May 2,
2017
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis,
substitutes for Tracey Perry, MHA for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South,
substitutes for Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail – Paradise.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lorraine Michael, MHA for St. John's East – Quidi
Vidi, substitutes for Gerry Rogers, MHA for St. John's Centre.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Finn, MHA for Stephenville – Port au Port,
substitutes for Betty Parsley, MHA for Harbour Main.
The
Committee met at approximately 6:10 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Dempster):
Okay, if everybody is
ready, we'll begin.
Welcome
to the Estimates of Municipal Affairs and Environment. Before we get started, I
want to make note that we have some substitutions this evening. Mr. Parsons is
sitting in for Ms. Perry; Mr. Petten is sitting in for Mr. Davis; Ms. Michael is
sitting in for Ms. Rogers; and Mr. Finn is sitting in for Ms. Parsley.
We do
have minutes from this morning, the Department of Health and Community Services,
under the Social Services Committee, May 2. I need a motion to adopt those
minutes.
So
moved by Ms. Haley.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
I will start by letting the
minister introduce his team and offer a few opening remarks.
MR. JOYCE:
Eddie Joyce, Minister.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Jamie Chippett, Deputy Minister.
MS. SPURRELL:
Dana Spurrell, Assistant Deputy Minister.
MS. TIZZARD:
Heather Tizzard, Assistant Deputy Minister.
MR. LETTO:
Graham Letto, Parliamentary Secretary.
MS. HAYES:
Robyn Hayes, Departmental Controller.
MS. DOGURGA:
Sherrie-Lynn Dogurga, Minister's EA.
MS. SHEA: Erin
Shea, Communications Director.
CHAIR: Okay.
Mr. Parsons, the first responder, gets 15 minutes and then
we will go back and forth 10 and 10.
Mr. Parsons.
CLERK (Proudfoot):
Subhead 1.1.01.
MR. JOYCE: Can
I have a few opening remarks?
CHAIR: My
apologies, Minister. I'm really getting ahead of myself here. Go right ahead.
MR. JOYCE:
That's all right, Madam Chair, I know I'm pretty quiet and people don't notice
me.
First
of all, if it's okay with the Third Party, we're going to do Environment first.
One of the Members has a commitment that he wanted to try to get to by 7 o'clock
in his district, so we agreed to that.
I'm
just going to read a small prepared statement that we have just for a few
minutes. When we start Environment, just to let you know, it's on 4.1.01 of the
binder that I just passed out. That's where Environment starts when you want to
start asking questions.
On
February 22, 2017, the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment was
formed to advance the economic, social and environmental sustainability of
municipalities, communities and regions through the delivery of effective
programs, services and supports. This new department encompasses parts of the
former Department of Municipal Affairs, Department of Environment and Climate
Change and Fire and Emergency Services.
It is
structured as Municipal Infrastructure and Support Branch, which includes the
Municipal Finance Division, infrastructure and Engineering Division and
Municipal Support Division; second, Environmental Management and Control branch,
which includes the Pollution Prevention Division, Environmental Assessment
Division and Water Resources Management Division; and the Fire, Emergency and
Corporate Services Branch which includes Fire Protection Services Division,
emergency management service division, Local Governance and Planning Division,
Policy and Strategic Planning Division and Strategic Financial Management
Division.
I'll
just read out the priorities. The priorities for the department for the fiscal
year 2017-'18 include: amendments to the
Assessment Act, 2006 based on the results of the review process carried out
during the last year; conducting a comprehensive review of the municipal
legislative framework; moving forward with regional governments consultations;
beginning implementation of a new three-year multi-infrastructure program which
will provide better access to water and waste water systems and advance regional
collaboration through sharing of infrastructure and services; development of a
new drinking quality action plan; review of the environmental assessment process
to make it more responsive and efficient; and continuation of remediation of
contaminated sites.
These
priorities were included in the department's zero-based budgeting submission as
well as the requirements for the effective and efficient operation of the
department. Through this exercise, the Department of Municipal Affairs and
Environment was able to achieve savings of over $762,000. This exercise allowed
us to build our budget from the ground up. It was not about cutting budgets and
programs, but gaining an understanding of where the funding is required and
finding greater efficiencies across the table.
The
department's 2017-'18 budget reflects a net decrease of almost $8.7 million in
2016-2017. This is due in large part to leveraging federal funding, where
possible, but especially towards the municipal infrastructure program. Budget
2017-'18 commits $142.2 million under municipal the infrastructure program, with
almost 50 per cent being federally funded.
While
The Way Forward consolidated
engineering services within one department, the Department of Municipal Affairs
and Environment retained its engineers. The Department of Municipal Affairs and
Environment has 229 employees of which two are political support staff, six are
executive, 51 are management and 170 are bargaining units. The total salary
budget for 2017-'18 is $16.69 million. We are located throughout the province
with 10 office locations.
Madam
Chair, that will be my opening remarks and I'm assuming we're going to go with
the Member for CBS and Environment first.
MS. MICHAEL:
Can I suggest that we
introduce ourselves?
CHAIR:
You certainly can.
Go
right ahead, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, St. John's
East – Quidi Vidi.
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP Caucus.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Kevin Parsons, MHA for the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
MS. BONIA:
Laurie Bonia, Researcher, Official Opposition.
MR. PETTEN:
Barry Petten, MHA for CBS.
MR. REID:
Scott Reid, MHA for St.
George's – Humber.
MR. FINN:
John Finn, Stephenville –
Port au Port.
MS. HALEY:
Carol Anne Haley, Burin – Grand Bank.
MR. WARR:
Brian Warr, Baie Verte –
Green Bay.
CLERK:
Subhead 4.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 carry?
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much.
Thanks,
Minister. I got just a few questions to ask before we get to the – if you're
okay with that.
MR. JOYCE:
It is all according to what they are.
MR. PETTEN:
They are not too bad.
Minister, the chemical water testing that was announced there about a month ago
– I'm not sure, I got it there somewhere – for the towns that water testing
wasn't done in those towns, it was going to be done over a 10-day period and the
results would be released. Has that been done? Have results been …?
MR. JOYCE:
Most of the towns' results
have been back. Part of the policy of the department is to wait for them all to
come in and they'll all be sent out at the same time. So that should be done
later this week or early next week.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
But the preliminary results
are saying there's no increase.
Just
for your information, there are two types of testing. There's one being done
every month. The part that wasn't being done was more for like iron and other
things in the water. So there was testing done every month, but the part that
wasn't done was done on a quarterly basis, and that's more for any chemicals in
the water: iron. And if there's any change in that, that usually goes over a
number of years.
But the
part that was done was – for example, is if a moose falls in the water, there'd
be a spike in the water itself. In that case, that is being done every month –
hasn't changed, that part. The other part is quarterly. The results that we have
back are that there has been no change in any of the water systems. So they will
be posted either later this week or early next week.
MR. PETTEN:
So there was no risk of any
harm to anyone drinking it?
MR. JOYCE:
No, absolutely not.
And
just on that case, when we verified it on a Tuesday night, Wednesday the staff
contacted every town. The LSD tracked them down and said here's what's going on.
We had conference calls the next day. I think five towns were on one day. I
think there may have been four or five on the next day saying here's what we're
doing. We've been in constant contact with them. When we get all the results,
which we should have later this week or early next week, it will be posted
online, sent out en masse to every town, and that's the way we do it anyway.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
So they will be online.
MR. PETTEN:
The composting facility in
the Argentia Access Road, the EA, when is the expected completion or release
date or decision date on …?
MR. JOYCE:
The information on that, I
think, the final submissions are May 20 and the decision is May 25.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, recently in the
news, CFIB also made a motion about the fee for the iceberg water, the
harvesting fee. Two quick questions; two basic questions on that: What's the
anticipated revenue from this? It's a $5,000 fee, right?
MR. JOYCE:
I think it's $45,000. I
think the revenue is $45,000. I have been in contact with one of the operators.
There is a second one who called me. I haven't called him back yet, but I will.
We are speaking to them and I'm not sure what's going to happen to it, but I
think the revenue was $45,000 for it.
Part of
that is that there is a fee for the water plus a licensing fee.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah.
MR. JOYCE:
It all came together at the
same time. That's why you have the massive increase. We are speaking
(inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
So you have gotten
complaints, I guess, or there were concerns raised about it?
MR. JOYCE:
Oh yes, we got complaints;
we spoke to people. We got it from the small business – Vaughn Hammond, I think;
got a letter from him, also.
MR. PETTEN:
That is right, yes.
MR. JOYCE:
We have received concerns
about that, and I have spoken to one of them down in – which one was it, down in
…?
OFFICIAL:
Twillingate.
MR. JOYCE:
Down in Twillingate I spoke
to him, and there was another person who called that I haven't called back yet,
but I will call back.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
One
more question before I get to the lines. MMSB, you're responsible for it now, so
I have two questions on that, basically. What role is the department playing
with the MMSB now? We don't hear a lot about the Multi-Materials Stewardship
Board. And who is the present chair of it?
