MR. RIDGLEY: Order, please!

I think we are about ready to go.

MR. SHELLEY: Are we ready to start?

MR. RIDGLEY: We are. We are going to proceed. First, my name is Bob Ridgley, MHA for St. John's North. I will be acting as Chair, once we get the election done. We will be seeing a bit of each other over the next few days.

The first item of business will be conducted by our Clerk, which is the election of the Chair and Vice-Chair.

CLERK: Is there a nomination for Chairman?

MR. BUTLER: I nominate Mr. Ridgley to be the Chair of this Committee.

MR. FRENCH: I second that.

CLERK: It is moved and seconded that Mr. Ridgley be Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CLERK: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Mr. Ridgley was nominated as Chair.

CHAIR: We will do the Vice-Chair now.

MS JONES: I nominate Roland Butler, the Member for Port de Grave, as Vice-Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: I second that.

CLERK: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CLERK: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Mr. Butler was nominated as Vice-Chair.

CHAIR: You almost lost my vote for that.

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: I would ask the MHAs now to introduce themselves and everybody is, kind of, centered there which makes it easier for the people who are controlling the mikes. As with the House of Assembly, it is only a matter of waiting until your mike is logged.

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

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, MHA for Conception Bay South and Holyrood.

MR. F. COLLINS: Felix Collins, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's.

CHAIR: The other member of our committee is Kelvin Parsons, whom we will be expecting shortly. He will be taking his seat here.

Minister, introduce your staff, please.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, we will do that. And opening remarks now, too, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Well, if you would introduce your staff?

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. Well, I am not going to introduce every single person behind me, as you can see why.

CHAIR: Just the ones who are doing the Labour component first.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, we will do a full introduction. Basically, under Labrador Affairs and the Department of Human Resources, Housing and so on, but what we will do is we will start from here and go right around. How about that? Go ahead.

MR. FOWLER: Wayne Fowler, CEO, Labour Relations Agency.

MR. O'NEILL: Joe O'Neill, Acting CEO, the Workplace Health and Safety and Compensation Commission.

MR. DUTTON: Sean Dutton, Acting Deputy Minister, Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Those are the ones, minister, for this particular section that we are doing?

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) introduce everybody (inaudible).

CHAIR: At your pleasure, sir.

MR. HARDING: Harry Harding, MHA for Bonavista North and Parliamentary Secretary to the minister.

MR. SIMMS: Len Simms, CEO of the Housing Corporation.

MR. KENNEDY: Gerry Kennedy, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. AKER: Dave Aker, Accounting Team Leader, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. PENNEY: Wayne Penney, Acting Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS JEANS: Jennifer Jeans, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR. ROBERTS: David Roberts, Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS TUBRETT: Denise Tubrett, Director of Finance, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR. MARLAND: Alex Marland, Director of Communications, Human Resources, Labour and Employment and Labrador Affairs.

CHAIR: Okay, I think we have everybody, other than Mr. Parsons who will arrive shortly.

As it is my understanding, the rules we will operate under and if there is any problem after I explain that, then we can deal with it now so that we all understand, from the beginning, how we will go. We will allow fifteen minutes for the minister to make his opening remarks, at which time somebody from the MHAs will be allowed - the first person up will be fifteen minutes and then we will do ten-minute segments after that. If a given person is speaking and there is nobody else to speak and that person wishes to carry on beyond the ten minutes, I am sure that we are all amiable to that as well.

So if there is no difficulty with that, minister, proceed.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for Chairing the committee. I know it is the first one for the year, and I am sure it will be a productive one.

As you can see as to why I did not introduce everybody, it is because this department and these departments are wide-ranging. As a matter of fact, after just several months of being in this new portfolio, I have to say that I came to a much better understanding of not just the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, but also the important Department of Labrador Affairs. So, with a combination of both of these, it takes in a wide range. There is a lot to learn and a lot to appreciate. I think the best word in this department, since I have been here now in four months, is appreciating, really, the involvement of the different programs and, I guess, the size of the department throughout.

Because we started a bit late today, we want to tell the committee, first of all, that we will go to Labour Relations first and then into Labrador Affairs second, and then on from there to Housing and Human Resources. I think that is the route we are going to go, Mr. Chair.

I am going to shorten up my comments because we want to try and get moving on here tonight but I have to say that, as far as the Human Resources part of the department, which we will get to in a little while, the emphasis in the last few months, since I have been here as the minister, has certainly been on the Poverty Reduction Strategy and moving forward. Now, we saw a number of those initiatives in the Budget and so on, and it is hard to capsulize because it is such a complex and diverse issue, especially learning so much more about it as I am involved in this department, but always remember that it is such a huge issue. It is complex. There are no short-term fixes. I have understood this issue a lot sooner than becoming minister for the department, believe me, and I have always had a great interest in this particular issue. I am glad to see that we are moving forward, but to say that it is complex and that it is a long road. The idea and intent, especially of the poverty reduction, is over ten years to see improvements in this area. Certainly, there is a lot ahead of us but I do believe that we have made significant advancement with this particular strategy and the initiatives announced so far, and I am looking forward to a lot more.

I will say this to all the committees and to everybody, that it takes a lot of partnership and a lot of co-operation right from community organizations, right on to volunteers, right on through the different levels of the department. As I said, it is comprehensive. It is an integrated approach to poverty reduction. There is going to be a lot of debate and a lot of issues raised over the next number of months and years leading up to, I guess, the strategy - which, by the way, will be released, hopefully, some time in June. I do not want to say earlier or later because I do not want to get you on to a final date on it but it will be released in June, an overall strategy.

In the overall strategy, aside from the initiatives already announced, the fact of the matter is we will have further focuses, a way to monitor progress and so on. We will continue on with research and development of where we go from here and so on. The strategy is going to be a template of how we move forward. So, I am looking forward to that. I guess that would be the main focus for the department overall, when I am talking about human resources and so on.

I am going to leave it there, Mr. Chair. I could go on a bit longer but since we did start a bit later - for the two committee members who just got here, we have agreed that we will try to get to Labour Relations first, and I am sure it will be explained to you. We have a Mr. O'Neill here, who will be in negotiations here this evening with the price setting panel. We had a discussion before we came in, that we would try to do Labour Relations first and then we will go on to Labrador Affairs second.

I will not take any more of that time. We will try and get into the Estimates and take it from there. We are starting with Labour Relations, Mr. Chair. I will end with saying this, as you can see, there are many different things and not even I realize, I guess, although you are around government a long time, the breath and scope of this department from Human Resources, to Labour, to Housing, to Immigration, to Labrador Affairs. There are a lot of things in this department. I am still learning a lot. I have no problem in confessing that. It is a steep learning curve but I have a lot of good staff. I know a lot of the members here in this House. I have worked with a number of the officials who are here tonight. I will try to answer the questions the best I can for you. At this stage, if I cannot answer them I will ask some of the officials to answer them. If we cannot answer them, then we will look for the answers and try and get them back to you. That is the best I can tell you for tonight. We want to get started, Mr. Chair, and I am delighted to take questions and comments from the Committee.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I would like to ask the three other members of the Committee who just came in to introduce themselves. We will start, I guess, here with Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. R. COLLINS: Randy Collins, MHA for Labrador West.

MS GOUDIE: Kathy Goudie, MHA for Humber Valley.

CHAIR: Okay, we have everybody.

I was just indicating that there would be introductory remarks if anybody chooses to make them, other than that we can proceed directly with any questions for the minister on the Labour component.

We have to get a motion.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: We are on page 203. We ask for a motion that 1.1.01 be carried and then debate will commence.

AN HON. MEMBER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved.

Second.

MR. R. COLLINS: Second.

CHAIR: Second by Mr. Collins.

Are there any opening remarks from anybody or will we go right to the questions?

MS JONES: (Inaudible) questions.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you minister and your officials. We welcome you this evening.

I just have a couple of questions under Labour Relations. I would like to start with the Budget Estimates under 6.1.01. Last year there was $35,000 left in Transportation and Communications that was not spent. I am just wondering why that was or why you didn't use up the money?

MR. SHELLEY: We just have to get straightened away here now so we can get started with Labour Relations. That is .01, right?

CHAIR: We are on page 210, for those who have their big books with them.

MR. SHELLEY: Just a second now because we have changed over - I want to get straightened away here.

MS JONES: Just take your time.

MR. SHELLEY: It is not in the book, that is why. 6.1.01 is not in mine, that's why. Why it is not there, I have no idea.

MR. FOWLER: I can answer, if you want.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. You can go ahead Wayne. This is Wayne with the department. It is not in my book, we will just get that filled in.

MR. FOWLER: There was a fair amount of staff turnover last year within the Labour Relations Agency, as you probably already know. The CEO was changed by being sent down to the Workers' Comp., the ADM was seconded to another position. There were a few other positions there that would have been involved in a fair amount of travel that changed places and faces.

There were a number of meetings also during the year, like the Atlantic Ministers' meetings that were postponed, which caused savings with respect to the travel budget. Also, in some of the meetings that we have had, that would have went ahead and some that did go ahead. There was only one person who ended up going on the travel versus another situation where there might have been two or three. So the savings, I guess, came about because of the high number of staff turnover.

MS JONES: Did you say the deputy was seconded?

MR. FOWLER: No. Actually, the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. O'Neill of the Labour Relations Agency, went down to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission in June. The ADM, which was Karen McCarthy, ended going to another position in November. We had some policy people also who shifted positions. So we had to have a new CEO acting, which was me, come in June, a new ADM which came a bit later. There were also some meetings that were planned that got rescheduled, like the Atlantic Ministers' meetings. Some of our other meetings, which would have had more than one person attend, ended up just having one person. That is, basically, where the majority of the savings came from, along with some promotional, educational seminars that we did not go through on because of the staff turnover.

MS JONES: Yes. So you are acting in that position now?

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MS JONES: Was the other position filled?

MR. FOWLER: The other position?

MS JONES: Karen McCarthy's position.

MR. SHELLEY: Your position.

MR. FOWLER: Mine? Yes. In terms of where I came from, the Director of Labour Relations is acting also, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. In this year's Budget, the Salaries have increased by $30,000. Was that a new position that was created?

MR. FOWLER: Are you talking the salaries, overall?

MS JONES: 6.1.02, Administration and Planning.

MR. SHELLEY: That was an upscale hiring (inaudible).

MR. FOWLER: If you are talking about under Administration and Planning, yes. They specifically came to areas like the policy where - because at a certain point in time we had two or three people who were seconded in the positions, they came in at higher salaries than what the position was in order to get them to fill that position. The people came in, upscale hired. So we ended up running a bit of a deficit with respect to those.

MS JONES: Okay. Also, in this year's Budget, 6.1.03. There is a $30,000 jump in Communications, although you did not spend all the money last year. There is also an extra allotment of $41,000 in Purchased Services. Can you give me some details about that?

MR. FOWLER: That was, I believe, our increases that are associated with the fishing panel. The $41,000 is monies that has been budgeted for the fish panel that has just been established. I believe it is $26,000, plus $15,000, which brings it up to the $41,000, that increase.

The new funding also for the $30,000, is also the implementation of the fish price setting panel. They were the funds that were just allocated on February 24, around that area, when the discussion went through the special opening of the House for the establishment of the fish price setting panel. This is the additional of the monies allocated into that budget comes under the Labour Relations Agency.

MS JONES: The government pays for all of the costs for this panel? Is any of it borne by the unions or by the processing companies?

MR. FOWLER: All of it is paid except when the parties appear before the panel, if they have to appear before the panel to present their case, and they pay their own cost of appearing before the panel. But the cost of the panel is budgeted by the government and has been allocated to the Labour Relations Agency for funding, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. So, they are only out of pocket if they don't like your decision?

MR. FOWLER: If they cannot reach their own deals and they have to appear before the panel, they have to pay that cost that might be if they bring someone in to present their case. Other than that, there is no cost to the parties whatsoever.

MS JONES: Okay. Also with the Labour Relations Board, under 6.1.04. There is an increase this year of $110,000 in Salaries. Is that for new hirings or, again, is it step ups?

MR. FOWLER: Actually, $102,000 of that is to fund the salary of the full-time Chairperson of the Labour Relations Board. A couple of years ago, I think in 2004, Morgan Cooper, who was the full-time Chair, resigned and about a year later they had another full-time Chair takeover by Valerie Marshall. There was not an allocation of money for her salary put into the budget until this year. The board had always been operating at a deficit because the salary was not allocated. This year the $102,000 salary has been allocated to the Labour Relations Board to cover the salary of the full-time Chair of the board.

MS JONES: Who is the Chair?

MR. FOWLER: Valerie Marshall.

MS JONES: But she did get paid last year?

MR. FOWLER: Oh, yes. We found the funds to pay her.

MS JONES: In terms of what happened in Stephenville with Abitibi Consolidated, what was the involvement of the Department of Labour in that situation? Were you guys involved at all in the mediation, the negotiations, anything between the -

MR. SHELLEY: We were available but we did not get the request to - but we made it known that we were available for anything that the board could do, any officials from Labour Relations, but we were never requested.

MR. FOWLER: The assistance was offered from day one, but it was not requested. Obviously, we were involved from an agency perspective with respect to the departmental committee that was involved. Other than prior to this year, when the agency is always involved in conciliation and mediation of contract talks and grievances with respect to Abitibi, this year, no, the Stephenville ones did not take up any of the assistance with respect to the mediation.

MS JONES: What about Grand Falls?

MR. FOWLER: Grand Falls has always been - the agency has always been very actively involved with Grand Falls from a conciliation perspective for their contracts and for mediation during the life of their contracts to deal with their grievances and we have been actively involved, I should say, for the last seven or eight years with respect to all the restructuring agreements that have happened in the Grand Falls plant dealing with both Abitibi and the unions.

MS JONES: What about the FPI situation in the Province now where there has been a lot of layoffs in plants on the South Coast and on the Burin Peninsula? I know there have been ongoing negotiations between the Province and the company. Have you guys been involved in any of that?

MR. SHELLEY: No involvement whatsoever at this point and no request for involvement. I believe that is right, is it?

MR. FOWLER: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: At this point, anyway, Yvonne.

MS JONES: What kind of stuff have you guys been involved in?

MR. FOWLER: The agency?

MR. SHELLEY: Overall, they are dealing with a lot right now.

