though,
right?
MR. GRANDY:
Hangar 21 is a long-term, relatively low-cost lease from the federal government.
The federal government owns Hangar 21.
MR. PETTEN:
The heated space is the
expensive one, correct?
MR. GRANDY:
Hangar 22 is a private space, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Are we disposing of them or
is there a plan in place for disposal?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
There is?
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
What do you do? How do you
dispose of them? Do you just put them out on auction?
Stumped
you again?
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, I'm going to – Cory.
MR. PETTEN:
How do you sell a water
bomber? Who is looking for a water bomber?
MR. HAWKINS:
(Inaudible) would be yes,
like disposal and option and pricing. Maybe I should know this; I don't even
know the condition, I'm ashamed to admit that, whether they're – I use the word
– flyable or if it would just for parts.
I'm
going to let Cory answer that question. When he answers that question, I will be
learning it as well and I will remember it.
MR. PETTEN:
No problem.
MR. GRANDY:
I think part of the answer relates to what the minister spoke about when he
spoke about the Bond. There are a
number of assets that the department is looking at disposal of. We'll be going
through an exercise to determine the best way to get best value for all those
assets.
I think
the 215s may have market value, their locations in the world. So we'll be
exploring all those opportunities to get best value.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Revenue
– federal and provincial, what is that? Where does it come from?
MR. HAWKINS:
It's from outside parties
for the use of water bombers. Anytime we have to utilize that for other reasons
would fall into that category.
MR. PETTEN:
You charge –
MR. HAWKINS:
I'm grasping on straws for
that one again.
MR. PETTEN:
You charge for the use of
water bombers?
MR. HAWKINS:
No.
MR. SMITH:
One of the big parts there, and maybe unfortunately is timely now, is that at
times there have been instances where our water bombes would be deployed to
other jurisdictions and they'd cover the cost. That has happened in the past.
So,
accordingly, we incur the cost but then through a cost-recovery agreement,
reciprocal agreements between or amongst jurisdictions, they basically write us
a cheque to reimburse us. We're not really charging revenue. It's simply a cost
recovery.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
We're
almost done. I think basically this is going to be a general question on 4.3.03,
Air Services. There's nothing in the budget lines for this 2016 under –
MR. HAWKINS:
We paid for our water
bombers here.
MR. PETTEN:
That's what that was, the
payment of the water bombers?
MR. HAWKINS:
They're paid for, done.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, I was figuring that
had to be a purchase.
MR. HAWKINS:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. HAWKINS:
If you look at that little
piece of related revenue there, and I think that's where it would come up with
the disposal of the two surplus ones that we have, Cory, I'm assuming.
OFFICIAL:
Yes, that is correct.
MR. PETTEN:
Is that what you're hoping?
MR. HAWKINS:
That's a targeted amount.
MR. PETTEN:
That's your target?
Well,
I'm done, but I just want to say before I wrap up, thank you very much.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you.
MR. PETTEN:
You're very obliging, and
your answers were great, and I thank everyone – I know most everyone, but thank
you for your time, and I appreciate it.
Thank
you, Minister.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, I appreciate it.
CHAIR:
Okay, I call for the
subheads.
CLERK:
4.1.01 through 4.3.03
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.3.03
inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.3.03 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Transportation and Works, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Estimates of
the Department of Transportation and Works carried without amendment?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Transportation and Works carried without
amendment.
CHAIR:
Okay, the next meeting of
the Government Services Committee shall be Tuesday, May 10 at 9 a.m., Finance
and OCIO.
Motion
to adjourn?
MS. HALEY:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Adjourned.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.