MR. JOYCE:
It's moving right now – the
MMSB is still under the Department of Environment. You don't hear much about it
because they're doing a good job of it, and they're raising money for the other
volunteer organizations in – I'm not sure who's the chair.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I am.
MR. JOYCE:
I know, I'm joking – Jamie.
MR. PETTEN:
Question answered.
MR. JOYCE:
So there has been a lot of
activity. I met with the executive director over there, as you know, on numerous
occasions, who is the deputy for it. So there has been a lot of work done with
the MMSB. There are some new proposals that they're bringing up. They're moving
forward with a lot of good initiatives and, as you know, a lot of the money they
receive goes back to volunteer groups. If you don't hear it, it means they're
doing well.
MR. PETTEN:
Section 4.1.01 on Pollution
Prevention under Environmental Management and Control, Environmental Management,
Salaries are down by almost $185,000. What's the reason for this?
MR. CHIPPETT:
So that was a part of our management structure review. In that process we
created a new position to encompass the duties of two former positions. So
there's a reduction in one management person. In addition to that, there's an
MOU that we signed with Health Canada that supports pesticide inspection. At the
time of the budget being done that hadn't been signed, but that would be another
reduction you would see there in Salaries. When we sign that MOU again, we would
recoup that revenue and we would provide those services on behalf of Health
Canada.
MR. PETTEN:
So what position in
particular was eliminated? What was the …?
MR. CHIPPETT:
So there were two previous managers. The two managers were a manager for waste
management and a manager for environmental science. Those two positions and the
responsibilities are now in a single management position for environmental
science and waste management.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Transportation and Communications, the decrease last year and increase now, it
is not a lot, but what is the reason for that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I think just generally in terms of travel costs being down the year before
that's why we didn't spend the full $71,000.
MR. PETTEN:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The $60,000 reflects our
zero-based budgeting submission, more in line than what we would expect to
travel, for people to travel. Part of that includes – I'm sure you're going to
ask about the Purchased Services as well. So given the less travel to Hopedale
for work in the upcoming year, we'll be gearing up for the following year. That
explains why our travel budget is down, transportation budget is down.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
So when
you say you're zero-based on transportation, do you take that figure just based
on – how historical do you go with that amount?
MR. CHIPPETT:
You want an idea of what makes up that figure. Freight and courier costs are a
part of it, cellular phones are fairly standard in that line item, then the
divisional travel to build up to that relates to, in particular,
federal-provincial committees the department would be a part of. There's a big
list of them. As an example, the Canadian Council of Ministers for the
Environment, travel to that would be funded under this line item and travel site
visits as well. So if we're working on a contaminated site somewhere, all of
that would build into that $60,000.
MR. PETTEN:
I guess I didn't make it
clear. So you come up with $60,000 for this year's budget. Last year it was
$71,000 and there was $56,000 spent, so you budgeted $60,000.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
So is that a fair estimate
based on how many years back over the budgets, or is that just a figure based on
last year's spending?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Right. This is a buildup of what we anticipate doing this year –
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So building from the ground up, not a focus on historical spending. As I said,
going through the number of federal-provincial meetings we would expect to do,
the number of cellphones that we have to fund out of that activity, what we
anticipate as freight and courier freight, delivery costs, and that would make
up your $60,000.
MR. PETTEN:
Under Professional Services,
I guess both of them together, Professional and Purchased Services, a big drop.
Well, it is an increase over what was revised, but there was a big drop over
what was budgeted last year: $275,000 down from $518,000.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So there are two pieces
going on there. The main item – I'll speak to first what the Professional
Services budget for '17-'18 is. That's the $250,000 that was announced in the
budget for environmental site assessments of military radar sites in Labrador.
Last
year, the $518,000 would have been budgeted based on the professional services
associated with the Hopedale remediation. There was funding in there for Shoal
Point and some of the work that was done there and work for, generally, the
department's work on impacted sites.
As you
can see, when I jump to Purchased Services, this year the focus with respect to
Hopedale is negotiating a federal-provincial agreement with the federal
government to gear up for the following fiscal year which will be the final
contract for land-based remediation in Hopedale.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
The two
revenue items there, federal and provincial – I know federal is down to nothing
but your provincial revenue – what do both of those entail, I guess? The
provincial revenue is really a big drop, almost a million dollars.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The provincial revenue
relates to funding or revenue from the Multi-Material Stewardship Board that had
been used to assist with the environmental cleanup in Hopedale. So again that
lines up with the reduction in the Purchased Services that we talked about.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So that's why we're down to
the $164,600. The federal government revenue is the MOU with Health Canada that
we talked about previously with respect to pesticides. So that just wasn't
renewed at the time of the budget being done.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
4.2.01
–
CHAIR:
Mr. Petten, we haven't
called that yet.
MR. PETTEN:
Oh, I am sorry.
CHAIR:
If it's okay with you, even
though you have three minutes on the clock, I'll just move to Ms. Michael and
let her ask her questions on 4.1.01.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Actually, any question I was
going to ask has been asked by Mr. Petten.
CHAIR:
Pardon me?
MS. MICHAEL:
My questions have been asked
by Mr. Petten, so I won't repeat.
CHAIR:
Okay, so you're okay for me
to call that?
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm okay to vote, yes.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 4.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
4.2.01 to 4.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.2.01 to 4.2.02
carry?
Mr.
Petten, would you like to finish your remaining …?
MR. PETTEN:
Thanks again.
I'll
get the right page here. There's a slight increase in the Salaries of $1,800
compared to Estimates last year. Was there any reason for this? I'll explain
myself better than that.
Based
on the Estimates last year, the 2016-2017 Estimates, it showed a budgeted amount
of $1.909 million – well $1,909,700. Now this year it is $1,911,500, but the
numbers don't add up to the starting amount transferred over to this year's
Estimates. Do you know what I'm trying to say?
So
we're starting off with $1,911,500. Last year the figure was $1,909,700, but it
seems like the starting figure doesn't add up to last year's figure.
MR. CHIPPETT:
As I understand it, any
differences with respect to what was in the
Estimates book and what's reported
this year would be – well, the budget, the revised number could be different
based on what was actually spent. I'm not sure I can answer your question based
on the budget.
MR. PETTEN:
Last year, the budgeted
amount for 2016-2017 in the Estimates documents was $1,909,700. This year, under
the 2016-'17, under the budgeted amount, which was basically a carry forward, is
$1,800 more.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Okay.
MR. PETTEN:
The starting figure doesn't
add up to the Estimates from last year.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I'm going to delegate that
one to Robyn.
MS. HAYES:
There was an adjustment made
during the year for Labrador benefits. That's why there's a slight difference of
$1,800.
MR. PETTEN:
So it happened during the
year?
MS. HAYES:
During the year, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Perfect.
Under
Salaries, the reduction of $259,000 in Salaries from what was budgeted last
year, what's the reason for that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The main difference in
Salaries in this item, again, relates to two things; one is a similar process
here as to what we described in the previous item with respect to two management
positions being combined into a single item, into a single position. And then
there was also a salary forecast reduction, which was basically a decision in
the previous budget of $100,000. But that was offset by $60,000 for Job
Evaluation System and salary step increases. So you've got all those things
going on, but the overall decrease is the $259,000.
MR. PETTEN:
How many positions were
eliminated in that did you say?
MR. CHIPPETT:
This year there was one position eliminated.
MR. PETTEN: A
manager?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Which was two managers becoming one manager.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Transportation and Communications is the drop of – it
seemed like a bit from estimates to revised, spent less; it's at $201,000 this
year down from $271,000, but it only revised at $186,000. What would be the
reason for that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In terms of the $271,000 to the $186,000 the big difference there was helicopter
time. We didn't require as much helicopter time under that particular item. Then
in terms of the Transportation and Communications for '17-'18 it was a result,
again, of the zero-based budgeting process. So again building from the ground up
– $201,700 was the tally for what we knew would have to be expended under that
item.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Professional Services has a drop of $200,000 or thereabouts
– $180,000 from last year to this year.
MR. CHIPPETT:
That's the same basic rationale in terms of the decrease is the zero-based
budgeting exercise. Just to give you an idea of what's in Professional Services
here, we're talking about consultants in particular, for example, weather
forecasting. So we do weather forecasting, as you know, for Badger for ice and
potential flooding. We do satellite imagery for Badger for the same purpose. We
do hurricane alerts. So when you see Environment Canada do their forecast and so
on, that data is fed into our consultant who develops models to inform certain
communities that in this particular event you may be subject to flooding because
of a hurricane alert.
We have
consulting services in there for the next phase of our dam safety inventory. So
it's basically a buildup of the contracts we know that we will enter into for
Professional Services. Some of those carry over from other years.