MR. FOWLER: We do all the contract negotiations for both the public and private sector. There are over 500 collective agreements in the Province which, if the parties need assistance to reach a deal they come in to us.

As you probably already know, in order to get in the legal strike lockup position you have to go to the agency, to the minister and request conciliation assistance. We have been actively involved in what we consider to be a preventive mediation program, which is offering grievance mediation training to the parties during the life of the agreement. It is almost like preventive maintenance on your vehicle, you do it during the life and it lasts a lot longer.

We do training with respect - we just got back from Goose Bay, actually, to do training for Voisey's Bay Nickel Corporation and the steelworkers to do interest based negotiation training for them who are entering their first collective agreement. Our assistance runs the full gambit.

We also have the division under Labour Standards which deals with 60 per cent of the population that is not unionized, minimum terms of conditions of employment. The Labour Relations Board comes under the auspices of the agency. That basically deals with any union who want to get certified or any employer who wants to get accredited. It also deals with unfair labour practices with respect to contract and bargaining. The gambit goes everywhere, I guess, from the labour relations, from the minimum wage to the minimum terms of conditions and employment, right up to when you have a collective agreement or you have a dispute trying to reach that agreement.

MS JONES: Do you guys have anything to do with the Labour Market Development Agreements, or is that within the department?

MR. SHELLEY: No, that is in a separate (inaudible) of Human Resources. That will come up tonight.

MS JONES: Okay. All right then.

I just have a question under Workers' Comp. I guess that is you is it, Joe?

MR. SHELLEY: That is Joe, yes.

MS JONES: You guys have been doing a review, I think, of the Workers' Compensation program. Do you want to give me an update on where that is and what has been happening there?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. Of course, March 31, I can tell you now, is the expected date for the report to come in. I can tell you tonight that it has been requested for an extension. They did do an extensive - eleven communities this year, I think I have that number right, across the Province. I think that was the most ever done. Since then we also did some round table discussions and a number of groups since then, and continue with that. As of now, they are asking for an extension. Other than that, we do not have anything back from them at this point.

MS JONES: Do you know how many people actually participated in that?

MR. SHELLEY: I do not have the exact number. Do you have a number?

MR. O'NEILL: One hundred-and-sixty presentations.

MR. SHELLEY: One-hundred-and-sixty presentations, submissions. Quite extensive this year and the most ever around the Province, actually.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: The request has been in for the extension and the extension is being considered.

MS JONES: I am not sure because I did not look at the Estimates for Workers' Comp but -

MR. SHELLEY: They are all the same.

MS JONES: Was there any increase in premiums or anything like that in the budget?

MR. SHELLEY: No. The only increase you will see in the Estimates is a slight increase in salaries and that was to do with the union negotiations, the increase.

MS JONES: I do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Jones.

Is there somebody else with questions? Again, we are on the labour component now, the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. PARSONS: Just one clarification, I guess, in the issue of the early retirements that was alluded to by Ms Jones. Does that fall under this area we are dealing with now? I am referring, of course, to early retirements in the fishing industry.

MR. SHELLEY: No.

MR. PARSONS: That would not be, but is it in your department?

MR. SHELLEY: It is in our department, yes. It would come under Human Resources.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

CHAIR: Is there anybody else with questions under Labour Relations?

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes, I have a couple.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. R. COLLINS: First of all, minister, thanks for the opportunity to be here this evening and providing your officials on the Labour Relations Agency.

I just want to say that it is an agency that I have had a fair bit of dealing with prior to coming into this job, I guess. I have to say that in my past job I used to travel quite extensively across Canada and all of the meetings that we had would deal with labour relations type of things. I have to say that we are proud of the work that the Labour Relations Department does in this Province. They have been quite effective. We have had opportunities to use them many, many times, mostly when we are in trouble. So, we learn to appreciate them more. I have to say that the people in that department have done an outstanding job for a long number of years and continue to do so today. We appreciate the efforts that they make.

I wonder if Wayne could relate how many times that the first collective agreements are imposed versus negotiated?

MR. FOWLER: The Labour Relations Board, which is a quasi judicial body that deals with the imposition of first collective agreements, I believe, Mr. Collins, it is probably - memory. When it was first put into legislation there was a fair amount of cases that went to the board for the first agreement; not as many in the last couple of years. If I target, probably thirty, I am taking a guess at the number of applications that have probably been up to the Labour Relations Board. Again, not as many in the last couple of years as what it was when it was first put in place. Parties seem to be reaching deals on their own. I guess first agreement legislation, when it said the board would impose, part of it was to have the parties realize they should reach it on their own rather than have somebody put it in place for them. So, after awhile the education got to a point where they got it themselves.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a good question because since I have been here, four months, there was one request, I think, for the first agreement and that was withdrawn. So, I never got to experience what would happen there.

MR. R. COLLINS: Has there been any consideration given to straightening the Labour Standards Act in terms of giving the Labour Standards Board the power to reinstate employees or to impose other than what the law meets? Like, impose different types of settlements?

MR. FOWLER: The Labour Relations Boards?

MR. R. COLLINS: Labour Standards.

MR. FOWLER: Labour Standards. There has been a lot of discussion with respect to the labour legislation in the Province. The Strategic Partnership Committee - the committee of government, business and labour, of which we chair the Employment Relations Sub-Committee, one of the four sub-committees - have been discussing, from the partnership perspective, what might need to be changed in terms of labour standards or labour relations or some of the other collective bargaining legislation to bring it up to speed, where they feel it has been lacking a little bit. Most of that discussion, Mr. Collins, is still in the early stages. There was a meeting, about March 15, which had some lengthy discussion on where it should go. I believe it is, probably, hoped that it might even end up having some reviews of labour standards and labour relations within the next year, eighteen months.

There are a number of items which I know the business and labour community had been looking at for the last couple of years under the realm of the labour standards area that will certainly surface. I think you, probably, hit on a couple that will come forward and be at that table. That is where that, basically, sits right now.

MR. R. COLLINS: Because it seems the system, at the present time - I mean you can hold a hearing into a particular problem of - say, for example, if an employee is discharged and the board can find, without cause, that the employer violated everything in the book, but the board does not have any power to say the person has to get their job back. That is totally unfair in that respect..

MR. FOWLER: The arbitration system is being looked at, too, in the Province with respect to some changes they envisage there, and there are some changes being looked at, possibly, in the Labour Relations Board area dealing with grievance and arbitration and the failure to bargain or not to bargain, or how that might work as well. I am not sure it would go that deep, through.

MR. R. COLLINS: What is the ratio now with regard to the number of arbitrators on the list versus the - it seems to me, from looking at the list periodically, that some of the people on the list have been there for quite some time and probably have not been very active, by choice. Is there any attempt to revive that list and get some new people?

MR. FOWLER: There certainly is. Of the twenty-five or twenty-four arbitrators on the list there are probably only about fifteen who are really active. The majority of the cases, if you look at what is coming out, because they are required to file their cases, will show you that maybe five or six are the ones that are really the ones being used; but the Labour Management Co-operation Committee, I know you are aware, that committee which was established by worker groups and employer groups and administered by that group, is in a situation where they are now revamping the whole arbitration process with respect to how it would operate, how arbitrators are trained, how arbitrators are guaranteed that they are up to speed, the fee structure, probably even envisioning the fact that we need to do something with expedited arbitration because you need to make sure that the process is timely and that you have to put some constraints and restraints on the process to make sure that the decisions are done quickly. That is on the go right now, as a matter of fact.

MR. R. COLLINS: That is all I have on the Labour Relations, but on the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Review Committee, what is going on with this PRIME? I don't mean Prime TV either.

MR. O'NEILL: PRIME is certainly out of the starting gate as of January 1. It is making everybody at the Commission tear their hair out, literally, trying to get the information out so that employers can be made aware before their assessments come out in terms of whether or not they qualify for the practice incentive under PRIME I. So we are getting that, trying to run that through now, with a target of getting that done as quickly as we can so that employers will know whether they qualify; because, as you know, in PRIME I, if they qualify for an experience rating or the Incentive Practice refund in PRIME I, the 5 per cent, then they go on to look at the experience rating in 2007.

As you know, Randy, the objective of this is to draw attention to employers to take control over health and safety, working with their employees in the workforce to look at health and safety, to put committees in place, to put policies and programs in place. We are certainly hoping - certainly I am hoping - that, at the end of the day, it would be seen to be done for the right reasons. I mean, that is where we will see the good return on investment if we begin to see or we continue to see a decline in the lost time incidents rate in the Province. As you know, it has been declining in the past four or five years since the task force of 2001, and we are certainly hoping that it will continue to decline. We seem to have plateaued a little and we are levelling off, and PRIME was introduced along with the new Claims Management Model and the Web-based strategy. We are hoping now that, once we get that implementation done, and that is the big hurdle right now, to get that moving, to move that through, get it implemented, and hopefully we will begin to see the rewards, but it is taking a tremendous amount of effort.

MR. R. COLLINS: Are you getting any complaints about it from workers? Because I know that there are a number of workplaces in this Province with employers, if you have an injury, then, I tell you, you are subject to a lot of things that you should not be in terms of, number one, returning to work early, and there is a group actively at work in the Province now who, I understand, is lobbying to try and make it mandatory that employees, when they are injured, have to see a company doctor. Is there any -

MR. O'NEILL: There is no question that we are seeing an increase in that activity. There are two things. One, of course, is that there was no question it was anticipated that would happen. Part of the challenge we have is that the Claims Management Model is now following PRIME, and we are also trying to implement the Claims Management Model to ensure that, you know, good monitoring is done with respect to an injured worker's file when they come in; but, you are absolutely right. What we are seeing, particularly in the last couple of months, is an increase in activity with regard to really monitoring a claim from the time it is sent in, and pressuring to have an early return of that claim or to ensure that the claim does not go on for longer than certain consulting companies or individuals feel that the claim should be in place, and there is no question that is going to be a continuing challenge for us.

MR. R. COLLINS: Do you think that PRIME is causing a lot of employers to contest each worker's complaint?

MR. O'NEILL: I think so. I think that is part of the side effect of it, there is no question, because now PRIME and an employer's experience rating with regard to injuries will impact their assessment rate in the out years. I do not think there is any question; no doubt that is a by-product of it, for sure.

MR. R. COLLINS: Because, I tell you, there is going to be, in the next few months, a considerable campaign from this Province against what is happening, because some of the stories that are coming out from some workplaces around this Province where people have been injured are certainly horror stories in anybody's imagination. You know, there is a great fear that this incentive, that was put there maybe for all the right reasons, is having a negative effect upon injured workers.

MR. SHELLEY: Randy, you are right. You know, with PRIME, as we move through it now, you are right and there are some good suggestions, but you have to remember, the stage we are at now, those are things that we will have to look at and review and improve on. I mean, that is a system that was put in place for this particular reason, but if we have to make some changes and do some things to improve it then we have to.

MR. R. COLLINS: I know that the report is not out yet, but has government given any consideration whatsoever to change the CPP clawback that was introduced in the 1990s?

MR. SHELLEY: I can tell you this now, although we haven't had the report, on many occasions already that particular issue certainly was, I understand, raised a number of times, and I can tell you that there will be some consideration given to it, definitely. It has been raised in all corners of the Province.

MR. R. COLLINS: That is all I have.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions on Labour Relations or Workplace Health and Safety?

MR. BUTLER: Just the one on the Workplace Health and Safety, that is on our line-by-line, 7.1.01., under Property, Furnishings and Equipment estimates, it is up by $5,000. I was just wondering what this is for, and if you could provide -

MR. SHELLEY: On the furnishings?

MR. BUTLER: Under 7.1.01.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I am sorry, up by $5,000.

MR. O'NEILL: Actually, it is a reallocation of the money from Purchased Services down to Property, Furnishings and Equipment. That is exactly where the $5,000 was taken from to put in another area, reallocated to this area because it is going to be needed for next year.

MR. SHELLEY: The line above it.

MR. O'NEILL: The very one above it is Purchased Services.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: Five thousand dollars taken off Purchased Services into Property, Furnishings.

MR. O'NEILL: We took it out of the Purchased Services to bring it down below for the reallocation of the funds.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions on Labour Relations or Workplace Health and Safety?

Since we are going to be moving to a different department, what we are going to do, at this point, is clean up sections 6.1.01. to 7.1.01. and we will have those carried and dealt with. Then we will move to Labrador and then we are back to this one again, but those three sections will have been dealt with and we will leave those clean.

Is that acceptable to everyone?

CLERK: Subheads 6.1.01. to 7.1.01. inclusive.

CHAIR: Subheads 6.1.01. to 7.1.01. inclusive. Shall these subheads carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those are carried.

On motion, subheads 6.1.01. through 7.1.01. carried.

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, I just want to thank you for moving this up because Joe and Wayne have to leave, so if there are any other questions or anything at this point - you are fine with that?

MS JONES: I want to thank your officials for their time and their responses.

MR. SHELLEY: I want to thank the officials because, Randy, you are right, since I came into this department in particular, the Labour Agency, and that side of it, they go and do their work. I have gotten nothing but compliments across the Province from every group I have dealt with, and you have dealt with them a lot more than I have, but they have been efficient and effective, I think it is safe to say, so good job.

Thanks guys.

CHAIR: Thank you, gentlemen.

We will return to HRLE again so that, when we do it at that point and we ask for the total to be carried, these subheads, 6.1.01. to 7.1.01., will be included then in that total of HRLE. when we ask for the total to be carried.

Right now, at this point, we are going to move to Labrador Affairs on page 53

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

CHAIR: Again, we would ask for subhead 1.1.01., for somebody to make a motion that it be carried.

MS GOUDIE: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Ms Goudie - get your name in the book this evening - seconded by Mr. French.

Are there any comments, Minister, in this department, or did you want to go right to questions?

MR. SHELLEY: Just that - well, the members know anyway - this is split into Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I will handle the Labrador Affairs side of it for today. Go ahead.

CHAIR: So we will go right to the questions.

Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to move right to the Estimates. I would like to start with the section under General Administration. It looks like the Salaries spending was down last year from what was budgeted, and so was that under Professional Services. I would like to know why that was but, more importantly, the spending in Employee Benefits was up although the Salaries were down. I am wondering if you can give me an explanation.