You'd
be familiar with, for example, the boil-water advisory reduction initiative
under Community Sustainability Partnership. That's still ongoing three years
after. So that would be one of the things we would be using that funding for.
MR. PETTEN:
Under the revenue, two
revenue items there, federal and provincial, I guess I'll basically lump them
together. What does both of those entail, those revenues? What are they …?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The federal revenue, the $50,000, is funding that the Department of Environment
and Climate Change, at the time, applied for under the National Disaster
Mitigation Program. So there's actually about $100,000 worth of work that needs
to be done to update our dam safety inventory in Labrador, but the federal
government are contributing $50,000 towards that expenditure.
On the
provincial side, it's basically higher revenue for application fees and so on.
For example, the issue you raised earlier with the minister, this is where you
would see some of those fee increases show up.
MR. PETTEN:
On that point, Jamie,
because that was something I was wondering too, there were a number of fees in
Water Resources increased last year; it doesn't appear that after there has been
a huge increase in revenue. Would I be accurate in that assessment?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I think that's accurate based on the numbers, but I guess I'll give you one
example. As the minister referred to earlier, the licensing fee, for example for
somebody who bottles water it is often a five-year licence. So it would only be
as those five years would come up that that licence fee would be charged again.
Whereas, the water-use fees are based on the amount of water that somebody would
use, so those would be annual charges which would be fairly consistent and you'd
be able to predict based on whatever the type of industry was and how much water
would be reported by that industry as being used. But it's difficult to predict
exactly the water-use licence fees because it happens as –
MR. PETTEN:
So there used to be peaks
and valleys in that fund, I assume, is it?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Right.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Those
are all my questions on that section, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
have some general questions. I had all those line item ones so they're taken
care of. One of the things that you cover is the administration of the
hydrometric agreements with the federal government. The last report we can find
goes back to 2011, I think it was. Could you give us some sense of what's
happening there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We continue to be a part of
that agreement. I don't have a detailed answer to your question, but I can
certainly get one and send one to you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Please.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Basically, the hydrometric
agreement and the data from that in particular are used around water flows and
volumes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So used by a lot of
industry, but also the general public for recreational perspectives and so on
and people for planning from a municipal perspective in terms of what water
flows they may see. In terms of details, we'll certainly get you an answer on
that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
I know
that the number fluctuates, but there are a lot of numbers that are constant for
many years. Do you have the latest figures on the number of boil-water
advisories and the number of communities? Or is that in the binder?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's not in the binder. I do
have an answer though. Actually, I'll give you the answer based on a specific
date.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
As of March 31 of this year,
the number of boil-water advisories is 193. It's actually the first time in over
the amount of time the department was keeping records, which started in 2001,
that we're less than 200 boil-water advisories in the province.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's good to hear.
MR. JOYCE:
Just a note on that, Madam
Chair. What we're working with, with a lot of municipalities, a lot of
municipalities have a chlorination system, but they don't like the taste of
chlorine so they don't use the system. That's the struggle for us to say you
should use it, but a lot just won't.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. JOYCE:
You can't force them to use
it, so we're trying to put incentives in place to help people. It is working.
It's gradual.
We had
one town that was on it for 20 years. They're finally off it and we're working
with them. We are picking the ones that we feel want to get help, need help and
the ones that are saying: Okay, come, what can we do here? We have people in
place that are and we're gradually knocking it down bit by bit. But a lot of is
some towns just don't want chlorinated water. There's nothing you can do. You
can't force them.
MS. MICHAEL:
Is there any area in the
province where it's more concentrated than others or is this sort of fairly
evenly spread out?
MR. JOYCE:
It's broadly based.
MS. MICHAEL:
Broadly based, okay. Thank
you.
Could
you give us an update on our participation and the Atlantic Climate Adaptation
Solutions Association that we're members of, and what is happening?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We are, and we still participate. I think we're near the end of the funding for
that, though. The Climate Change office actually participates on some of the
committees under that, so you might wish to direct a question that way.
MS. MICHAEL:
To that way, yes, of course.
Could
we have an update on the groundwater pollution around the Torbay airport, what's
happening there with regard to the remediation by the federal government?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I'd have to check and get you – I'm familiar with the issue that you raise, but
I'd have to get a recent update on where discussions are. I know there were
discussions with the federal government, and of course you're referring to the
stuff around the airport and the firefighting substance and so on.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We could certainly look into that for you and get you an answer.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Yes, it
had to do when they had the federal firefighting training down there.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Right.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, thank you.
That
question was asked already. I think that's it for me for 4.2.01.
CHAIR:
I'll call the next one, Ms.
Michael.
4.2.02
is (inaudible).
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
I just
have one question there and it's the provincial revenue. So 4.2.02, the
provincial revenue, $89,300 less used of the total last year and back up to the
$922,300 this year. Why that $89,300 difference, or drop last year?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That is, as I understand it – so this is the water quality monitoring agreement
and –
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– used to measure quality in ambient water bodies, not drinking water, per se,
but any pond or water body in the province that we test. It really reflects the
payment of invoices, so there's an industry piece to this as well.
In some
cases, industry is billed from the perspective of some of the water quality
monitoring stations they have. So there'd be one for Vale, there'd be one for
Long Harbour and so on. This was just the timing in when invoices were paid, so
the full amount didn't come in, in the past fiscal year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
This
has not been the question written by my researcher and he might say why is she
asking that, but it is just dawning on me – it would be difficult I suppose to
do it. Do we have a sense of the percentage of our water in the province that is
fairly clean?
MR. CHIPPETT:
If you mean generally –
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– in terms of all the water
bodies and so on, we'd be able to get you a printout of results for particular
water bodies. Anywhere we test under this agreement –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– the lens on that is the
recreational guidelines from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So it wouldn't be the same
as bacteriologically or chemically what we'd test drinking water for –
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– but I think generally
speaking we have fairly high-quality water. One of the issues which do manifest
itself in drinking water systems is high amount of organic material which can
lead to some of the chemical by-products when they interact with chlorine. But I
think overall, from a recreational perspective, we're in pretty good shape.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's my sense; I think of
all the places, even just around St. John's, where we swim in the summer. So
that's what I'm thinking about. I think it is something we should be proud of
actually.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
So to just get a sense of
how much of that is the case. Thank you very much. So that wasn't a bad
question.
That's
all the questions I have up to there, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Petten, I don't know if you had more questions up to 4.2.02 and if you don't,
your colleague does have one.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, I have a couple and I
was going to say my colleague has a question to ask too. I only have a couple.
Under
the provincial revenue under this division, what's included? Where does that
revenue come from, I guess?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Is this 4.2.02?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Okay, I just wanted to be
sure.
As I
said earlier, these relate to real-time water quality stations.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT: So
I'll give you an example of some other examples. I mentioned Vale, Voisey's Bay,
Long Harbour, IOC, Tech Duck Pond operations, Nalcor-Lower Churchill,
Nalcor-Exploits, Wabush Mines, Canada Fluorspar, Deer Lake Power.
We run
these water quality monitoring stations on behalf of the companies and they pay
us basically for doing that and for collecting that data on their behalf.
They're usually set up as a condition coming out of environmental assessment.
MR. PETTEN:
On that note, being the
Environment critic and also the critic for Climate Change, am I right in saying
that Minister Trimper is still with the methylmercury file? That's what we've
been told. I just wanted clarity because I know that this part here, that's what
you're monitoring basically in those, is the methylmercury with that water.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are two real
responsibilities in terms of methylmercury; one, Minister Trimper will be the
lead spokesperson for the government, the lead minister with respect to the
independent expert appointments advisory commission. But the legislation that
relates to water resources or environmental protection is the responsibility of
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment. So from a strictly regulatory
perspective Minister Joyce is the responsible minister.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
One
other question; it's basically a general question to do with the full
environmental management control, so I guess I'm talking about the full
environmental piece here. What are the overall reductions in that division, the
total number of positions that have been reduced? Do you have a general answer
or …?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In these sections?
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, in overall because
it's all under your Environmental Management and Control under your …
MR. CHIPPETT:
Right. The only thing that
would have been implemented with respect to this budget would have been the two
management positions. Robyn, am I correct?
MS. HAYES:
Two management.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Two management positions
where we combined duties of two managers together. Otherwise, obviously there
are differences from the whole department perspective because of Climate Change
office being part of Executive Council and –
MR. PETTEN:
Wildlife and natural areas
and stuff.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– wildlife and parks and so on. But in terms of reductions based on this budget,
there were two management positions: one in Water Resources and one in Pollution
Prevention.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Before
I pass it to my colleague, I'd ask a quick question. Earlier when I started my
general question, the minister answered under the water testing. It was a
follow-up. Why was there a lapse in the testing?
MR. JOYCE:
First of all, there was
testing done with the bacteriological testing which is done on a monthly basis.
That was done. That's, for example, if a moose falls in and it would cause an
immediate spike in the water if there's a problem with the water.
The
other part is the chemical wasn't done. There was an issue out in the area.
We're going to find out exactly why it happened, but just to let you know, the
testing has been done. The next quarter starts in May. There is a plan in place
to have it done late May, to start again, to get on the same cycle as before.
We will
find out exactly what slipped up there from that and we'll make it public – we
may make it public; it's all according to what the reason is. But I can assure
you there were no unsafe hazards to the water because it is over the long term.
There may be chemicals in the water, the sediments from the rock that's there
from the last 1,000 years, that's part of it.
But we
can assure you and the public that it has been done, it will be done in the
future, and we will find out and put safeguards in that it doesn't happen again.
MR. PETTEN:
I'll pass it off to my
college to ask a question.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Jamie, a question on the
Torbay airport and the water in the Torbay airport issue because –
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Sorry.
I just
have a little follow-up from Ms. Michael's question on that. I know there are
eight wells that are dug there around the airport area: four are deep and four
are shallow wells to test. It is in my district, by the way. There are also two
rivers they're testing. One's called Kelly's river and the other one is called
south brook river. I know the town had some concerns over that about the
reporting that comes from – I think it comes from Transport Canada as part of
Environment Canada.
So if
you could do anything on that to probably find out what they were. I know last
year the department went down and had a public meeting at the Jack Byrne Arena
and gave the results, but it was a while before that the Town of Torbay – in
that area right now there's a development problem. They're only allowed to
develop so many homes in the area. There's also a thing with the Jack Byrne
Arena that they're looking to do an expansion and that's going to be called in
question to. So if you could give us an update on that, I'd really appreciate it
and give it to the town.
MR. JOYCE:
Just to let the Member know,
we did meet with the town council on that. We did go through it and we agreed to
help the town.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. JOYCE:
But we'll do what we can to
(inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
We sat in the House of
Assembly the night that you did it and I couldn't get down.
CHAIR:
Okay. So everybody's good
with that section?
CLERK:
Shall subhead 4.2.01 –
CHAIR:
I'll just get a motion to
pass that first.
CLERK:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.2.01 to 4.2.02
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.2.01 through 4.2.02 carried.
CLERK:
4.3.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.3.01 carry?
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Salaries have increased by $86,000. What's the reason for this?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The increase in the salary vote pertains to new funding that is offset by
provincial revenue for environmental monitors in the Bay du Nord Wilderness
area. So it would have been publicly advertised, and WERAC would have done
consultations on the transmission line that's being constructed from Bay
d'Espoir to Soldier's Pond.
Given
that was basically in the bottom sliver, if I can use that word, of the Bay du
Nord Wilderness area, while the construction is happening we will have monitors
on the ground. In fact, that arrangement started last year. So you'll see
some of the revenue in the preceding year, and that's why the revised number for
salaries last year was up as well, it reflects funding we received.
Also, there was some funding in the Fisheries and Land
Resources Department, Wildlife Division, to monitor that construction and ensure
it happens in an environmentally acceptable manner.
MR. PETTEN: So
why, under Transportation and Communications, it's a jump from $20,000 to
$77,000?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The same reason; basically, operational funding to support the monitors in that
area.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Does your Purchased Services – I know it's not a big amount
now. It went from $10,000 down to $6,000 and back up. It's budgeted at $9,500.
What's included, I guess is my question, under Purchased Services? It's only a
small amount.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Some of it reflects the new budget funding, but there was also a – so it's an
offset between the new budget funding and then our zero-based budgeting process.
I'll just give you an idea of what's funded out of that
line in this division. If you look at Purchased Services, you've got vehicle
maintenance and repair. Xerox and printing/copier costs are a common item. There
would also be some purchased services around advertising. For example, if we are
doing public meetings we have a commitment to review the environmental
assessment legislation. We do public consultation or meetings around that, or
newspaper ads for some particular reason, then that would be a part of that line
item.
Again,
building from the bottom up; that's the Bay du Nord money, the advertising
funding, Xerox and printing/copier costs, and vehicle repair and maintenance.
MR. PETTEN:
Professional Services, why
was it just a one-time, $19,800 expense for the last year under the revised?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That was the funding for the methylmercury workshop that the government
convened. There was no budget for Professional Services but there was a
facilitator to be a part of that workshop.
MR. PETTEN:
Under your Revenue and
Provincial, $298,000, is that as a result of the increase to environmental
assessment fees from last year? Is that where the revenue is being reflected
there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The biggest difference I think is the monitor position. I think we left the
budget, in terms of the environmental assessment fees, the same as in the past.
Is that right?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CHIPPETT:
So a $4,200 increase was the only difference in the environmental assessment fee
part of it.
As you
know, it's very difficult to predict because you don't know how many projects
are going to be registered and you don't necessarily know the level to which
they will be investigated. If it's an EPR there's a certain fee, if it's an
Environmental Impact Statement it's a certain fee. So it's difficult to be
specific about the revenue projection in terms of environmental assessment fees.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
One
other question, I guess it's more in the general term but I guess it's to do –
earlier with environment where there was a lot of divisions were moved about
within other departments. We probably got it, but some kind of breakdown of
where everything went and where it's responsible. I know it's not as easy to
follow when you're on our side trying to find it.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Right.
MR. PETTEN:
Even the methylmercury file,
we discovered is with Mr. Trimper, for more clarity because from my end of it,
I'm critic for both of them – pretty well everything out of environment, but I'm
trying to find it. I found most of it but it would be nice to have it clearer
and provide some kind of breakdown to show us more – because I know the
methylmercury file is a prime example. Monitoring carbon emissions, is that done
by –
MR. CHIPPETT:
From a monitoring
perspective, anything that would be a legislative responsibility. That would be
one; that would be in our budget.
Even
from a methylmercury perspective, the budget for the work rests in the Water
Resources division, but Minister Trimper has been designated by the government
as the lead government spokesperson on that particular file.
MR. PETTEN:
So when we say carbon
emissions, they're being monitored by the department.
MR. CHIPPETT:
From a modelling
perspective, if it's projecting what the emissions would be and so on, the
Climate Change office would be responsible for that.
MR. PETTEN:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
But as the climate change
regulations or legislation is brought into force, then it would be monitored
through our Pollution Prevention Division.
MR. PETTEN:
Pollution Prevention, right
on.
I think
that's it for me on that section.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd
just like to get clarification on the Provincial Revenue; I didn't quite get
your answer to Mr. Petten. It's $152,200 more budgeted from last year's
estimate, and add another $50,000 on to that if you look at the revision. I
didn't quite get a full clear answer as to why it's so much more this year.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The biggest increase is with
respect to the revenue for the Bay du Nord environmental monitor.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So the increase of $152,200
reflects the revenue from Nalcor, from Hydro, the proponent for that
transmission line.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So as a part of that going
on they provide the funding but then we hire the environmental monitor and
actually do the purchase of equipment or vehicle or what have you for the
environmental monitor.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So that's the biggest part
of the increase in revenue.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The other piece is the
$4,200?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The $4,200 would relate to
increased projected fees from environmental assessment particulars …
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I got that part but I
didn't have a full explanation of the first part. So that's helpful.
Where
does that expenditure then show up when that money goes out for the monitoring,
for example?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In salaries in particular
for the positions.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So $83,000 is for the Bay du
Nord project under Salaries, Transportation and Communications and Supplies, in
particular, have increases as well for the Bay du Nord position.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
That's
all I have.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair, for a second?
CHAIR:
Minister.
MR. JOYCE:
In the spirit of
co-operation, which we're always into, if the Member for CBS wants a flow chart,
we can send you a flow chart of the department so we know where each department,
division is in. We could do that up and forward that to you in the next day or
two, no problem whatsoever.
MR. PETTEN:
I'd appreciate that.
Thanks.
CHAIR:
If there are no further
questions, we'll call that, from either party.
Shall
4.3.01 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 4.3.01 carried.
CHAIR:
I guess now we will flip
back to the beginning.
CLERK:
1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
Under
the spirit of co-operation, like the minister just said, my very first thing is
I'd like to get a review and an overview of the restructuring of your
department, and have an organizational chart with all the branches, divisions
and responsibilities for your department given to us.
MR. JOYCE:
Just to let you know, Madam
Chair, as you always know, I'm very co-operative with the Member for Cape St.
Francis. We were going to offer that anyway. There's no need to ask for that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
No, but
the reason being is that when went through our Estimates this year – and you'll
see in my questions there are a couple of general questions that I do have to
ask – it was kind of hard to follow with all the changes in your department. We
looked at what was there last year versus what was there this year, so it would
be nice to get a breakdown of everything. Like I said, I'd like to know the
branches and the divisions also within that department. It's good to know the
responsibilities of each one of these branches as being a critic for it, too.
MR. JOYCE:
That will be done, Sir.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Thank you kindly. I
appreciate that.