MR. SHELLEY: Where are you now, under Minister's Office or -

MS JONES: Subhead 1.2.01.

MR. SHELLEY: Subhead 1.2.03.?

MS JONES: Subhead 1.2.01.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, 01., under Executive Support is where you are, is it?

MR. DUTTON: The question was, why are Salaries down and Benefits up?

MS JONES: The Salaries are down, the Professional Services are down from what was budgeted, but the Employee Benefits are up. Actually, they are more than quadruple the amount that was budgeted.

MR. DUTTON: In this case, the Salaries are down because we had some vacancies during the course of the year, and there was an assistant deputy minister position that was vacant until late December. The Employee Benefits are up. It is a modest amount that is budgeted, $500, and there was some increase due to costs for conference registration fees and things of that nature.

MS JONES: Okay, why were the benefits up?

MR. DUTTON: The Employee Benefits -

MS JONES: Employee Benefits.

MR. DUTTON: Under Employee Benefits, conference registration fees and memberships are charged to this account.

MS JONES: Oh.

MR. SHELLEY: That was conference registration fees in this -

MS JONES: Oh, okay. All right.

MR. SHELLEY: You don't mind that, do you?

MS JONES: Oh, no. I just -

MR. SHELLEY: No, that is where it came under, the registration fees for the conference.

MS JONES: Okay.

Isn't that an unusual place to budget that, Minister?

MR. SHELLEY: I found it a bit strange myself but that is where it comes under, the Employee Benefits. I guess that is the best place. I have no idea why it would go there, but that is what it is, the registration fees.

MS JONES: Okay.

I guess there was money there for a short time.

MR. SHELLEY: It was money to use, yes.

MS JONES: Under 2.1.01. - oh, no, that is the Aboriginal Affairs. We will leave that one for now.

Under 2.1.02. -

MR. SHELLEY: Under 2.1?

MS JONES: Yes.

There is a 28 per cent increase this year in Grants and Subsidies, which I am very pleased to see.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes.

MS JONES: I just need to know where I would pick up the application and how I get the money, but I am also curious about where it is going to be allocated and what it is for.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, this is the breakdown right here. Part of that is under Aboriginal, the Suicide Prevention Initiative, so you can talk about that in your - but I will mention now the $120,000 to suicide prevention -

MR. DUTTON: This is Aboriginal Affairs, Minister.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is what she just asked for.

MR. DUTTON: She is reading from (inaudible) Labrador Affairs.

MS JONES: Yes, not the Aboriginal Affairs one.

MR. DUTTON: The main reason for the increase is the increase in the airlift food subsidy.

MR. SHELLEY: That is the $100,000 increase in the airlift.

MS JONES: Oh, okay, that is where the money is budgeted?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS JONES: So, it is not under Works and Transportation?

MR. SHELLEY: No, that comes under Labrador Affairs. We administer it, right, and that is the additional $100,00.

MR. DUTTON: Yes. Our department began administering the program last year.

MR. SHELLEY: It was under Works and Services.

MS JONES: Yes, for a number of years. Okay, that is why there is an increase there.

That is about it for the numbers, but I have some questions. I guess the first question goes back to the commitment that was made by Stephen Harper and his government during the election campaign to Goose Bay. At the time they committed, if elected, they would relocate 650 troops, have them mobilized on the ground in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I guess I am wondering, what have your department and your government done to follow up to that commitment, and when can we see some mobilization of people on the base in Goose Bay?

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier has spoken to the minister - I do not know the exact date - what was it, about a week ago?

MR. DUTTON: About a month ago.

MR. SHELLEY: About a month ago. That was a direct contact from the Premier's Office to the minister to follow up. Of course, we are still waiting on answers from that, as you know. I guess I will be following up, too, with some ministers, hopefully over the Easter break, but as of now we have no final answer back from the government. That was made directly from the Premier to the minister.

MS JONES: Did you guys have anything in writing on that during the campaign? I know the commitment was made verbally.

MR. SHELLEY: You are talking about commitments, because there was a list that came back from all four leaders. That is what you are talking about, right?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: I do not recall exactly what it was, the commitment. Was it in writing?

MR. DUTTON: It was. Mr. Harper's letter was released to the public.

MS JONES: Do you have a copy of that?

MR. SHELLEY: We can get it for you.

MR. DUTTON: It should be on the government Web site. We can send you a link.

MR. SHELLEY: There was a list there, as you know.

MS JONES: It is on the government Web site?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS JONES: I can get it myself, then.

I guess the Cashin report would be my next question. Because of the RMS legislation there was, as you know, some chaos in the industry across the Province and the government made the decision to hire Richard Cashin to go out and study what would be a model solution to our fisheries woes.

In his recommendation, when he recommended a new mechanism for the crab industry in the Province, he did ask that Labrador be exempt from that policy, and he asked for very specific reasons. One, he is very familiar with the fishing industry in Labrador, having worked there for a large part of his life with the companies; and, secondly, because in previous years, especially going back in the last five years, in the fishing industry in the Province, at times, for example, when the shrimp fishery was shut down on the Island, the Labrador shrimp fishery continued. Although there was only one plant, it continued because they were not able to close their doors. They would have lost millions of dollars, they would have lost an extended period of operation, and their window of harvest is so small compared to the rest of the Province. Because they were not bound by the agreement that was in place, they were able to continue to operate. The same thing when the crab fishery shut down in the Province; they continued to operate because they were not bound by the agreement.

In the Legislature a while ago there were amendments made to the act which now ensure that they are bound to these agreements. I am really concerned about it, and I have to ask the question: Why was Labrador not exempt, especially after the author of the report specifically requested that they be? Yet, they weren't.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, first of all, I know you know the history behind that, as the member has explained in the House a number of times. I know what Mr. Cashin has reported, but at the same time Minister Rideout has explained in the House the rationale and the reasoning behind the exemption, or not exempting. It had to do with the road system in place now, and the competition between the Island portion of the Province and Labrador. That is the reasoning and rationale that he set behind it, and that is what the government's position is on it now.

MS JONES: Who did government take their advice from? Because they didn't get it from Richard Cashin. He recommended something entirely different.

MR. SHELLEY: It is something government has considered from all sides, from the entire Province as a whole, and the entire industry. They had to, of course, make their judgement on that. Not everything from Mr. Cashin was accepted as a whole. These were things that we had to consider, and Minister Rideout's position has been stated clearly in the House in Question Period, as you know.

MS JONES: Did government solicit opinions from the union on that issue?

MR. SHELLEY: Minister Rideout, I am sure, can answer to that, where their opinions came from. I will reserve that question for Minister Rideout, and I am sure he will give you that answer. He can speak for himself.

MS JONES: The only thing, Minister, I would like to raise for your attention is, in this particular area of the Province, in my district right now, I know that I am going to have about 500 plant workers displaced from their jobs by the end of June. I know that most of them are not going to get any more than 200 hours of employment, maybe 250 hours of employment, in a fish plant. Last year was the same situation; this is nothing new. Last year was the first time; we had four plants close down overnight and these workers were all out of a job. Last year, the provincial government did put in place a crab worker program which helped them get through the next three to four weeks of operation. I know the same thing is going to happen this year. This year it may even be a little bit more serious in Labrador simply because the price of crab is way down, yet the price of fuel and bait and everything else is very high still, so the odds are that it is probably going to be, even if it could be, a worse situation this year than last year. I would like to ask your department to consider this under Labrador Affairs and to look at putting some initiatives in place to deal with the situation, because we know we are going to be faced with it come the first week in July.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the member, I understand and I know how serious it is going to be. It is going to be serious throughout the Province, not just in Labrador but on the Island portion also, what is facing us with the prices and so on and so forth. Those things will all be considered, I would say to the member. This fall, especially, we are going to be looking at initiatives that will help alleviate some of the stress on some of these communities, especially on the Coast of Labrador, so certainly those will be taken into consideration and we will make some decisions on it throughout the spring and into the summer, I would say.

MS JONES: Of course, cod workers are affected as well in the Gulf region. We will know, I guess, after tomorrow if there is going to be an increase in the cod quota. If there is, that will certainly help in a big way in that particular area of the Province, on the Southwest Coast and the Northern Peninsula and the southern end of the Labrador Straits. If not, of course, they are still in the same situation as well.

I would like to ask a couple of questions with regard to the Lower Churchill hydro project. Have you been engaged in that file, as the Minister Responsible for Labrador?

MR. SHELLEY: I am engaged to a point. Of course, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier have been taking a lead on that particular file, but, yes, I have been engaged to a point. As you know, we were in Labrador and had a very successful - I believe - open public forum which you attended, and that set the stage. As we make progress in developments on the file we will certainly be doing the consultations with people in Labrador and as we move the file forward.

I think we started off on the right foot with the meeting that we had in Goose Bay, and we will continue to update the people of Labrador as we progress with the file. That is the most I can tell you at this point.

MS JONES: Of course, I have a district that pays very high rates for electricity under a diesel-powered electrical source. I think right now commercial operators in my district are paying about nineteen cents a kilowatt hour versus maybe about eight cents a kilowatt hour on the Island and much, much cheaper in my colleague's district down here, probably at four cents to five cents a kilowatt hour. It is a huge difference and it is having a huge impact on the small business in the region. Right now, even when we talk about doing forestry development, it is almost impossible to think that you could have investors, when their overhead is so high, be able to produce anything in that region. I know that there are discussions around the Lower Churchill but my question is: Is there a commitment from the government to do an effective energy regime in Coastal Labrador, even in the absence of a Lower Churchill deal?

MR. SHELLEY: Well, as you know, the Energy Plan is being developed by the lead Department of Natural Resources on that file. Those are all things that are being considered in that Energy Plan. Certainly, everybody recognizes the need for a power source and for industrial development throughout Labrador, so those are all things being considered and, as the Energy Plan rolls out along with the potential development of the Churchill River, then, of course, those types of things will be addressed.

MS JONES: Well, we are just making an assumption that if there is a Lower Churchill deal we are going to have a power line and we are going to have cheaper power. My concern is, in the absence of a deal, making sure that we still have cheaper power and available power, whether it is in the form of a power line or some other form, you know.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS JONES: The Trans-Labrador Highway, I know that the government has already said they are prepared to commit $10 million a year over the next five years for a total of $50 million to do paving on Phase I of the highway, and that money would have to be matched by the federal government dollar for dollar, I understand?

MR. SHELLEY: Right, that is matching dollar for dollar with the feds. That is right.

MS JONES: If the feds do not come across with their money, are you still going to spend the $50 million?

MR. SHELLEY: Well, our plan is to match the federal government. We believe that is going to happen, so we do not plan to fail on that, and we hope that we can match dollar for dollar, and we will spend $50 million over the ten years which we plan to do.

MS JONES: So, are you expecting a response soon, then, from the federal government?

MR. SHELLEY: I would hope so. As a matter of fact, I do expect something pretty soon. As you know, the new government, in transition, has been settling down, going through their Throne Speech, I think, as early as tomorrow, so those points have been already raised with the various ministers now and I am looking forward to some answers, actually, very soon on that file.

MS JONES: Of course, you would know that Phase II of that would be my district -

MR. SHELLEY: That is right.

MS JONES: - which would take in from Red Bay North to Cartwright, which is all gravel road, and the Red Bay to Lodge Bay portion of the road, I think, will be six years old this year. I drove over it yesterday and -

MR. SHELLEY: How was it?

MS JONES: It was a rough ride but, you know, it is the spring of the year so you have a lot of runoff and you have the ice melting and all the rest of it, but a trip that normally takes me an hour took me two yesterday.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I can say to the member, just so you do not feel left out, I have gravel roads in my district and there were roads barred off today because of that very reason. It is the time of the year; it is soft and so on. I know it is tough. It is like a washboard driving over it. I can understand where you are coming from, put it that way.

MS JONES: I certainly accept that, and I know that they can't do anything about it until you get some of the water out of it and stuff.

I guess my question is: When do you see a plan being put forward by yourself or the government for Phase II, to look at paving?

MR. SHELLEY: If I were going to say some time now I would be guessing, to the member, but you do know we have the committee in place now, transportation and this committee. Those are the type of things we are looking at, time frames and so on, how we move forward. I think in the next couple of months, hopefully, and certainly into the fall, we will have a good idea of the time frames that we are looking at.

MS JONES: On the infrastructure fund, there has been a call in Labrador for a number of years to have a Labrador infrastructure fund. It used to exist under the federal government, of course. It was called the Labrador comprehensive development fund. It is not there any more, and there is still a lot of need for infrastructure in Labrador communities, especially in the communities that are non-Inuit, because they have a separate agreement with the feds.

MR. SHELLEY: Are you talking about the fund that was suggested one time through Labrador?

MS JONES: Yes.

I guess what I am asking is: Is there any consideration being put into setting up a Labrador infrastructure fund? I know that the government is continuing to sell recall power on the Upper Churchill. I know that you are making a profit; I think it was $48 million or $49 million this year. I am sure you will make that much in the next four years or more. I guess the request is: Is there any consideration being given? Because, this recall power was really there to be used in Labrador communities but, because there has not been an industry demand or there has not been a power line going into places like Goose Bay that you could actually wield that amount of power anyway, we have been unable to develop industry around it. I guess selling it was probably the smartest thing that we could do to make money.

Now that the government is in a better fiscal position than it ever has been, because of the price of oil, and we do not expect that is going to go down any time soon, I am asking that some real consideration be given to - and I think this is something that you should champion, as the Minister of Labrador Affairs - taking the money that is being earned, which is a clear profit to government right now, on recall power, and putting it into a Labrador infrastructure program, a fund whereby communities can access a portion of that money to match other federal-provincial shared agreements to do infrastructure work in their communities.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. Well, first of all, I have heard you make those comments before. As a matter of fact, I think at the forum you made the same suggestions.

MS JONES: Oh, absolutely.

MR. SHELLEY: I believe you did, yes.

MS JONES: I have told it to the Premier, to the Minister of Energy, all of them, and I don't think I have convinced any of them yet.

MR. SHELLEY: No, not at this point.

MS JONES: I am still working on it.