The
other thing is I know the department has changed, but I'd also like to know –
and you gave it to us in your preamble today – a breakdown of how many people
are in the department right now. I know you did that when you did your speech
there. There were 229, I wrote down, in the department.
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Can you give us something,
how that – versus what it was in 2016? I know there are going to be huge changes
in the department but, again, it was difficult to follow a lot of the categories
in the department. So if you could give us that, it would be great.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We can actually answer that
now if you'd like.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Yeah, sure, perfect.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So 229 as the minister said.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The breakdown for that is
134 in Municipal Affairs, 23 in Fire and Emergency Services and 72 in the
Environmental Management and Control Branch.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
In 2016-'17 we had 365
employees over the same entities. That would include 230 in Municipal Affairs.
That number included Crown Lands. So you're right on the massive number of
changes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The 230 is basically the
reduction of Crown Lands. There were 25 in Fire and Emergency Services and 110
in the Environmental Management and Control Branch.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
When I
get into those departments there are a couple there that we'll ask. I just want
to know the positions and the titles of the positions.
Contractual positions: What's the total number there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's very low, but I'll ask
Robyn if she knows that answer.
MS. HAYES:
There are four within the
Canada-Newfoundland gas tax program and I believe there's one other under the
Executive Support.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Going
back to the positions that you named in each department – because, again, I deal
with the Department of Municipal Affairs a lot and there have been a lot of
changes over the last little while, over the last five or six years actually. I
always like to know the person and the position because sometimes when you have
to make a phone call, it's great to know that person.
If we
could have, while we're doing it, the positions; because if it's something to do
with a community that calls me or whatever, I'd like to be able to direct them
to the proper persons rather than they call me back and say that fellow was no
good or this one was no good.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We'll include –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Something like that. It's
important that we get that.
MR. JOYCE:
That will be done.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We've just done a similar
exercise actually for MNL for the weekend for their symposium. So we'll share
the same thing with you folks.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, great.
CHAIR:
I just want to remind
Members again: State your name before you speak for the purpose of the Broadcast
Centre downstairs.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Minister.
MR. JOYCE:
We'll also supply it to the
Third Party also whatever we supply.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah and vice versa, too.
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know in 2015 the attrition
plan came into place. I was just wondering if the department still follows it.
How many positions are gone? How many layoffs were actually in the department
that wasn't included in that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I've got an update on that.
I'll do it by the entities rather than – and it is Jamie Chippett, Deputy
Minister.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I think that's the first
time I've actually said that.
For the
Department of Municipal Affairs, the Attrition Management Plan was concluded.
That included a budget reduction of $967,000 and the removal of 15 positions,
but that was through attrition. That was not layoffs or whatever; it was the
Attrition Management Plan.
The
Attrition Management Plan for Fire and Emergency Services, we have the position
reduction number completed and we still have salary savings of $74,800 to find
but it will be concluded by 2019-2020.
Last
but not least – I can only give it to you for Environment and Conservation, not
just the Environment Branch – there were 15 positions and $982,400 required of
that department under the five-year attrition management plan, and all of those
targets have been met by the former department. There remains, I think, one
position per year for '18-'19 and '19-'20 that need to come out, but they're
already projected to come out.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I have a question also for
vacancies that have not been filled. Are these positions eliminated? I know when
they did the restructuring there a little while ago they eliminated a lot of –
they said that's where they were getting a lot of their numbers from. Have these
positions been eliminated?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The positions have been abolished as per the direction of the original Attrition
Management Plan. Any that were vacant, I think we've gone through – or any that
were a part of the plan and as people left, or if we were able because somebody
retired in a different position to target that position, we've abolished
positions as they become vacant and we'd use them as a part of the plan, but
Robyn could confirm that for me.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So all the vacancies that
were there – people were either eliminated or there is somebody in those
positions now, is that what you're saying there? Okay.
Doing
Estimates we've noticed – doing some Estimates already – that departments have
some errors in the book, so sometimes you can find them, sometimes you can't.
Are there any known errors in Estimates that you know of? The last one that I
did there was some errors that they acknowledged that were there before.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There was only one division where there was a salary reduction that was applied
twice –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– and that funding will be restored in the budget. No position impact or person
impact, but there was a salary reduction applied twice inadvertently.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Where was that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That was in the Water
Resources section, in the Environment side.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Sometimes it's hard to
pass anything if there's some errors in it.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Right.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I want to right into the
estimates lines. I'm looking at Executive and Support Services. Again, I
understand that there are a lot of changes in your department and things added,
things coming out and everything else, but last year the budget was for
$2,680,800.
CHAIR:
Excuse me, Mr. Parsons; we
haven't called that one yet.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That is the first one,
wasn't it?
CHAIR:
1.1.01 is all that we've
called.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's going to be part of
it because it's before it –
CHAIR:
Where were you?
CLERK:
You just said Executive
Support.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Executive Support is right
here, right?
CLERK:
That's the next one down.
CHAIR:
That's the next one I'll
call.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Oh, I'm still under the
Funding Summary for the start of it.
CLERK:
We are just at the very top
half of the page.
MR. JOYCE:
I think we are in the
Minister's Office.
CHAIR:
We're in the Minister's
Office and I haven't gone to Ms. Michael yet, have I?
Did you
want – your time is pretty much run out on the clock –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, we can go to the
minister –
CHAIR:
Now if you're not finished
in the Minister's Office, we can come back to you.
MR. K. PARSONS:
But we haven't gone to the
Minister's Office yet, see. What I've been doing, right now I'm in the Program
Funding Summary which is the start in the Estimates. There is no subheading;
it's just expenditures.
CHAIR:
Okay.
You
haven't even begun yet on what I have called.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I haven't even started.
CHAIR:
Well, your time is out, so
we'll move to Ms. Michael. You can't go past 1.1.01 until we call.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, I'll go back to some
questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I have no more questions
with regard to 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Okay. I don't know if Mr.
Parsons did. Did you?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I do.
CHAIR:
Yes. Are you okay to let him
continue on into – I don't want to –
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm slightly confused as to
what's happening.
CHAIR:
Well, we called 1.1.01 –
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, right.
CHAIR:
He hasn't got there; he's
stuck in the preamble part asking some general questions. So I apologize for the
confusion.
MS. MICHAEL:
I don't have the preamble sheet, so that's a good thing I would say. Then let me
come back because I think the questions that were being asked around Salaries
weren't specific then to 1.1.01.
MR. JOYCE:
No, it is not and we are
going to ask him to start now.
MS. MICHAEL:
He will start now? Okay, go
ahead; let him start.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, so I can go again?
Perfect, thanks.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What I'm going to ask – and
you'll see that the changes, in some cases, the description of the Minister's
Office is the same, yet the amounts change. I'll give you some examples of that.
Last
year's budget appeared – which is different when it comes to Salaries. We're
looking at Salaries for last year. If you could explain to me what the
difference is in the Salaries there.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The biggest thing there is
the fact that we had a departmental secretary position and executive assistant
position that were transferred into the department from Environment and Climate
Change. In the previous budget, the minister was the minister for both SNL and
for Municipal Affairs.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
But the salaries for those
other positions were always held in Service NL. So when the new department was
created, those positions had to be brought in from Environment and Conservation.
Then, in addition, there was a minister's secretary position that was
transferred to SNL.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, because last year's
Estimates were like $62,000. That accounts for the minister's, but then it went
to a revised of $252,000 and this year it's down to $196,000. Why the difference
between the revised and what it came to at the beginning and then go back to
$196,000?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The revised figure reflected
the salary reductions that ministers experienced last year. There was $10,700
less in the salary vote. But what you've got there happening in the budget line
is – or from '16-'17 to '17-'18 is basically the net difference between
positions being transferred to SNL and positions being transferred into
Municipal Affairs and Environment from Environment. So you basically went from
two ministers' offices and a partial minister's office, we'll say, in Municipal
Affairs, to two ministers' offices.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah, okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
SNL now has the full
complement of the minister, ministerial secretary and executive assistant, and
the same thing exists now in Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, so the positions that
are in this department now are down to ministerial secretary and executive
assistant and minister. Anything else – is that what covers the $196,000?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That's correct.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's correct, okay.
The
ones that were removed are now over in Service NL?
MR. JOYCE:
They weren't removed; they
were just transferred.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, they were transferred
because you were minister of both at the time. Okay, I got that.
Under
Employee Benefits, what's included there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Generally, employee benefits are things like conferences or registrations and so
on. So from a zero-based budgeting perspective, the $100 is for potential
conference or registration fees for the minister and executive assistant. But
that's generally what's included in those line items.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'm
trying to understand your zero-based budgeting, so I went and we got a copy of
what the Minister of Finance put out and it showed us some savings, but it
doesn't show any savings at all on this on Employee Benefits. It shows savings
on Transportation, Supplies and Purchased Services, but it doesn't show anything
on – because I'm still trying to understand zero-based budgeting, to tell you
the truth.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair?