MR. SHELLEY: I know, and I know your point and well taken. As you said, throughout this Province there are a lot of infrastructure needs. I can tell the member this so you do know, we will stick with the - instead of speculating and so on, that $175 million has been now allocated for infrastructure in Labrador over the next four years. I think that is pretty substantial. It is certainly a step in the right direction. It is not going to address nearly the concerns at this point in time but it is certainly in that movement.

As far as a separate fund; no, there has been no consideration given to that. We are going to look at an infrastructure plan for the entire Province. Certainly, that will be all in consideration of that. I think the transportation initiative committee that is set up now will deal directly and focus in on Labrador initiatives and things that we can do in Labrador when it comes to infrastructure and transportation. I think the commitment is pretty evident in the last number of weeks and months in Labrador. I am very proud of that. I think we have answered many questions that were put to us from the forum when we were there months before that. So, we will continue to move ahead, understanding the needs, but at this time there is no consideration given for a separate fund for infrastructure, no.

MS JONES: I guess the only thing I would like to say in response to that, and it is not really a question, is the $170 million that is going to be committed over the next four years.

MR. SHELLEY: One hundred and seventy-five over four years.

MS JONES: It is about 70 per cent of what you are going to take in on recall power. We are still looking at about an $80 million surplus that is going to go into the government coffers that needs to be used.

The other point that I want to make is that the $170 million that is being spent, not $1 of it in a rural community in Labrador. It is all being spent - in how I define rural, okay. All that money is being spent in Labrador City and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. None of it, not one dime is being spent on the South Coast or the North Coast, which are the other twenty-three communities that are in Labrador.

The reason I am continuing to make this point is because I have communities in my district - Black Tickle is a prime example and I will just use that one - that have no clean drinking water. If they have to come up with 20 per cent of the money for capital infrastructure they will never, ever have clean drinking water because they cannot afford to do it. That is the reason we are so desperate. That is just one community, one example, and I have about ten of them in my district. They do not all have unsafe drinking water or water as bad as Black Tickle, but they do not have community water systems. So, they all have a need for that kind of service. I know, firsthand, that without some kind of a fund like this to help them, they are never going to be able to access that capital money. You can increase it in Municipal Affairs for ever and a day, $50 million for three years, $100 million for four years, whatever, they are never going to access that money because they do not have the 30 per cent, and this is a way to do it. So, I just have to stress that point because, although it is $170 million, it is being spent in two communities, and God love them, it needs to be spent but -

MR. SHELLEY: The Trans-Labrador Highway is between Cartwright and Goose Bay. That is -

MS JONES: Yes, but this money is still left in the Initiative Fund. You do not have all that spent yet.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Next year you will be able to (inaudible) that one.

MR. SHELLEY: That expires this year.

MS JONES: Yes. The $25 million is coming out of it though for this year.

MR. SHELLEY: Ten million left in it.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the member, there are many circumstances throughout this Province of what you just explained. Certainly, the government recognizes - I have them in my own district, small communities who cannot afford their 20 per cent. We are considering something to help alleviate that. We understand the circumstance of communities with out-migration, the numbers of taxpayers in these small communities who are moving out, and certainly no revenues coming in. So, that is something that is understood by government and something that we are looking at through Municipal Affairs.

MS JONES: The only other thing I want to comment on is this Labrador Transportation Committee that you have set up in Labrador. While I am all for having committees that will consult with people and will advise government, I am really wary that this is a process of procrastination more than anything else, and I will tell you why.

There are three studies that were released from the Department of Transportation that concern Labrador. One of them was on ferry rates. It was completed a year ago. It was in the Department of Transportation and Works and, I guess Labrador Affairs, for a year. Then it got released to the public. At the same time it got released, we had a Budget that jacked up ferry rates 5 per cent in my district. Okay? Then the minister says we are going to send this report out to a committee that I have just appointed to review and report back to us. Well, first of all, if that was the case, I do not think the rate should have been increased, to start with, until there was a review of the report. Secondly, I do not think it is necessary to have this committee deliberate over ferry rates for another year after it already had been in the department for a year.

The other study was on the configuration of marine services. The study was completed in May of 2004. It got released to the public about ten days ago, which is almost two years. It was with the policy division of Memorial University for eight months, from there it went to the Department of Transportation and Works for two years, and now they are sending it out to an appointed transportation committee in Labrador to review for another year. I have a problem with that stuff because after two years in a government department, being looked at by every single bureaucrat - and I guess your department as well, Labrador Affairs, you would have to critique it - and still no action on it, and now being told that it is going to be another year and this committee is going to do more consultation and so on and so forth. I really am wary about that stuff.

The third study was on a regional airport for my district, in which there would be six communities that would use one regional airport. The air services have been totally eroded in that area, because since the road went through it is not feasible to be landing on four or five different airports for any airline and make money.

It took three years for the consultant to do the study. It was in the department for almost a year after they submitted it. Now, no one can tell me why it took three years to do it, maybe you can help me because I do not know. I think I would have fired him somewhere along the line, but it took three years to do the study. I cannot find out how much it cost, no one can tell me that either, but now the study has been there for a year. They have reviewed it and again they are sending the study out to this new committee to review, which is going to take another year. They are telling me now that they have to do public consultations, which was done four years ago. The public consultations were completed so long ago that everybody has forgotten about it.

MR. SHELLEY: That is why we need to do them again.

MS JONES: That is the time it took to get the study. What is that?

MR. SHELLEY: That is why we need to do them again, they forgot about them.

MS JONES: The thing is, I am all for consultation but I really feel that the committee which has been set up, has been set up to take pressure off government, to field out these reports that have been in departments for up to two years in some cases with no action, and to just delay this whole process for another year, because I wanted some action on marine service rates for my district starting this season. It has been almost three years, and nothing. I am not going to get it for another year, but I did get the increase. That wasn't a problem, to increase it before the review, but not decrease it.

I would like for you to respond to that because I really do think that it is just an exercise in delaying any action, any spending and any decisions on those three issues in Labrador right now.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. I would like to say to the member, first of all, one of the suggestions or requests coming out of Labrador is for more consultations on the ground, especially -

MS JONES: Not on the regional airport study though.

MR. SHELLEY: - when we talk about transportation.

As far as the delay, the only thing I can say to the member is the approach I would take, if we are going to take on such a huge task, which it is, and to do it right, then it is not to do it quickly but to do it right over a longer period of time, to look at a longer run. We are talking about one more year with a committee that is on the ground, that everybody believes will do a good job of consulting and so on. I think it is worth that extra wait of one year, so we could have a good plan to move forward with. I think we will hear good things back with reports from the committee, and we are looking forward to it.

MS JONES: Well, hopefully, next year in the Estimates Committee I will not have to read that response back to you. I will have all that done and ready to move on.

MR. SHELLEY: You will have all that answered, that's right.

MS JONES: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister, because I am going to take my leave now. I do not have anything to do with Human Resources and Employment -

MR. SHELLEY: You can go.

MS JONES: - but I, certainly, thank you for your responses and your time, and also to thank Mr. Dutton for being here.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions on Labrador Affairs?

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes, I have a couple.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. R. COLLINS: I must say, though, Yvonne covered off a few of them.

I would like to start off first by just saying about the kilowatt hours, where Yvonne alluded to the price on the coast and the price here in St. John's, and how it is much cheaper in Labrador West. It is cheaper but we are not very happy with the fact that it is slowly climbing and will get to where everybody else is. I just want to say to the minister - and he knows, he lived there for seven or eight years, and one of his jobs was hauling around and filling up people's tanks.

MR. SHELLEY: That's right.

MR. R. COLLINS: So, he knows about the oil. I do not know about the electricity.

MR. SHELLEY: Not so much about electricity.

MR. R. COLLINS: But, you know, I gave the Minister of Natural Resources a couple of power bills. One from the place I have here in St. John's, where my son and his girlfriend and my wife happened to be out for a month, and I was here for most of the time. The amount with the four of us living in that house - I forget the price - the kilowatt hours that were burnt was 3,700 for a month. In my house in Labrador City, for the same period, with nobody in the house whatsoever, no hot water being used, no washers or dryers or stoves or anything like that, for the same period of time, with the door only being opened, probably, for two minutes a day with someone bringing in the mail, the kilowatt hours consumed at my residence in Lab City was 9,370. So, it was almost three times as much power consumed in a house that nobody was living in because the temperatures were so severe that the furnace just did not stop, and it is an electric furnace.

MR. SHELLEY: What months of the year was that, Randy?

MR. R. COLLINS: That was between December and January. That was an electric furnace that did not cut out for the entire period of time because of the weather. So everything is not always relative to price, it is also to consumption. I had a Ford, so I did not need to plug that in. So that wasn't burning electricity.

There is a relevance there, and I think it (inaudible) on government sometimes, because all they do it look at the price that you pay rather than the amount that you are required to use in order to live in cold environments.

I would like to ask the minister if he has had any involvement or any discussions with representatives of LabMag Iron Ore Project? What would the discussions have been, if he did?

MR. SHELLEY: No. The Minister of Natural Resources is taking the lead, totally, on that. He updates me on the file but he is dealing directly with that issue. I can only tell you, what you know already, that the prospects are looking very good. Actually, we are all hoping, I guess, that we will hear something on it fairly soon.

MR. R. COLLINS: Go back to the road. Yvonne alluded to the road there for the $15 million, hoping that the federal government will come on board with to jointly fund. They have committed to that during the election campaign. Hopefully, it will be soon enough for something to be done during this construction season, which at the best of times is short in Labrador.

I would also like to point out that the six years that the road has been open on the South Coast - and you said you have roads in your district. We have also had a gravel road between Lab West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the past twenty-four years now and there has been a lot of destruction on that. So, the sooner that is done - and I always say, when I talk about the chip seal - I mean, call it what it is. Never mind blacktop or hardtop, it is chip seal. I do not have a problem with that. It is used extensively on the Alaskan Highway. It is used in the Yukon.

MR. SHELLEY: That's right.

MR. R. COLLINS: It is used in a lot of places in Northern Canada and many people argue that it stands up better than traditional asphalt. So I think we should start calling it what it is rather than turning the cheek and saying: hardtop or blacktop, or something of that nature.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. From the response we had back from Labrador, a lot of people prefer it. I know it is a bit rougher to ride over, a better grip, and better in the winter and so on.

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes. It has worked out quite well, actually.

I would like to say to the minister also, seeing he is representing Labrador Affairs, when I talk about that road, I talk about putting the chip seal on from Lab West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. When John Hickey talks about it, he talks about putting it on from Goose Bay to Lab West. I am hoping that we will meet a happy medium and work at both ends toward the centre.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I think that is the plan.

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes. So, hopefully that will happen.

I want to take a different take on the committee. I am glad the committee is put in place, the transportation committee, and I know that, from my district, Mayor Jim Farrell is on that committee and he will certainly -

MR. SHELLEY: An excellent representative.

MR. R. COLLINS: - be a very knowledgeable and valuable contributor to anything that happens there, and I look forward to - I understand there is a meeting next week in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with the Minister of Transportation and the committee. I am hoping that they will get on and get some positive feedback and things will start to happen.

MR. SHELLEY: I am of the same view as you, by the way. I think we have a great committee there and I am looking forward to their deliberations over the next little while.

MR. R. COLLINS: I think they work well together.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. R. COLLINS: Could you tell me how much money from Labrador Affairs budget is spent directly in the Labrador West area, and what it would entail?

MR. SHELLEY: Break it down, you mean?

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I suppose we could break it down for you one bit at a time and give it back to you, but there are different programs that overlap, Randy, so we would have to break it down to tell you, but we could do that. We could break it down and give you percentages of what - because some programs overlap in Labrador West and in the east and on the coasts.

MR. R. COLLINS: Is it a lot of difficulty to do that?

MR. SHELLEY: I do not think it would be too hard to do that, would it?

MR. DUTTON: No. I guess as far as the regional breakdown on our budget, we have two offices, one here in Confederation Building and one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, so much of our expenses are related to the salaries and operating of those two offices. We also -

MR. R. COLLINS: I won't need to know that.

MR. DUTTON: We do not have a lot of programs because we are mostly developing policies; so, other than what money would be spent travelling back and forth to Labrador West, there would be very little. We have -

MR. R. COLLINS: That was the point of my question, because we have -

MR. DUTTON: Yes, we have miscellaneous grants that anybody in the region can apply to, but that is basically it.

MR. R. COLLINS: No, that was the point of my questions because, for the last number of years, since there has been a Labrador Affairs office, there is nothing that I could point to, you know, where I could see it tangible that something was done by Labrador Affairs.

MR. SHELLEY: No, because most of them do not. Basically, like Sean said, it is mostly policy but we do some miscellaneous grants. We could break those down. Of course, you have gotten your share of some of those but, for the most part, there is not a lot of funding comes from the department directly like that.

MR. R. COLLINS: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: We lobby, though, to get money for you through other departments, including my own.

MR. R. COLLINS: Well, that is good. Keep that up.

I do not have anything else, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Do any other members have questions related to Labrador Affairs?

If not, then the only subhead that is stand-alone in this department, as far as we are concerned tonight, would be subhead 2.1.02., and the other subheads would have to be considered when Mr. Rideout sits.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Aboriginal Affairs, and then 2.1.02. would be carried as part of that total.

I would ask the Clerk, then, to call 2.1.02.

CLERK: Subhead 2.1.02.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 2.1.02. be carried?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.1.02. carried.

CHAIR: Minister, we will move, I think, given that the next line behind you is the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing people, we are moving to Housing and then we will do the Human Resources aspect of it.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I think that is the plan.

CHAIR: Is that the plan?

We will move, then, to Housing on page 245.

Again, given that we are under a new department, I will ask for someone to move section 1.1.01.

MR. FRENCH: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. French.

Seconded by Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins will see action here, the other Mr. Collins, Mr. Felix Collins.

Minister, did you want to open with commentary on this one or did you want to proceed right to questions?

MR. SHELLEY: No, let's go right into Housing. I am ready to go right to it. We have our officials here with Housing. I am sure you know Mr. Simms and the other officials. Did you introduce yourself to them?

OFFICIAL: We did earlier.

MR. SHELLEY: That is fine. We are ready to go.

CHAIR: I guess Mr. Butler is going to carry the ball.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Minister, and your staff, for the opportunity.

To begin with, I do not have all that many questions, probably other people do, but I think I said it last year and it is worth repeating again this year: I don't know about every other district in the Province but we have a wonderful working relationship with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. You don't always get what you call for - you call on behalf of your constituents - but I have to say the staff there are always available, not only by phone but you can drop over to meet with them. I think that goes a long way and our constituents really appreciate that.

Just a few questions. The first one under the subheading 1.1.01., there is an amount of $5.5 million increase from last year, $9.65 million. I am just wondering. what is this particular increase? Is there a plan to invest in the creation of more affordable housing units to meet demands and needs and so on?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, there is $5.5 million. We do have a breakdown on it. Of course, there was a negotiated wage increase. Of course, that is across the board and we know that is a 3 per cent increase this year. We had some $823,000 towards increasing the heating cost. Gasoline cost another $100,000. We had a reduction in the municipal land sales of some $200,000. Then, of course, the poverty reduction one, which I wanted to highlight here tonight, too, the education incentives. I know when you get the Budget out sometimes you do not get the real feel for some of these incentives, initiatives, but I would just like to point those out tonight, and poverty reduction. The rent geared to base income now was on gross before. That is for people with employment living and housing. Now it is gone to net. That is a great incentive, by the way. We are getting good feedback on that, and it is going to help people a long way.

Fifty dollars a month, is that...?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) rental.

MR. SHELLEY: It works out to about $50 per month on rental.

Also, the education incentive - I would like to tell the member this because, again, you do not get it in the Budget sometimes - the education incentive is about people living in Housing in the Province now. If your children are in Levels II to IV, there is a $25 rebate for every child in Levels - so, you could have two children or three children, $25 per child would come off your rent. Also, on top of that, if the parents are in any post-secondary whatsoever, registered in any post-secondary, it is $25 for either one of the parents. For example, two parents - like, we have those circumstances - and two children in high school, that is $100 off the rent a month.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. If the children stay in high school and the parents are in a post-secondary, it is $25 for every person in that household. That has helped quite a bit, and it is great, because I know there are disincentives for people remaining employed and so on, and staying in school, so these are great incentives that work towards - it is $25 per child in Levels II to IV and $25 per any adult in that household who is in a post-secondary institution.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

MR. SHELLEY: Also, by the way, the biggest one, we can't forget, and you probably have questions coming on it so maybe I will go right into it because I am excited about this one also, the EnerGuide and the REEP, $2.9 million here. Of course, as far as the REEP program goes, the seminars had a great response. As a matter of fact, we have had to increase the seminars across the Province; we have had such a good response to it. Over 1,000 people so far, by the way, and they are great things to take. As a matter of fact, I am going to try to take in one myself, just to see how they are going, because there has been such a great response to them. We are doing them throughout the Province, of course, on saving energy. Then, a part of that incentive also are the meters, which, by the way, this Blue Line - is it Blue Line?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Blue Line has done right here in this Province. The meters go inside your household now, and it goes by cents and dollars, so every time a light goes on or a light goes off, the children or anyone in the household can see exactly how much energy you are burning. Surveys have shown, I guess, the research, that it is at least a 10 per cent decrease in your energy cost per household. So those meters are available free of charge.

OFFICIAL: No, $10.

MR. SHELLEY: Ten dollars, a nominal fee. They cost approximately $250.

OFFICIAL: Two hundred dollars.

MR. SHELLEY: These meters cost approximately $200. Actually, we did consider free; but, for a nominal fee of $10, people can have these meters in their homes.

MR. BUTLER: That is in your Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units, or anybody?

MR. SHELLEY: No, in general.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

OFFICIAL: You have to be - sorry, Minister.

MR. SHELLEY: Go ahead.

OFFICIAL: You have to be (inaudible) $30,000.

MR. SHELLEY: Sorry. Yes, $30,000 or low-income people, but they do not have to be in Housing. It is anybody with $30,000 or less that these meters are available for a nominal fee of $10.

Also, of course, in that same program with REEP is the furnace upgrading. You can have your furnace upgraded.

OFFICIAL: Furnace tested.

MR. SHELLEY: Furnace testing done for efficiencies and so on, so that program is really being well received. As a matter of fact, I would encourage all members to have a look at some of these seminars that are going around the Province. We may have to do more yet, maybe.

OFFICIAL: There are a couple more being done here in St. John's.

MR. SHELLEY: There are two more being done here in St. John's. We can certainly give you a schedule of where they were and so on, and let you know about those.

MR. BUTLER: The one with the meter, is there an application you pick up, or it is on-line, I guess, is it?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

Mr. Simms?

MR. SIMMS: Essentially, this is part of the bigger program, the provincial REEP program that was announced in November or December, I think it was, $6.9 million over the next four years. The biggest component of that was the $1,000 top-up at the invitation of the federal government, at the time, to put on to the EnerGuide Program that they announced at the same time. Regrettably, that has not proceeded yet. That is the reason there has been no application form, because we have to wait for the new federal government to -

MR. SHELLEY: Sign it off.

MR. SIMMS: - sign off on that former federal government's program. Once we get that, we are finished, we are ready - we have our arrangements and negotiations gone with CMHC - we are ready to go on-line with our application, but we cannot put it on-line until we get the other component of the EnerGuide Program. It is not much point in putting an application on for furnace testing only, or for the power meters only; we intend to do it all the one time.

MR. SHELLEY: That is $1,000 in top-ups (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Except for the seminars; we did go ahead with those.

MR. BUTLER: When we got your letter saying the applications would be available the last of January -

MR. SIMMS: That was the plan.

MR. BUTLER: I have about forty-five or fifty out there now constantly calling and saying: Where is my application?

MR. SHELLEY: I know. We are getting it too, actually, and it is really bothersome, but really it is just the sign-off. It is a technicality, as far as a minister signing off, but we are ready to roll.

MR. SIMMS: At the time that was announced, just shortly after that, the government fell, so that is what happened.

MR. BUTLER: What are the numbers like on the list now, waiting for the provincial repair program?

MR. SIMMS: PHRP, is it? About 3,000.

MR. SHELLEY: Three thousand, yes. I recall that number, yes, about 3,000, and that is back to 2003, right? We are still back to 2003. We are back to 2003, Roland, so we are doing it on a priority basis as they come in and so on, unless there is an extreme circumstance of health or a safety issue. Otherwise, we try to be fair to everybody. I am sure you can agree with that, that the corporation handles that very well, I think.

MR. BUTLER: That is down significantly from previous years, isn't it, down to 3,000?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it used to be 6,000 (inaudible) about five or six years ago.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, it is down to half. We have cut it in half. It has improved but, you know, it is still a big wait list.

MR. SIMMS: We are the only Province, by the way, that puts more into the PHRP program than we are supposed to under the original agreement of 75-25.

MR. SHELLEY: Now we are 50-50?

MR. SIMMS: We are 50-50, and we are the only Province that does that.

MR. BUTLER: The other thing, how many inspectors do you have? I guess when I ask the question, being a critic for this area, that is the problem I have with it. I am the critic for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, but Mr. Barrett looks after Labour and Mr. Langdon looks after Housing. That is the way it was divided up (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Break it up (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: For instance, how many inspectors are there? I guess I am asking a question in general for the greater Avalon area. How many inspectors do you have who go out and visit when the time comes? There cannot be that many of them now, is there?

MR. SIMMS: The PHRP program specifically?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: There are probably what, half a dozen?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) number.

MR. SIMMS: Three. Less than half a dozen for the Province maybe. No, more than that; there is one in each office. There are three for the Avalon region.

MR. BUTLER: I am not complaining, but lots of times you get people calling and I know it takes a while. I guess that is the reason why, if you only have three inspectors. They have to do some going if it is all the Avalon area, you know.

MR. SHELLEY: That is true, I agree with you, it is hard to spread that around. At the same time, with a 3,000 waiting list, the more is inspected the more the demand comes in and the more the line grows, I guess; but, you are right, there are times when you have to wait long to get an inspector there. I have heard that complaint myself.

MR. BUTLER: I will ask this one because I am going to ask this at every meeting I go to. I will ask it now because it might take in Housing, it might go to your general HRLE question.

MR. SHELLEY: Sure.

MR. BUTLER: In the Budget, it says the Province's public buildings are required regular investments to maximize the value of these properties. We will invest $8.5 million to maintain public buildings. This is the one I am interested in: Another $8 million to remediate or remove buildings as needed.

I am just wondering, are there any buildings under your scope, whether it be Housing or HRLE, are there any plans for building removal?

MR. SHELLEY: Building removal at the time?

MR. BUTLER: I am just wondering, because it is there. I do not know what department it is, so you would have to ask the question of every department when you get before them.

MR. SHELLEY: I cannot answer that right at this time, but I can certainly find out for you. Basically, right now we are into remediation and upgrading of the buildings we have.

MR. SIMMS: There are none for demolition or anything of that nature. The only incident we might have to face is Stephenville.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, the Stephenville circumstance where the flood area was. Otherwise, other than that, I am not aware, at this point anyway. I will ask my officials.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Nothing, no.

MR. BUTLER: The only other one was in the Auditor General's Report. This is just a short question, that was the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation Employee Computer Purchase Loan Program. I am only going on what the Auditor General said. I did not know anything about it until then. I guess the concerns that he had, that has been addressed, I take it?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I will answer that. I know that issue fairly well. Of course, the officials are here, too.

MR. BUTLER: First of all, has the issue been resolved?

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, absolutely! We have written back the Auditor General. I can tell you that the program has been in place since 1989. As a matter of fact, I was not aware of it until I came into the department. It has been on the go since 1989. It has worked really well. As a matter of fact, it has been looked at a few times but continued on because it has worked very well. What it was - what I understand, and you can correct me on this - is that it was an idea for people to take their computers home to get - of course, like I said, since 1989 - better at using the computer systems and so on; to learn them at home and so on. It was a loan program but they do pay it back. There were very little incidents. I think there was an incident of $290 or something in seventeen years, less than $1,000. That was the only thing that was not - but we corrected that. Otherwise, it has been working very well and there have been no problems with it whatsoever.

MR. SIMMS: I think the point of the criticism was that we had this program at the Housing Corporation and there are other agencies as well, Mr. Butler, that have a similar program. The central government itself does not have a similar program or benefit from it. I think that was the AG's criticism. It is not consistent with central government benefits.

MR. SHELLEY: But Housing has it since 1989. It has worked very well and it is continuing. Every loan has been paid back, like I said, up to - if I remember it right, it is $1 million now so far over the seventeen years that it has been in. Out of the $1 million, less than $1,000 there was a problem. That has been - yes, two items. Otherwise, it worked very well.

MR. BUTLER: No, I was just referencing where it said one senior official was terminated and two others were suspended.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is where we dealt with it and that was the only incident we had.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) shut it down.

MR. SHELLEY: In seventeen years, that was the only incident.

MR. BUTLER: Good.

The only other thing, and I guess this is not a question as such. I have, from time to time - and those gentlemen here know I call from time to time about this. In my area there are people who are looking for housing units. I think most of them that are in the Bay Roberts, Clarke's Beach, Carbonear or Harbour Grace area, a lot of them are three bedroom. People from time to time - and they are not being considered.

I know of one case, not even in my district. It is in Mr. Hedderson's district, but they call me as well as call him. There is this couple, and she is very ill and they are looking for a unit. Because there is only a three bedroom, they are not being considered. I can tell you, the place that they are in is not a very appropriate place to be, in the best of times, let alone if someone is sick. I guess there are no plans in the future that more units will be built in that area with single bedrooms, double bedrooms or anything like that, is there?

MR. SHELLEY: Actually, I am glad you raised the point because it is something I raised when I came into the department and noticed. We are doing a complete review of inventory and everything of the entire Housing Corporation right now. That is something that has come up. As a matter of fact, there is all the change in demographics. The fact of the matter is, all these units have been built over - what, the last forty years?

MR. SIMMS: Fifty.

MR. SHELLEY: Forty to fifty years, and they were all for bigger families, which we had in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were two, three and four bedroom units. We have a problem with that. So we are trying - of course, over time, I guess - to move those into one - which is the biggest demand for now - and two bedrooms. The fact of the matter is, that is where it all happened. In the last thirty to forty years they were all built for bigger families and so on. Now we have to try to move towards, of course, more efficient one bedroom and two bedroom, which are the demands.

Do you want to add any comment to that?

MR. SIMMS: I was just going to add - for information purposes, I guess - fifteen, eighteen years ago the demographics were such that 80 per cent of our needs were for families that required three or four bedrooms. Today, it is about 20 per cent in that category. Eighty percent of our needs now are for one and two bedroom units. We have not built a new unit - I mean, a new number of units or anything since 1989. I think that was the last time we built. There has been no funding for building brand new units.

We are doing a pilot project down on Froude Avenue, which involves a section of a building that had been vandalized several years ago. It is right next to the community centre, if you have ever been down to the Froude Avenue Community Centre. We are renovating that building to provide for two units, one on the bottom, one on top. The one on the top will be a two bedroom unit. There will be four of them in that row of houses. The bottom four will be accessible units, which is the other big demand that we see these days in needs for social housing.

That is a small, minor start. We will see how that works. That is a federal-provincial agreement. That tender should be called fairly soon, we think. We are just waiting, again, for the sign off. If that works we might be able to do some more work, but it is going to be on areas where houses come out under the devolution agreement, not in our existing portfolio that are recently built.

MR. SHELLEY: So it is recognized and noted. We realize that we have to do something with it.

MR. BUTLER: Those are the only questions I have. I guess there is nobody else here, so you can move right along.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions?

MR. BUTLER: Unless our friends behind us have something.

CHAIR: Minister, I am personally excited about that education motivation component with the housing.

MR. SHELLEY: That is a great one.

CHAIR: I am not sure how it is going to tie in if a person is not a client of Housing but is still very low income. Is that available to them as well?

MR. SHELLEY: It is only in Housing units.

CHAIR: I know that, but a person who is on social assistance or on income support but not in Housing.

MR. SIMMS: It will apply to them as well. What we are going to do is give them a bursary of sorts. We obviously cannot reduce their rent because their rent is paid by HRLE.

CHAIR: When is he putting this in? When is it going to be effective?