CHAIR:
Minister.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll just explain.
Zero-based budgeting, before, with departments you would say, okay,
historically, here's what we would spend.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
What we said, all the
history, throw it out the window. Tell us what you would need this year to
operate your department. Like what trips, ministerial conferences would you have
to attend; not we're going to put in for five trips, we may only take two, but
the money is in the budget just in case you want to take five. So zero-based
budgeting is what is it you need to operate your department.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. So on this one here it
was $900 budgeted last year and this year it's down to $100. So there must be
something that you did last year that you're not going to do this year.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Essentially, the $900 figure is what would have been budgeted across all the
entities that made up Municipal Affairs and Environment. So this would include
the piece we haven't talked about specifically is in October, Fire and Emergency
Services became a part of the department as well. So in terms of Fire and
Emergency Services, Municipal Affairs and the Environment Branch, there would
have been $900 budgeted across those three entities in ministers' offices, but
because there has been a decrease in the number of ministers' offices, we're
down to $100 in the entire department, in the Minister's Office.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, but you would believe
that that would have been either consistent or going up when you added Fire and
Emergency Services, although it's in the minister's department.
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's basically for one
minister rather than multiple ministers.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
Transportation and Communications, can you explain the variance there, the
$52,000 budgeted last year?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Right. The $52,400, again,
would relate to what the budget was from a combination of the travel,
Transportation and Communications budget from multiple departments.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Now, of course, we have one
minister for a larger entity and one standalone minister for Service
Newfoundland and Labrador. So this would be the travel that we would have
anticipated. Transportation and Communications travel and phone lines and so on
that we would anticipate for one minister based on the FPT tables and so on that
he would have to travel to, to participate in.
MR. K. PARSONS:
On the next line we look at
Supplies, again, there's a drop from last year and it showed the revised was
$600. Now it's gone up to $1,100 but it's still a drop from what was budgeted
last year. Can you explain the variance there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's the same; I don't know,
Robyn, if you wanted to explain it better than I could. It's basically, again,
the $6,000 would have been for what the minister for FES, Environment and
Municipal Affairs would have had budgeted but, obviously, if you only got one
budget and one minister's office you don't need multiple –
MR. K. PARSONS:
While there was one minister
doing all that, he only spent, if you look at it, $600 there on supplies and now
this year you budgeted for $6,000.
MR. JOYCE:
No, you budgeted for $1,100.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Budgeted for $1,100.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Under Purchased Services,
there's a significant drop right there. Can you give us a reason why this is
down again?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's really the same basic
explanation. Purchased Services, of course, would be things like meeting
expenses, printing and these type things, and you wouldn't require – just as an
example, an environment ministerial suite, we would have had expenses for a
photocopier. We had one in the Municipal Affairs suite as well. So we had the
photocopier removed from the Environment ministerial suite because there's no
longer a requirement for it because we have one minister's office instead of
two.
Really,
that's what's driving a lot of the numbers in terms of the Minister's Office and
Executive Support. With a less number of executive, less number of ministers or
minister's offices, then there's a lower requirement for funding for these items
that we're talking about.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The total amount last year
when you did your Estimates and did a budget was $300,000 for the Minister's
Office in total – it was $329,000. Then, in last year's Estimates, it was
$105,000. What you're telling me is that's the combination of three of those
departments into one. There must be three different sets of Estimates that would
add it up to the $329,000.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons, once Mr.
Chippett answers, I'll go to Ms. Michael because your time is out on the clock.
MR. CHIPPETT:
That's correct, that's the
way the number for last year's budget is built. In our Estimates, it's based on
the budget that would have been available in any of the entities that make up
the new Municipal Affairs and Environment Department. So you're correct.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You can see how difficult it
was to follow it.
Okay.
CHAIR:
Okay, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I don't have any questions
for this.
CHAIR:
That's right, you don't.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, they're all asked.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons, are you through
that first section? Okay.
Shall
1.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
1.2.01 to 1.2.04 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.2.01 to 1.2.04
inclusive carry?
If it's
okay with Mr. Parsons, I'll start with Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm sorry, thank you very
much.
1.2.01,
I do have questions. The first one of course is the Salaries. Obviously there's
been a big change in the salaries. Is that because of the restructuring? Could
you just explain the details for that line, please?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Just to speak at the entity
level first, obviously, as we said, there was a minister's office; there was a
set of executive from Municipal Affairs. There were executives associated with
Environment and Climate Change and there were executives associated with Fire
and Emergency Services. In the initial restructuring, bringing Fire and
Emergency Services into the department, and the second one that came about as a
result of this budget, there would have been three deputy minister salaries
which would have been Municipal Affairs, Environment and Climate Change, and the
CEO for Fire and Emergency Services.
We
would have gone from three deputy salaries to one. We would have had two ADM
reductions, where those positions were removed, and we would have also had two
ADM positions that moved elsewhere. The ADM responsible for climate change is
now part of Executive Council. The ADM responsible for Natural Heritage would
now be a part of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Then, obviously, you would
have the associated changes to both communications and administrative support
positions associated with the reduced number of executive. That's in a nutshell,
or as close to a nutshell as I think I can …
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
Then in
Transportation and Communications, last year a difference of $32,600 between the
budget and the estimate, and then this year it's $24,300 less than what was
budgeted last year. You're probably going to have a similar answer to – up above
to that one, but go ahead.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I did neglect to say there was a third ADM who moved elsewhere. The ADM
responsible for Crown Lands also moved to Fisheries and Land Resources; but,
yes, the answer is basically the same. It is part zero-based budgeting and it's
a part reflecting the fact that we have, overall, two less executive in that
overall group of entities.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Now
with regard to the – so there are five ADMs altogether but three have been
transferred. Two positions are gone completely, are they?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The ADM for infrastructure and engineering position became merged with the
Municipal Support Division. Heather is our ADM for Municipal Infrastructure and
Support.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Basically, any element of financial support, whether it's for infrastructure,
Municipal Operating Grants or anything like that, would now be under Heather's
purview.
We also
combined the Fire and Emergency Services mandate with the former Corporate
Services mandate. Dana Spurrell is our ADM responsible for Fire and Emergency
and Corporate Services. We have a vacancy because our ADM for Environment
retired, but we're in the process of hopefully filling that soon.
Overall, we have three as a department. Previously we had four, but the movement
of the Crown Lands ADM would have brought us down to three. So we have three ADM
positions in our department now.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Under
the provincial revenue, what is the source of that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That's actually the salary
for the CEO of the MMSB.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The way that works from a
financial perspective is we get the revenue come in from MMSB and then we pay
out through the Salaries line to Mr. Samson.
MS. MICHAEL:
Nice salary. Okay.
Of
course that includes everything, salary and benefits, I would assume.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, okay.
It's
not major but under the Purchased Services we do have a difference of around
$9,000.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Again, the primary piece
there would be our zero-based budgeting process, so building from the ground up
for that particular piece, as well as the fact that we have all those entities'
budgets coming together. Given we would have one Executive Support office with
less executive in it, we would require less from a Purchased Services
perspective.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Under
Supplies, is that the usual type of supplies, just the office type of supplies?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yeah, office supplies. There
would be a small amount in there as well for meeting coffee supplies and so on
for the executive offices.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
They're
all the questions I have for 1.2.01.
CHAIR:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's the end of the section
now?
CHAIR:
Yes, we're in –
MR. K. PARSONS:
It was hard to – a lot of
positions moved and –
CHAIR:
You can go anywhere, Mr.
Parsons, from 1.2.01 to –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I'll just stay in this section here, one, and then I'll go on to the next –
CHAIR: – up to
1.2.04.
MR. K. PARSONS:
– because I only have one question in this section here.
I listened to the Salaries explanation, but I have a simple
question for you: How many positions were in the department, and how many are
not there right now? I know you said there are three ADMs, right?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In this particular item, right?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Do you want to help me with that one, Robyn, please?
MS. HAYES: So
there would have been, at one point, a total of 24 positions among those three
entities, and it's now gone down to 11.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Would you have a list of the positions – and if you don't have it to give to me
now, you can send it to us – that have been eliminated in that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
No problem.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Right, so it'll be under the same thing, but it'd be nice to follow it in the
chart too that we're going to get also, so we'll know which one's (inaudible).
Madam Chair, if we could move on to section 1.2.02?
CHAIR: It's
called. Go ahead.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Again, and I understand and I might be a bit of a pain
tonight, but there are a lot of changes from the Estimates that were last year
and just explanation. I know there's a lot of movement here. We go to Salaries,
there's a significant difference there in the Salaries versus last year, and I
know it's Administrative Support, not the office of the minister, so can you
explain why there's such a difference in that.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So there are two pieces to that particular salary line. There's only one
permanent public service position in there. That's the administrative assistant
on the front desk at Fire and Emergency Services. As you know, they're based on
Hallett Crescent, so that's part of that.
The remainder of that is actually our student budget. So
there are two things going on with the students. Our summer students are funded
out of that pot of funding. As well, if we do co-op students – and we try to
avail of those whenever we can – that are not associated with engineering,
because you'll see some of that funding in the engineering activities we'll get
to later, that's what's generally in that number.
So again, the $191,400 reflects
what would have been in all of those entities before for students and now
they're combined in one spot. The reason there's a difference from the budgeted
number last year to this year reflects the fact that some of that student
funding would have ended up with other departments. For example, Wildlife
Division or Climate Change, we would have split up a part of that number based
on the changes in structure.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So there's quite a bit of
money there for summer students in that. Minister, I guess I'll be giving you a
call.
Again,
the positions then have been added, okay.
Employee Benefits, again if you looked at it, there's a big increase from last
year's Estimates. We had $3,000 that was estimated there last year and now what
does that include? Where was it to and what does it add up to this year to make
it go to $76,000?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In Employee Benefits, again, the line item in Administrative Support activities
generally are usually for workers' compensation invoices for injury-on-duty
claims. What that reflects is the fact that you've got the combination of those
injury-on-duty claims from the multiple entities we talked about before. So
that's why there's $76,000.
MR. K. PARSONS:
In the next one, on
Transportation and Communications, there's an increase over last year. Again,
I'm going back to the Estimates that, as you know, were right before but there's
an increase over last year's Estimates and just give us the variance here also.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So again, the $134,200 would
have been the Transportation and Communications budget from those entities
combined from last year. If you look at zero-based budgeting and as we talked
about earlier, frequently in this item you're speaking about cellphones, land
lines and so on, we also have our postage costs for the entire department as an
example, we've got our freight costs, all of our phone lines for Municipal
Affairs, Fire and Emergency Services, and the Environment Branch to make up that
$120,400. Again, it was building what our known costs were in Transportation and
Communications into that item; also, of course, it's for travel for executive.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Under Supplies, there's a
steady decline there. Can you explain that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's much the same as the
answer for the Minister's Office. Those supply budgets would have been for the
complement of executive that Robyn referenced earlier in terms of the 24
positions or 25 positions I believe she referenced. Again, we have 11, so we
would require less funding from the perspective of Supplies for that number of
executive and what we would expect to build in our zero-based budgeting.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Last
year you budgeted $433,000 for Purchased Services and there's a large revised.
What wasn't spent? Did you have something purchased or you wanted to use there
that you didn't?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That related to lease costs
for – that's the big expenditure. The big expenditure in there is rent for
Hallett Crescent and Mews Place for Fire and Emergency Services. In terms of the
variance, so the $433,000 to $395,000, lower equipment costs. We also have less
cost for – generally, we're going through an exercise of trying to reduce our
storage costs by being better with records management. There was a reduced cost
for equipment rentals from Xerox, storage costs for the Registry and actually
some electricity costs were down as well.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Under Grants and Subsidies,
I'm always interested in those, what's included here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
This is based on our
population and our support to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment. As for a lot of federal-provincial tables there are fees per
jurisdiction. This is what we pay for our membership in support of that
organization.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Why has it decreased?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I suspect it's based – so we
would just be paying out what we're invoiced, so probably based on the latest
population data. That actual figure is what we would be invoiced for by the
secretariat for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I also
wondered about the revenue line. The revised was $26,000. It was budgeted $5,000
and this year it's showing $5,000 again. What's the difference here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The increased revenue there
is actually rebates from Newfoundland Power for some of the environment
accounts.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
That's
the questions I have on that section, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
I'll go
back to Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I do not have any more
questions for 1.2.02.
CHAIR:
We have called up to 1.2.04.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, I wasn't sure.
Well,
for 1.2.03, basically my main question does have to do with the salary line. If
we could just have a breakdown of what happened there, please.
MR. CHIPPETT:
This division is actually
Robyn's division. We're basically a strategic financial management division for
other departments in government. At the management level we had a manager of
finance budgeting and general operations for every department or group of
departments that we supported. With the reductions generally, and the
combinations of some of the entities that we talked about, we eliminated two of
our five managers of finance budgeting and general operations.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Naturally, because we have fewer departments now then we had.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Got it.
Thank
you.
For
1.2.04, just checking, is this the vehicle replacement budget in 1.2.04?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yes, it is.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
That's
all the questions I have.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons, did you have
any more up to 1.2.04?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Oh, yeah.
CHAIR:
You do. So are you okay with
me going back to –? Okay.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. We can come back to
the one Ms. Michael was just in that time. Again, I want to go to Employee
Benefits. The revised was down but this year it's budgeted for more than we
revised last year. Can you just explain the variance there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Sure. Again, in this
particular line item we're often talking about registrations for conferences or
certifications and so on.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We had budgeted at $5,000
based on more of a historical approach in the previous budget. There was
actually $800 spent, but in terms of – to give you the breakdown for Employee
Benefits for 2017-18, again, we spoke about Strategic Financial Management
division. So the allocation of $1,800 is for course registration for staff
professional development, which included the Financial Management Institute, CPA
and other conferences. It's basically to keep certifications current for some of
the people in that unit.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The next line,
Transportation and Communications, can you explain the variance there also?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In terms of the final number
and the zero-based budgeting approach, in particular we put a strong focus on
making sure we're only paying for phone lines that we needed, so actually
budgeting and removing any extra lines and so on. There would be $5,000 in that
$7,000 for departmental office phone lines. There were some cellphone charges.
Not a
lot of travel in this division but there may be a trip to support departments,
for example, who had headquarters or units outside of St. John's. That's
basically what's in your $7,000. In terms of the $8,000 in the revised figure,
it was a result of higher than budgeted communication costs.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
Purchased Services, what's included here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Purchased Services: in
particular, equipment rental. So the reduction in that case is particularly
driven – or actually the increase, sorry, was actually driven by the actual
rightsizing of equipment rental costs for Xerox.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. That's it for me in
that section, but I can go on to the next one before we –
CHAIR:
No, so you're done up until
1.2.04?
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, I'm done to 1.2.03. I
just have a couple of questions in 1.2.04.
CHAIR:
Yes, you can go because we
called that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Here
I'm going to just ask a question on the Property, Furnishings and Equipment; a
change from last year's Estimates. It was like $5,000 and this year now it is
$32,000. Can you just give us why the change there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
You're in 1.2.03?
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, I'm in 1.2.04.
CHAIR:
Page 17.5.
MR. CHIPPETT:
This is our capital budget.
The only capital that the department has is funding for replacement vehicles.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The increase in the revised
relates to a particular vehicle that was required for Fire and Emergency
Services, so that's why it was up to $44,600.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, when we read that, we
kind of figured that.
Okay, I
guess that's it then on those lines.
CHAIR:
Okay, so we'll call that.
Shall
1.2.01 to 1.2.04 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 1.2.04 carried.
CHAIR:
Before we move, if it's okay
with everybody, we'll take a 10-minute break. We'll resume at 7:55?
MR. JOYCE:
I have no problem. Whatever
my colleagues want; I'm easy to get along with, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Staff may want a washroom
break.
MR. JOYCE:
Whatever they want; I'm easy
to get along with – whatever you want.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Recess
CLERK:
2.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 carry?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, on this one here,
I'm going to have a few general questions because it's pretty interesting to me.
There's a lot there, especially when it comes to planning and just some general
questions here.
The
Planning Division under Municipal Affairs here, have there been any reductions
in that area as it pertains to – I know a lot of towns in my district have to do
their town plans. This is where they do that. As we all know, it takes a bit of
time and you get quite a few emails from me wondering where it is and whatnot.
I'm just wondering: Are there reductions and is there anyone gone out of that
department that we usually deal with?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We did have a reduction in
this area. As you know, the Land Use Planning Section was a part of the Crown
Lands branch.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Crown Lands, yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
But when Crown Lands was
moved to the other department, to Fisheries and Land Resources, we felt it was
important to keep the land-use planning function within Municipal Affairs
because you're absolutely right, the main clients are municipalities.
We did
have a reduction in terms of the manager for planning operations, but the
director position in this division now – and you'll see there's a new name for
this activity as well, that's being recruited now actually, we're hiring for
that position – will include planning as a part of their job description.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
What
was it before?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Before it was just the Local
Governance division.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay and the Planning
section was just part of the …?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Was a section on its own. It
was a separate Land Use Planning Section reporting to the ADM of Crown Lands.