MR. SIMMS: It is effective now and we finalize the details on it today. Our Housing officers will be told tomorrow of the details. What will happen with the educational idea, the educational initiative, is recognize the fact that the problem is that a lot of kids do not stay in school who are in our units, our families, unfortunately. We are thinking this may be an incentive for both the parents, and maybe the children, to stay there because they will get a little bit of money back and that will be beneficial for them. It is effective now, but what they will do is at the end of each quarter - was it? We decided today, I think, each semester or whatever you wish to call it. They will bring in a letter from the school verifying, simply, that the child has been a full-time attendee at school, and so on and so forth. They will get a rebate, say, for the next three months. They will do it at the end of June and at the end of January. Those are the two times of the year. It is a great incentive.

CHAIR: It is something I have advocated for personally.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, you have.

CHAIR: I think it is forward looking. I think it is tremendous -

MR. SIMMS: Now, th other one -

CHAIR: - and education - pardon me, I know you are excited about it.

MR. SIMMS: I am, very, yes. Not only about that one but the other one, too.

CHAIR: Indeed, but education is the key, I think, to raising and changing poverty in the Province.

MR. SIMMS: Absolutely!

The other one, Mr. Chairman, just to elaborate quickly on, is the rental incentive that the minister referred to. That is there to encourage people to work because if they are working families then they are going to benefit more because they will get the break. It might encourage the people next door to go out and work.

CHAIR: I think it is all going to make a big difference. Once people get their heads around it, I think it is going to make a tremendous difference.

MR. SHELLEY: Do not forget the points on the these poverty reduction initiatives. They came from all these consultation processes. These were people who were actually living in poverty who said: Listen, it might not sound like a lot to some people but this would mean a lot to me.

CHAIR: A lot of money.

MR. SHELLEY: It all connects back to the initiatives and the incentive to go to work.

CHAIR: Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, if there are no further questions we will clean this whole subhead, heading and the whole works up in one swoop and then we are done with it.

I will ask the Clerk to call the subhead.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Department of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation carried without amendment.

MR. SHELLEY: I would just like to say before - I am closing that, by the way, and I agree with Roland. I mean, I have been dealing with them over the years, too, the corporation. It has gotten better and it has improved. The biggest thing is that complaints have dropped and we have gone, in the repair program now, from 6,000 on a list to 3,000. We have cut it in half and we are still working on those. So, there are improvements there.

I want to thank the officials. Thank you.

CHAIR: I thank the officials.

We will return, then, to the Human Resources, Labour and Employment category and we will deal with the last group or the back row. I guess we can move them up, minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: They say the last shall be first.

CHAIR: Move up the backbenchers. What a great idea.

MR. SHELLEY: The last shall be first, yes.

CHAIR: We are on page, what, 203?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

I will just make a couple of opening remarks on this one.

CHAIR: Okay. Should we call the subhead first?

CLERK: I think you did, 1.1.01.

CHAIR: We did it already?

CLERK: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, we are done. So we can carry on? Okay, very good.

Minister, carry on.

MR. SHELLEY: I just want to make a couple of comments on this one, just to open it up but I will not keep it long.

Of the poverty reduction initiatives - of course, there are some major initiatives. I think one of the key ones was the 5 per cent increase in the amount. Just to give you a comparison - whenever you say a percentage, you do not really take into account until you compare it to something. This was a 5 per cent increase this year. It is the biggest increase ever in a one-time, one-year increase. But to put it into perspective, over the last fifteen years, in nine of those years there was no increase whatsoever and six of those years, out of the fifteen, there has been less than a percent - .75 per cent, if I want to go by the Minister of Finance's numbers. About less than a percent of an increase in the six of the fifteen years, no increase in nine years. I know a lot of times people say how much you have increased it, but until you compare it to what went on - I am really pleased with that 5 per cent increase. It has been the biggest in one shot.

What a lot of people - I found there were comments from some people who sort of criticized it, I guess, is that they are forgetting about the indexing, which I think is even bigger. In the next six years there will be indexing for six years straight, which averages out now, with the consumer price index, of approximately 3 per cent a year. So, a 5 per cent increase now, 3 per cent for the next six years, that is 18 per cent. That is a 23 per cent increase in income support rates in the next six years. I believe that is pretty significant. Is it enough? It is never going to be enough when it comes to some of these people who live in these circumstances, they will tell you, but I think it is a step in the right direction. I just want to make that point in opening it up tonight. It is one of the biggest initiatives for us in this department, the 5 per cent, but keep in mind the indexing. That was a big part of the initiative, and there are some other great initiatives in here that are similar to the Housing ones, which sound like small amounts but they mean a lot to these people.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am willing and ready to move on now to the questions of the committee.

CHAIR: I am not sure if you wanted to start with some opening comments or just go right on to the questions?

MR. BUTLER: Go right into, sir.

CHAIR: Give it to her.

MR. BUTLER: A lot of the ones I have here now is like that program that used to be on, Reach for the Top. They are snappers. You get on the air and (inaudible).

CHAIR: Short snappers.

MR. BUTLER: I have quite a few questions here and you might say some of them, probably, go back - I know some of them go back before your time becoming the minister and things like that.

MR. SHELLEY: Sure, yes. Fair enough.

MR. BUTLER: Just to begin: Are there any plans to open any of the HRLE offices that were closed?

MR. SHELLEY: No.

MR. BUTLER: I told you they were snappers, didn't I?

MR. SHELLEY: No, no. That is fair enough, but I am dwelling on the comment. I do not mean to be curt on answering.

This was a long process and there was a lot of thinking that went by your Administration and discussions went on for a number of years, from my understanding. I have been in this department for four years but I know what the previous minister went through and so on. I just want to make this comment: No, there are no plans to reopen any of those offices. But I will say this to you - and this is something that I found out firsthand because I went through the offices. The West Coast were the first people who put this new delivery system in place. Yes, when you go through a transition of changes there are differences, but the goal which your Administration started and we continued on with, is to put more focus and emphasis on career and youth development, career services and youth. That is exactly what it has done. It has proven that on the West Coast. Basically, the actual getting in to check and the efficiencies with the computer systems now and the telephone systems we have, CAPs and so on, it works very well.

As a matter of fact, I believe these are the numbers - now, you can correct me, officials - 90 per cent of the people for income support now use that system. They do not want to come into the office. I can tell you, I know a lot of people on that system. I know them firsthand. They do not want to go and talk. They do not like the stigma of going into the office. We have it now - as a matter of fact, it is so far advanced on the West Coast now that - also for Brail and hard of hearing. Those are all available now and they are delighted with it. We have had surveys done on the West Coast because they have had it the longest. They certainly like it, that they can avail of the income support and actually applying online.

As far as youth services, now in the offices there is more emphasis on Career, Employment and Youth Services, CEYS they call it. That has been working quite well, too. I understand that on the East Coast here now it is basically progressing. Our new office is about to open here. I might be answering some of the questions you are about to ask, but the new offices are about to open now. We are going to see - I am quite confident now, after what we have seen on the West Coast, because they are certainly a year ahead of us.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: At least a year ahead of us and other parts of the Province. We are getting these results back from the clients as well as frontline workers. They are quite satisfied with it, the fact that it is much more efficient, and they do not have to walk into an office and go through that stigmatization, I guess. I am pleased with how it is working so far.

MR. BUTLER: I agree with you, Minister, to a certain degree, but then I go back - and I wasn't going to start here - to the Auditor General's report again, where he stated the department - and I agree with you, it started with the former Administration. To me, two wrongs don't make a right.

MR. SHELLEY: No, fair enough.

MR. BUTLER: The department made the requirement for home visits discretionary in the mid-1990s because they determined that home visits did not add significant value to ensuring that only eligible clients actually received benefits.

Where I am coming from there, I really believe, back at that time, and I am not saying you have to go back to that, but I believe that at the time when the workers did do home visits there was less abuse in the system; they knew the people they were dealing with.

Why I am bringing that up, the office closed in Bay Roberts and that was a disappointment. Nobody wants to lose an office. They moved to Carbonear, where most of their services were provided from. All of a sudden, you get a call from a worker. Some of them could not get there for various reasons, they did not have vehicles and what have you, but it was not that far away. Then, all of a sudden, you get a call from a client, you call down and no, that is transferred now to Placentia. Now the workers who are dealing with them are out in Placentia. Now, only recently, you get calls from them again and say now, my God, they are dealing with me in St. John's.

My question, Minister, and the concern that I have, is: If someone is dealing with a client of mine from St. John's or Placentia, they do not know them. I am going to tell you, there are some weird and wonderful things happening out there. I believe that the old system - not saying you should go back to it. Technology, like you said, people want to use that system, 90 per cent of them or what have you, but there are times when some of those people, for various reasons, cannot handle themselves on the phone. I am not talking about them all now, maybe 5 or 10 per cent, but still. They liked to go in. They used to go in and meet with their worker, and they had the greatest respect for their worker and so on, but that is gone and a lot of them have concerns about that.

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, I want to say this to you: If that is happening, where they are being bumped out to St. John's now, or Placentia or whatever, it is only in this transitional phase. As that system goes in place and the workers are trained, and all the training is done, which is ongoing right now - as a matter of fact, I visited the Carbonear office and spoke to every single staff, asked them what their job was, what they were doing and how it was coming along. They talked about the changeover, and sometimes calls would get bumped on, or so on, but I can tell the member that I think that will settle down so that should not happen.

On the second point, I will say this to you: Yes, there is that personal contact sometimes and that can still happen. We have liaison workers, liaison social workers, who were put in place to deal with people who want that service. You are right, it is a small percentage. I do not know if it is 5 per cent to 10 per cent, but it is certainly a small per cent of people who want that personal contact. Certainly, they can come into the office for career services and so on, but also there will be liaison social workers who will, if need be, deal with people on a one-on-one basis. Over time, that will be available, too, as the system becomes more efficient.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The savings, was there much saving from closing the twenty officer per se?

MR. SHELLEY: Overall, in savings - pardon?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It wasn't much. It was pretty well levelled off, so that wasn't the reason for it. It was the efficiencies. The biggest focus of all was because - there weren't a lot of savings because we transferred it into career and youth services, job opportunities, job training. I can go through dozens of initiatives that were focused on career and getting people back to work. That is where the focus was. There have not been a lot of savings, but there has been a shift in - I will simplify it for you - the fact that the efficiency now of the program for income support, in other words getting the cheque, is quite easy. It takes very little time. Computers (inaudible) programs and so on. Now, less manpower per se is used on that. No savings were taken from closing down the office but now the focus has gone back on career development and youth services. It has been a shift from being more efficient and getting cheques out as opposed to working with people on getting people back to work.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Mr. Butler.

I understand downstairs they are having some problem identifying speakers. At this point here it is simply Mr. Butler and the minister, but if there is a new speaker would you just mention your name before you begin to give an answer?

Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: Do you have to do many cheques manually now with the new system in place or is that totally gone by the wayside?

MR. PENNEY: We still do some manual cheques but -

CHAIR: Mr. Penney.

MR. PENNEY: Sorry.

Wayne Penney, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

We still do some, but very minimally.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other question I have, if you would explain to me the type of system that is in place for an on-call worker, like whether it is in the evenings or on a weekend.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

MR. PENNEY: We have staff in place. Staff do it on a rotational basis. After normal working hours, staff are available through an on-call number. I do not know how many staff in total are involved in that, but I suspect there are ten or a dozen who actually take turns doing the on-call and we reimburse them accordingly.

MR. BUTLER: I will tell you why I asked you that. I had a particular incident, maybe about three weeks ago, and the gentleman found out, I think it was on a Wednesday, that he had to come into St. John's on Monday and then come back again on Tuesday for surgery. He called his office in Carbonear on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and was unable to get a hold of his regular worker. He didn't call me up to that point in time. Now, you know when he called me; he called me on a Saturday. The office was closed.

I said, the only thing I can do is call an on-call worker. He said, I spoke with them and they told me there is nothing they could do for me and I had to call back to my regular worker Monday morning, but I have to be in St. John's 8:30 a.m. and they are not going to be in the office. If they are, there are only going to be there while I get in St. John's.

The situation was transportation cost for him. I called the on-call worker and it was no time after that when they called him back and said yes, we will look after you on Monday morning but now you have to call your on-call worker to take care of you on Tuesday, and that is understandable.

I am just wondering why the breakdown. Why did I have to call and he didn't get that response?

MR. SHELLEY: I am going to make a comment first. I will make this comment first: Three days, that is too much. I would say to the member, any time you get a circumstance like this, I would like for you to get it to the department.

MR. BUTLER: I didn't know about it until (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no, but if you do, because what I am saying is, I don't think that should happen. I will get a specific answer as to why it would take three days, but I wouldn't think that it would take three days to get an on-call worker. If it did, it would be an unusual circumstance.

MR. PENNEY: Just to clarify, Mr. Butler, as I understand it, it took three days for the client to get hold of their regular worker? He could not get hold to him?

MR. BUTLER: He told me, when he got word from the hospital, he called them on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Whether he got a message manager or call back again or whatever, he could not get any response, but he called me on Saturday.

MR. PENNEY: Yes.

Not to divert away from your question, but with the new service delivery model that we are introducing that will not happen in the sense that we will have a group of staff - a client will not have to get hold to a worker, so when they call there will be no message managers or voice mail. They will get real people and be able to respond.

MR. BUTLER: Thank God!

MR. SHELLEY: I want to make this point. The last thing he said is important, that they will be able to respond. With the computer systems, he will not need to get his own specific worker. That person on call, at the flick of a switch, basically, can have all of that information and give him the service that he needs.

MR. BUTLER: I am all for this new system, if that is what it comes down to.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Where I used to get ticked off with it, and disappointed into it, when the office was in Bay Roberts there was no such a thing. The same workers moved to Carbonear. It has nothing to do with your staff, let me assure you, but when they were in Bay Roberts you make that call and within half an hour or that afternoon they were back to you. They moved into Carbonear, I guess, a bigger set-up, a bigger area, and the lines were blocked, their message managers were full, and that type of thing. If the system that you are talking about is going to be like that, no doubt that is going to be a good system.

MR. SHELLEY: It is. That is the plan.

MR. BUTLER: The other one, the appeal procedure - like, for instance, if anyone has to go to an appeal - I know there are two levels. The first one is the review, I think it is called, and then it is the Social Assistance Appeals Board. That is that name change, right?

MR. SHELLEY: Internal review and then appeals board, yes.

MR. BUTLER: I always thought there was a fairly quick turnaround. Then, again, when you hear a particular case and someone calls you and says, I appealed three or four weeks ago and I am still waiting for a reply. Then I call the regional office and they call me back and say that it is gone to St. John's for about two weeks. I call in to Mrs. Sampson, I think her name is, Sharon Sampson - and, by the way, I am not complaining about any of the workers, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want one thing said to any of them because they are all darn good workers - she said: Mr. Butler, I am sorry, I don't have anything on it. So, she said, I will call back to the office in Carbonear, which she did, and when she called me back she said: I only got it yesterday.

Here I come back again. I say, I know those workers. I have worked with them since 1989, when I was an executive assistant, and I was thinking, this new system, this is not working very good if there is a breakdown and some poor bugger is waiting for his appeal to come thought over a month, back and forth.

Probably that is not the case, again, but I am just wondering, have you had any major problems like that, or any other...?

MR. SHELLEY: I want to make a comment on that. First of all, that would be very unusual for that long. I have not heard that long unless it is a particular case. If you can get us some particulars we will certainly check it out and investigate it for you.

MR. BUTLER: I can give you the name; that is not a problem.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and we will check it out. It is the longest I have heard of, and the officials have been here a lot longer than I have, but is that very unusual?

I want to make this comment, though. I can tell you, again, from the West Coast, because they a year ahead, I went out on the ground out there and met will all the officials, the people on the front line, went through this, and I have been told by the people sitting at the desk and using this new system, who have been in this department for years, saying that now they are decreasing the number of appeals because they have actually corrected it - and no need for any further appeal - within minutes of being on that computer system that is in place now, because the information was corrected at the touch a button. Again, they went back and they are actually getting to a point now where they can do appeals within minutes, or certainly hours. It is very quick, and as this system moves in through the Avalon and in through Central, I am hopeful and I am pretty confident that we are going to see much, much shorter time for appeals. That is one of the benefits, as a matter of fact, of this new system, that appeals will be much shorter and much more effectively handled.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler, before you go on, did you want to finish up and then we will switch to Mr. Collins, or did you want to switch and refuel?

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You can go on, it doesn't matter.

MR. BUTLER: I have three or four here and then I will go to Randy. Then I will do the other few, if that's okay, Randy.

MR. SHELLEY: Whatever you want to do.

MR. BUTLER: The figure we have heard, I know it was in the Throne Speech and we have heard it since then, I think 47 per cent of new entrants into the system last year were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. I was just wondering, do you have a breakdown of what regions, or are they all about equal, what percentage would be for - is it any particular area? Would it be the greater St. John's area or out in the outports?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't have it at my fingertips. I don't know if you are going to comment on it, but we could certainly break that down region by region. The only stat we have is that 47 per cent of the new entrants are youth age.

MR. BUTLER: The other question I wanted to ask to go along with that, because, I guess, when you are in the system - I have not been there that long, but thirteen or fourteen years dealing with constituency work - I know there are a lot of people who call me, and probably their grandfather was in the system, the parents were in the system, and I am just wondering what percentage. Is this new people, just drop-outs from school, or is it a continuation? You know where I am coming from. I know, with all of the plans you are bringing in, you are trying to stop that anyway by different ways.

MR. SHELLEY: That is the whole idea.

MR. BUTLER: I am just wondering, those figures that are there now - because I had stats and I thought it said that in 2001 there was 45 per cent in that bracket and now there is 47 per cent. I know that is not a major increase but still I am just wondering, is it a continuation? If it is - not only through your Administration, Minister; I don't mean it that way. I don't care who it was -

MR. SHELLEY: No, no.

MR. BUTLER: - even the people who were there in the past. If that is continuing on, I am wondering where the problem is, or where it is stemming from.

MR. SHELLEY: I can't give you a direct answer on that, only to say that historically it has been around that amount, from what I remember seeing in stats, that 45 per cent, 46 per cent, 47 per cent of them are between eighteen and twenty-nine. A lot of them, remember, are up in the age bracket of twenty-five to twenty-nine. A lot of times, the historical data will show you that there is a continuation of a family. There is no break in the cycle. That is what this whole poverty reduction strategy is all about, a breaking in the cycle. That is why so much of the emphasis on what we are doing is on the education part of poverty reduction, because education is the key to breaking that child coming up from that poverty situation - because it is - into going on to get a job, and that is education and training.

I will say something to you on that point, that skilled trades, and the shortage of skilled trades in the Province, and the initiatives that we put into this particular budget, will lend to that. The fact that people from low-income families may not be able to afford or consider coming into St. John's from wherever in this Province to go to Memorial University for five years and have a $60,000 loan, but can they consider going into a place like the Baie Verte College, St. Anthony or wherever in this Province and do a one-year course in plumbing, which they are in desperate need of now? Yes, they can. That is why people on income support - right now, families on income support - see a real opportunity in a funny sort of way, an opportunity to not only finish high school, which we are trying to do through initiatives, incentives and so on, but to go on and do a course, do a secondary trades course in this Province.

It all comes together; that is why it has to be a comprehensive plan on poverty reduction. It is not just one department. Seven departments are involved in this poverty initiative.

MR. BUTLER: Like you said, they can call in when the system gets going. Would that be a toll-free number for them, from outlying areas?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. The other thing: Is there an increase or a decrease overall of entrants into the system, not just that age bracket but an overall picture from one year to another?

MR. SHELLEY: It has decreased, way down. It is 10,000 in the last - how many years?

OFFICIAL: It went from 36,000 at a peak back in 1996 -

MR. SHELLEY: Ten years ago.

OFFICIAL: - and last month it was 27,000.

MR. SHELLEY: We are down 10,000 in ten years. Keep it in mind and tying it all together again, 3,000 people a year on income support go into jobs per year. Now, retaining them and so on is another statistic, but I just thought I would let you know that anyway.

MR. BUTLER: Hopefully, they are not all left the Province and that is why it is (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That's right.

MR. BUTLER: You mentioned just now, minister, I think probably in your opening comments, and I have to agree with you, with regards to - when your announcements were made, what people were saying. Some people probably said it is still not enough, whereas you heard other people on the Open Line show, you are giving them too much. You are never going to get them out of the system by giving them this money. That is fair play. I know where those people are coming from because, no doubt, there are people in the system that probably should not be there.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: A lot of those people have no choice but be there. I have them in my constituency, and I am sure we all have. I think it is wonderful to give them the 5 per cent increase, plus indexing it. With your other plans, hopefully, we will bring the numbers down beyond where they are. By doing so, the ones who are there and have no means of getting away from it, things will get better for them and they will get up above the line.

My other question, you mentioned poverty. I do not know if there is such a figure or not. I understand - and you might say you are as stunned as a bat by asking this question. I know there are so many factors that come into play when you talk about poverty, whether it is education - and I can see education being a major one because if you go on to post-secondary, you go out to work and you are making good bucks anyway, and you are moving out of the system. Is there a figure that is used to say that this person is above or below the poverty line? A dollar value, I am trying to say. You can talk about education, you can talk about housing and all of this, but if someone is living in poverty - I look at the money they have in their pocket, and how are they going to get more money? To me, if someone is on social assistance and the poverty line is way up here, they are going to have to get a lot of increases to get out of that system, even though you can put them in a new house - if you train them, sure, but the ones I am talking about that are in the system. Are there many there? It is going to be a job to get above this poverty line when you look at the dollar value of it.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. The officials will comment, too. I will make this comment. I have been looking at this LICO. You have probably heard it a number of times now, Low Income Cut Off. That is what Stats Canada uses, it is called LICO. It is a statistic that basically branches people into a poverty level. What it has to do with, if I remember the note right, is 20 per cent or more of your income goes towards basic food and shelter, compared to an average family. To be honest with you, UNICEF - if I remember some notes I read just a while ago - has criticized the Canadian government for using LICO to define poverty.

There are stats - and you said it right at the beginning, Roland, by the way. There are so many ways to describe this. I do not think any one stat can describe poverty. The only way I answered that the other day, and I still use it, is that poverty can only be defined by the person who is in it. Everybody has their story and everyone is different, whether it is disabilities, whether it is the history of your family and so on.

What we are trying to do with this poverty reduction strategy is recognize different families and different circumstances, whether it is lack of education, whether it is disabilities, whether it is a history of income support and staying on it and so on, and to try to help them, first of all, in the circumstance they are in. That is why I want to make the comment about the 5 per cent. I have heard those arguments on Open Line, that we should not be giving it to them. Listen, until you walk in those shoes it is hard to understand it. I have no problem, as a minister, saying that they deserve at least that 5 per cent, and more if we could give it to them at this time. That is what we did with the 5 per cent on the indexing. There are tough circumstances. Keep in mind this - this is one stat I will use over and over - 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the people on income support in this Province will probably never be able to come out of it. They will never be able to come off income support, but there are another 40 per cent or 50 per cent who have the possibility and potential to come off income support. The 5 per cent indexing is for the people who definitely will not come off, and they have their circumstances. They do not choose to be in poverty. They are there and we are going to help as much as we can. It is not a big increase, they will tell you.

At the same time, we have these initiatives for people who have potential and want a hand up. The eleven students that I sat with the other day down there, the eleven people who were basically living on the street, we helped them with this small program, a twelve-week program, and they are all going to work. They are excited about it. They have confidence and so on. There are two schools of thought on it, I agree. I hear people saying different things but we are going to try to help the people who are stuck, to a point, on income support. At the same time, helping the people who have potential to move on. We are going to try to make sure the initiatives are in place to move them on.

MR. BUTLER: Just to go back to that, I think the former minister stated one time - and maybe it was in some documentation that was printed - that by 2010 we are hoping to be the lowest Province in the country when it comes to poverty.

MR. SHELLEY: No, I will just make a slight correction on that. What it was, we said - and we are sticking to it, and I am sticking to it - once we release and move into these initiatives, which is now, in our poverty reduction strategy which will be released in June, in ten years we hope to come from the highest rate of poverty in this country to the lowest.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. That comes to my question -

MR. R. COLLINS: The (inaudible) government said that 1988.

MR. SHELLEY: Right, and this is our first year. All I can say is this is a substantial step, I believe. Now what comes in ten years from now, I guess history will have to write that book.

MR. BUTLER: I commend you for that, but what I am wondering, when the ten years is over - this is what I cannot get a grasp around. The people who are there now, what level will they have to be at in ten years for us to say: Look, we do not have anybody living in poverty in this Province? I don't know if there is a dollar value that I have to put on it or what, but how do I determine? My next door neighbour, who is probably sometimes making, at seasonal work, $18,000, $20,000, $21,000, to me, if you listen to the stats, he is probably living in poverty now and he has a half decent house. What I am wondering is, what has to happen for someone to look at him and say: Boy, you're above the poverty line. You're not living in poverty anymore. Do you know what I am saying?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I know it is difficult to answer and probably -

MR. SHELLEY: It is more than difficult, it is impossible to answer, and I will be frank about it. The circumstances are going to change, the economy is going to change. There are so many factors. I will say to the member - that is why I will go back to a statement I made earlier. To define poverty you have to talk to the person who is living in poverty. If they feel comfortable - some people are comfortable with a $20,000 income and they can manage that. They may not have any children home. That may be a good circumstance for them, but we are talking about poverty when you cannot afford to pay your light bill, when you cannot afford to put a decent meal on your table. So, you cannot define that. Can there be a number or a stat?

Something else that UNICEF said, UNICEF said that Canada was spending too much time defining poverty instead of attacking it. I do not believe any stats anymore. I do not see where it is.

MR. R. COLLINS: Declare war on it, it will be over in a day.

MR. BUTLER: I thank you for your answer, but if there is problem to define, I am wondering: How do we know when we are out if it? But I will leave that -

MR. SHELLEY: I guess you will have to ask the people who are living in it now, and not to be -

MR. BUTLER: Randy, do you have a few questions? I will give you -

CHAIR: Mr. Collins, before you move on, we were talking about the 5 per cent raise. Last year, I think, one of the officials gave me a figure that a 1 per cent raise in income support rates means this many dollars.

MR. SHELLEY: One million.

CHAIR: One percent is $1 million.

MR. SHELLEY: For every percent increase, it is approximately - Minister Sullivan again - $1.1 million is every percent raise, approximately.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you.

Roland, your conversation was interesting, talking about poverty. If you remember, the federal government passed a unanimous resolution -

MR. SHELLEY: I remember.

MR. R. COLLINS: - in 1988, that child poverty would be eliminated by the year 2000, I think. I do not think there is a great deal of difference. The reference I made to declare war on poverty is what some groups have said because once you use these words, there is no object with money, it automatically flows.

MR. SHELLEY: It is supposed to.

MR. R. COLLINS: There are people who have said that.

I want to ask the minister - first of all, I would like to just commend you on the staff in the Labrador West office in Wabush. They are an excellent group of people who are very professional. From the interventions that I have had on behalf of people, people may experience problems from time to time but it is not in the manner that they are dealt with or anything else, it is the regulations, the rules and everything else - which, I must say, the people are quite helpful in trying to assist them and help them through.

I want to say to the minister, when we talk about poverty, one of the things that seems obvious to me is - Roland was trying to get a definition on poverty. Like I say, that varies so greatly -

MR. SHELLEY: It is hard to do.

MR. R. COLLINS: - because you can be making $40,000 a year and be in poverty if you have a medical situation where most of your money is going to purchase a drug that you do not have coverage for, and everything else has taken second place to that.

Does the minister feel that there is enough incentive for people in this Province, who are not minimum wage earners, who are not on income support but are going to work each day for $10, $12 an hour, but it would make more sense, financially, for them to quit their work, go on income support in order to get a drug card, in order to get a lot of the things they need that their wage cannot allow them to do, simply because they have to spend a majority of the money they make on things that they did not bring on themselves?

MR. SHELLEY: Absolutely! As a matter of fact - I guess you have been (inaudible) the program that we just brought in. Just to give you a specific - one example that always keeps coming back to me, a single mother, did not want income support, found a job - if I remember the numbers - $9.25 an hour. She thought she was doing pretty good. She did not want to raise her children on income support; two children. I forget what diseases, but a lot of drugs. Anyway, $850 a month for prescription drugs. She went to work and realized she was going to lose her drug card. No choice, she had to quit her job and go back on income support so she could get the drug card.

As you know, with this new initiative under Health and Community Services, the drug card now would be under co-payment, available to a threshold now of $30,000. Ninety-seven thousand new people will be able to avail of the drug prescription plan.

That is one of the things - as a matter of fact, I think of all the things that we have done in these initiatives, that is probably the biggest. By the way, throughout the entire consultation process and all the submissions, that was stated as pretty well number one, the biggest disincentive for going to work, for the working poor. Anybody under $30,000 can now avail of - anywhere, and it is a sliding scale of co-pay from 20 per cent to 70 per cent.

MR. R. COLLINS: Right now, at $30,000, a person would have to pay 70 per cent of their drug costs under the new system?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is the max.

MR. R. COLLINS: Yes, 70 per cent, which, I must say, is an improvement over what was in place. My fear is that if we are talking catastrophic drugs, for example, 70 per cent is still a very, very costly venture.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will say this to the member on that note. I mean, we started with this. I would like to go higher, $40,000 and less co-pay and so on, and we may get to that because remember, these initiatives are going to continue to be monitored. This is our first hit at this prescription drug program and we are going to monitor circumstances like that. At the same time, we are going to continue these consultations to get a review of what is happening with this whole program. I guess over a year, or two years, we will start to see what circumstances arise and where we can go because we are going to continue to build on this strategy over ten years. I guess to say to the member that a year from now or two years from now we may be looking at increasing or improving on that, but this is the first kick at it.

MR. R. COLLINS: People who have - I will use MS for an example. If they are making, say $50,000 a year, and the drugs - what circumstances would income support help out someone who is making $50,000 a year gross, whose drugs cost $2,400 a month? Is there a trigger that sets off when they can receive help from income support?

MR. SHELLEY: A specific circumstance like that, I guess you would take each specific case and look at it, and if it balances out that they actually need the help -

OFFICIAL: But, that case, just to be clear, would not likely qualify under the current income support program.

MR. SHELLEY: No, but I know what you are getting at. It is the working poor situation again.

MR. R. COLLINS: Exactly, and by medical rather than by choice.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I can tell you this - as you have already heard statements, that we have started this. I agree, and they are good examples you are putting forward. As we move forward with this initiative we are going to have to look at those things. We have already made statements that next year's budget - this year was towards poverty reduction and so on, but next year the budget is to focus more on the middle income and, of course, the working poor people. That is something we will have to look at. Yes, definitely.

MR. R. COLLINS: We are talking about a number of people on an income support level who will probably never come off income support, no matter what a department does.

MR. SHELLEY: That is right.

MR. R. COLLINS: That could be for a whole variety of reasons, like disabilities, persons with disabilities, mentally or physically. There are other things as well.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. R. COLLINS: For a single person living at home, a 5 per cent increase does not represent very much. We will play on percentages. Percentages work great for people in higher incomes but for people in lower incomes, percentages might sound all right in a presentation but when you work out the dollar figure it probably is dollars in the single digits.

MR. SHELLEY: You are right.

MR. R. COLLINS: What hope is there for someone like that in the future?

MR. SHELLEY: I will make two comments. First of all, remember 5 per cent will be around $25 to $28 a month. You are right, it is not very much. That is why when I hear some comments by people -

MR. R. COLLINS: For income support, someone on income support living at home?

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

MR. R. COLLINS: For an adult living on -

MR. SHELLEY: About $400 a month.

OFFICIAL: They get about $400 a month if they are living in their own home.

MR. R. COLLINS: With their parents.

OFFICIAL: Oh, with their parents. That will be different.

MR. SHELLEY: There are different calculations for all of those, Randy. There are different circumstances. All I can say to you is that the level now of $25 to $28 a month with this increase, but also 3 per cent, remember, in the next few years. So it is going to be about 23 per cent over the next six years.

Still, of course, as Roland mentioned earlier, you hear somebody on Open Line or something, and say this is an incentive. I heard one word that really bothered me. It said: This is going to make it more attractive for people. Attractive? Twenty-eight dollars a month, attractive to go on income support. Really! That is why I bury that side of the argument. I agree with you, it is not a big lot of money, but look at the cost for every percent. We move that up from 5 per cent and the 3 per cent, that is 8 per cent; that is $8 million every year. There comes a time when you say: Where else do you spend money on initiatives and so on? I guess that is a balancing act, but you are right, there are a lot of people who are never going to come off that circumstance. Again, this is the first year and the first smack at these initiatives in this poverty reduction strategy and we will have to see where we go from there. That is the best answer I can give you at this time anyway.

MR. R. COLLINS: Don't get me wrong. I applaud the efforts that are made, because there are some good initiatives contained in this budget that were badly needed, and there is still a lot more, of course, left to do.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. R. COLLINS: These sort of comments bother me, too, when I hear people talking about abuse. There is abuse in everything, in every service that has been ever put out there or anything. You always hear the stories about workers' comp, the same thing, about the person on workers' comp who fakes a bad back, but you don't hear too many stories about the people whose lives have been ruined forever, and their ability to earn an income is gone.

MR. SHELLEY: That is right.

I am glad you made that comment, because you can go through any system in government - unemployment, workers' comp, every one - and Roland mentioned it earlier, I can say that the vast majority do not abuse the system. There are some who do, certainly, and hopefully over these initiatives that will weed its way out and we will have people who need it most. Therefore, we could have more funding and more resources to deal with the people who really need it. Over time, hopefully that will straighten out too.

MR. R. COLLINS: I don't have anything else, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, Mr. Chair, I have another - not that many.

MR. SHELLEY: Go ahead.

MR. BUTLER: I have one here. What representation has been made to the federal government in terms of the new immigration policy to meet with the needs of those people entering our country?

MR. SHELLEY: I am glad you asked the question. I was in Ottawa last week and met with Minister Solberg, the Minister of Immigration, and had a lengthy, productive meeting, I would put it, and raised the issues especially when it pertained to this Province; because, to be quite frank about it, here we are putting an immigration strategy in place. We believe in it. We believe this Province desperately needs it, especially now, in this day and age. We have $195,000 in our budget to put some mechanism in place now for promoting it, and helping communities, helping the immigrants who are here and so on, so that is being done.

I raised a number of issues with Minister Solberg, including the fact that it takes so long to get answers and then, to make matters worse, as I said to him, when somebody gets to the final stage where they have to leave the country they have to call on a phone to Nova Scotia to get their final answer. I told him I did not like that; we did not think it should happen. We talked about the presence in this Province of people to deal with immigration in this particular Province.

A number of issues were raised. The deportations that were happening here, I raised all of those with him, to let him know that it flies in the face of what we are doing promoting immigration and we have all of these stories day by day of people here six or seven years and so on.

I need to place one stat with you, and that is that 750,000 people annually apply to come into Canada. Approximately 250,000 come in. Newfoundland and Labrador gets point two of a per cent of those immigrants, so we need to do a lot in promotion and awareness around this Province.

We have just published a magazine, as a matter of fact, which will be out, which is part of the budget allocation for this year, in which we are going to give testimonials around this Province so that we can understand it ourselves. People in this Province, like in Rodriguez Wines, or in Point Leamington with Superior Gloves, and you can go on and on, this magazine will tell about these people, where they are in the Province. In Goose Bay there are two or three fantastic stories of immigrants who have come on and have been productive and created jobs and have a special skill set.

We are going to continue with this immigration strategy. We are hoping to have it out in a number of months now, but I raised all of the issues that were raised here in this Province because it is a federal jurisdiction. They tell us who comes into the country and so on.

One thing that I did not like, and I told him, people we had here in this Province finding out, after six or seven years, after being rooted in the community, having children in the Province, then finally getting down to say you have to leave. That should not be that long.

We pushed the issue, and a number of issues raised by RIAC. I met with RIAC in the Province here, and we raised all of those concerns with the minister, and I have to say he was very responsive. He responded to it as far as acknowledging he knew it. He knew the circumstances. They are dealing with a big problem in this Province and, if you are following the news lately, the United States has a big problem also with immigration.

We are going to try and pick up the numbers in this Province. Manitoba, by the way, has done it for the last four or five years, increased by 40 per cent, because they have a strategy in place, so hopefully we will improve on that.

MR. BUTLER: No doubt. I have heard people say that, if you bring those people in, you are taking jobs away from us, but a lot of those people create their own jobs, and I will give you a prime example. In my district right now there are two Chinese restaurants, and a third one is opening.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I don't care who you train in the Port de Grave District, you are not going to make a Chinese cook out of them. It can't be done.

MR. SHELLEY: Special skills.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Efford might be looking for a job now.

MR. BUTLER: He won't make a Chinese cook.

The other scenario I saw back a few years ago, when I had to go to Ontario to work, was the people who landed up here in Trepassey. Tamils, I think there were called.

MR. SHELLEY: The boat people they called them.

MR. BUTLER: Was it Tamils?

Anyway, when I was up there, they had four full pages in the newspaper showing what they did when they landed up there, and I said: My God, why in the hell didn't they stay in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because every one of them had at least two businesses in operation and had people employed.

MR. SHELLEY: There are great stories in this Province about immigrants who have come here and produced jobs and created employment.

MR. BUTLER: The other thing - and I know, Minister, this is not totally with your department - through training, I know of one case in my area where two ladies were in receipt of social assistance and they finally broke the family cycle. They got trained through the different programs, starting with your department and probably then went with HRDC or whomever, I do not know, and both of them became nurses. Is there anything we can do to keep them here when we train them? Because one is down in Florida and the other one is out west?

We hear, and no doubt about it, our nurses are strained to the limits in the hospitals. They are run ragged. I know in Carbonear now the most senior nurse in Carbonear Hospital is age thirty-five, and that tells you something. They just cannot keep up with the pressure of it.

MR. SHELLEY: Maybe we should ask the nurses in the House to make a comment.

MR. BUTLER: I am going to ask Health that one, but I was wondering - I know you are into funding for training and helping people to become part of funding - is there any thought put into it that if you train here we have to keep you here for a certain time, or can that be done?

MR. SHELLEY: It is really outside of my department, but I can tell you that I have been working with the Minister of Education in trying to address those, and with the Department of Health. Again, it has to be an integrated approach in training, what the needs are here in the Province and ultimately to keep people in the Province. That comes across three or four departments, but I agree with you. I want to train them and keep them here, but that all has to do with the economy and so on. I do believe, by the way, that within the next year to two years the economy will pick up, there will be a need for more nurses, and they will be able to stay home.

MR. BUTLER: One of the comments was made in the AGM's report that said there was a lack of adequate record keeping within your department. Do you agree with that, and do you agree that there is adequate staff there to do it? Where was the Auditor General coming from when he made that comment?

MR. SHELLEY: We never have enough staff, but I will let the deputy (inaudible). I didn't hear it all, Roland. The Auditor General said what?

MR. BUTLER: The AGM's report indicated there was a lack of adequate record keeping within the department. Are staffing levels adequate, and has there been any initial hiring? That was in his report. I had it there just now.

MR. PENNEY: I am not sure of the context. I think I recall the context, and we have responded to the Auditor General in writing with respect to the concerns he has raised. From my perspective, as deputy, there is no lack of record keeping in the department.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

That is the answer.

MR. PENNEY: That is the answer.

MR. BUTLER: That is what I asked you, did you think there was any.

Is there any contracting out of services for your department, of any type?

MR. PENNEY: For the most part, no. We, on occasion, would hire a consultant to do a piece of research for us but we do not contract out services.

MR. SHELLEY: It is pretty well done within the department, though, unless we absolutely need to go outside.

MR. BUTLER: The last question I have, and I guess it is a bit hypothetical, but then again I think, for instance, of some of the areas in the Province now that are really hurting for whatever reasons. I can see it, and I think it was probably mentioned here in the House today, like in the fishery this year, you are going to see plant workers. Do you foresee, within your department - and I hope they don't have to come to you to go in the system - do you see any, and are you prepared if there are a major number of, people who may be coming forward this year? Do you anticipate that? I hope not, but....

MR. SHELLEY: I am in the same boat as you. I hope not, too. At the same time, on that note, in this year's budget $100,000 has been allocated to the department, right, for preparedness?

OFFICIAL: To get to your specific question, if I hear the question, if we get an onslaught of applications from people for income support we are ready to respond to that. We are with you; we are hoping that we do not get those applications.

MR. SHELLEY: We would be ready, and we have discussed that. We would have to be ready; there would be no choice.

MR. BUTLER: I can see it possibly - I hope not - with a lot of the plant workers, from what I am hearing, and I know the fishermen in my area have one terrible time now. I don't know where they are going. I know they have not found work here in the Province, probably, but a lot of the people who are working with the fishermen now, they have a job to get people to go on their boats, the captain and that type of thing.

MR. SHELLEY: Of course, Municipal Affairs would also be looking at that circumstance because they have handled the emergency response program (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: On 2.1.01., Client Services, there are just a couple of questions there now, Mr. Chair, and I will be on my merry way.

Under Transportation and Communications, the budget was for $1,034,000, revised to $944,000, and this year it is $1,179,000. I am just wondering, what is the estimated increase there in Transportation and Communications?

What I was wondering, to be honest with you - it is just as well for me to put it the way I had it in my mind - is that extra cost in Transportation and Communications due to the new system, that there has to be more travelling out around? That is probably what it is, is it?

MR. SHELLEY: That is exactly what it is. As a matter of fact, it has increased from Budget 2005-2006 by about $170,000, and that is exactly what it was, the transition in communications and so on, that was in the new delivery system. That is what I understand. Is that right?

OFFICIAL: If I could add just very briefly, that also reflects, obviously, increases in the costs of transportation. For example, fuel costs, the kilometre rate that we reimburse staff, et cetera.

MR. BUTLER: That is all I have, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions?

Hearing none, I will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 5.1.02. inclusive.

CHAIR: We are calling subheads 1.1.01. to 5.1.02.

Shall these subheads carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 5.1.02. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

When we speak of the total here now we are talking from 1.1.01. to 7.1.01. Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister and his staff, certainly, for their answers this evening, and I thank the Committee.

The Committee will convene again tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock, at which time we will hear from the Department of Municipal Affairs.

A motion to adjourn would be in order.

MR. BUTLER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. French.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: We stand adjourned.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.