But, I guess, just to give a brief explanation of why Local Governance and
Planning.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Local Governance in
particular, or two of their functions, relate to amalgamation requests, boundary
changes for municipalities and so on. There's a natural linkage with planning
and the Urban and Rural Planning Act,
so now the Local Governance division would be responsible for amalgamation,
boundary changes and also the development of town plans with towns and
consultants and so on.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
the town plans right now, as you know, there's a commissioner and they go
through the commission stages and they go through the general consultation
stages; but I know in my own personal experience dealing with this it always
seems like it takes – so is this going to speed up that process any?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I'm not sure this particular
change would speed it up; it won't slow it down. We are planning this year to do
a review similar to what we did with the
Crown Lands Act on the Urban and
Rural Planning Act to look at it from a lean methodology. So to see if there
are steps that can be improved upon, to see if we can use technology more than
we do, to see if all the steps, for example, are needed. We plan to commence
that review of that process this year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Are
there any amalgamation requests in the department?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We have, I think, two that
come to mind immediately that are new. So there may be ones that have been
requests for a period of time. This year, of course, we have Wabush and Labrador
City. We have Botwood, and Northern Arm is a new one. I know there have been
ones that have been talked about for a while; for example, Glovertown and
Traytown would have been another one, but I think that may have been …
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know that the department
has mentioned a lot about regionalization when it comes to different fire
services, recreation services and everything. Is there anywhere in this
department, in this section, I would imagine, that you would see where that's
encouraged?
MR. JOYCE:
The way we were trying to
encourage that is through the cost-shared ratios that we had in place, anything
that's regional – for example, firefighting equipment right now is 80-20 but if
any two towns, two departments or more join, it would be 90-10 for roads and
buildings. The cost-shared ratios can move up if any project is regional, so
we're trying to encourage it through regionalization, through incentives.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What incentives are they,
fire and emergency –
MR. JOYCE:
Fire and emergency services,
roads –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Roads?
MR. JOYCE:
– buildings, they can all
move up the percentage. For example if it's 60-40, if it's regional, it can go
70-30; if it's large enough, it could go 80-20. We're definitely not going to
force any amalgamation, but we're definitely trying to encourage regionalization
and shared services.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Good question;
regionalization, how would roads work in – I mean, a road would either be in one
section or the other, how would it be …?
MR. JOYCE:
Well, you may have, say,
towns in a certain area that if, for example, the towns come together as one and
apply for it as one, the roads may, if it's regional – the regional governance
part of it.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
the same general conversation, how about requests are for relocation? How many
of those are out there now?
MR. JOYCE:
Well, under the old policy
right now, Williams Harbour, as we know, is in the process. I know, Madam Chair,
the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, was very strong, vocal and been
adamant that would be done, and that is being done as the Member knows
(inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Have they had their vote
yet?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes. Also in Snooks Arm,
under the old policy. Right now, the only request that we have is Little Bay
Islands. There are some expressions of interest, but Little Bay Islands has –
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's the one we had the
vote on two years' ago?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes. They had the vote, but
under the new policy. Snooks Arm and Williams Harbour is under the old policy.
Little Bay Islands now is under the new policy and the new regime in how to
vote.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What's the policy and
percentage now; has it changed?
MR. JOYCE:
That's still 90.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's still 90 per cent?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What policy changes would
make it interesting for them to change?
MR. JOYCE:
Those were the changes we
made there last year: the amount of time for residency, the vote has changed,
and then we sped up for a commissioner to hold hearings and things like that. So
we ensured that the residency part was more streamlined to actually who was
living in the area at the time, living there year-round, full-time residents;
also the timelines for the actual applications and then to have a commissioner
involved and for the appeals, that all has been streamlined to speed up the
process.
There
were public consultations that were done on that. When that came back, I know
you were at the press conference (inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know that the 90 per cent
issue – I remember when you were on this side of the fence, that was an issue
with you with the 90 per cent. I still believe it is. It's an issue with me
also, to tell you the truth. Is there any chance of that being looked at or …?
MR. JOYCE:
When I was on that side, 90
per cent was a number that I believed in and 90 per cent is still the number
that we, as a government, said no matter what you put it at, there will be some
people who'll say it should be 70 per cent, it should be 80 per cent. So 90 per
cent is reasonable. Plus, with that there has to be a cost-benefit analysis done
and we changed that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. JOYCE:
Instead of a 10 year – a 20
year, which was always 20 year, now it's a 10 year and that's because of the
demographics and the age. Is there a 10-year benefit over a 20-year benefit?
Before it was just 20 year so that's another thing that we changed.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Nippers Harbour was one
there a few years ago also. I believe the vote in Nippers Harbour was over 90
per cent. At the time, I think it was looked at the cost was too high or
whatever. Have they looked at it again?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There was close enough to –
we do an expression of interest vote initially.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
It was deemed to be close
enough to 90 per cent to start the process. But what happened in the case of
Nippers Harbour was when the cost-benefit analysis was done, they didn't pass
the cost-benefit analysis at the current financial compensation levels that are
listed in the policy.
There's
a stipulation in the policy that says government, with the agreement of the town
at the request of the town, can lower the financial compensation so that they'll
break even. We did that, and we put that back to the community of Nippers
Harbour. They did request for us to do that, to work out the numbers so they
would break even. The vote then did not pass the 90 per cent.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Okay?
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
I'll
continue asking some questions in that same vein. Minister, is the notion or the
goal, or whatever word you want to use, of regional governance still there as a
goal, or is it more putting the emphasis into shared services on a regional
level?
MR. JOYCE:
In actual fact, we're going
to have consultations in conjunction with MNL on regional governance, just to
travel around the province and Labrador to actually see what people want for
regional governance and the structure of it.
Regional governance in some circles is the way to go, and others. There was no
one going to be forced into amalgamation. Regional governance is something MNL
has supported and is in full consultations with these hearings we are going to
have and report back to government. Part of that also is an incentive for people
to share services more than regional governance.
What we
have in place is to try to encourage two fire departments, which is five
kilometres away, that there should be one fire department. We hope to be a
financial incentive to help out with that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. I would imagine with
regional governance it is not something you can do it here but you don't do it
there. I think it has to be one model or the other.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes and there will be public
consultations on that to get the feedback. It will be all across Newfoundland
and Labrador to see what we can do, what people are expressing, what people
feel. I'm very proud that MNL are big supporters of this and are pushing for
this also.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, like you, I've been
following this discussion with MNL. So it's good to see it getting to the point
where it is actually.
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah, and the committee has
been struck.
MS. MICHAEL:
Pardon?
MR. JOYCE:
There has been a committee
struck for it –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. JOYCE:
– with different parties
involved, from different entities on it.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. JOYCE:
They will be soon having the
consultations throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MS. MICHAEL:
Is that the Regional
Governance Advisory Committee?
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah, yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's what I thought, okay.
This is
a simpler question. With regard to civic addressing, how is that going?
MR. JOYCE:
In actual fact, we're
looking at civil addressing more through Fire and Emergency Services, the 911.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
That is something that I
know MNL has been pushing for the towns themselves. For the next generation with
the 911, that's when you need civic addressing. I know at MNL conferences
they're always pushing to get towns – some are doing it, some aren't.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
There will be a need to get
it done for Fire and Emergency and for life. So we are continuously advocating
that, MNL is continuously advocating that. I know Fire and Emergency Services
are saying it's going to be a necessity for us.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right; we really have
to have it.
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
If it's going to work, yeah.
I think
all the general questions I had have been covered. I'll go back to the line by
line now.
MR. JOYCE:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Am I correct, 2.1.01? Yes.
Once
again, could we have a breakdown of what happened with regard to the salary line
there? It's not a big difference. It's only $68,000, $69,000.
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's a combination. Again,
it's the net of a reduction of the manager that we mentioned in the answer to
MHA Parsons, and then there were lower salary steps. Some of the newer staff we
hired, their salaries were at lower steps. There was some savings there, as well
as lower budgeted savings for a vacant position in that area.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The combination is the
$68,700 difference that you see.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Thank
you.
Under
Transportation and Communications, last year it was underspent by quite a bit.
This year it's going up from the budget last year by about, what, $7,000, just
under.
MR. CHIPPETT:
This leads well from the
statements the minister made about the regional governance consultations. In
particular, speaking to the increase, we would expect the regional governance
consultations to be concluded in the fall of this year.
In
addition, we've had a number of requests. So in addition to municipal plans, the
government is responsible for the zoning along protected roads. We've had
numerous requests that we know will require hearings and commissioners and so on
in the upcoming fiscal year.
Really,
that's the reason for the increase. Last year, we would not have had as many
amendments to do. The other helpful note I've just been passed is the $61,600;
of course, everybody is aware at the end of September there are municipal
elections.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
This division would be front
and centre in providing training to new councils, mayors and so on after those
elections.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Under
Supplies, last year $9,000 underspent and this year going $800 above the $10,000
that was budgeted last year.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The general response is the
same as for the previous item; so, again, building from the ground up. As per
the zero-based budgeting exercise, we would need meeting supplies for the
regional governance consultations and the appeal boards.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
Under
the Professional Services, what are the professional services that would be
covered here? Just explain the variance in that line, please.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Professional Services in this activity generally relate to consultants, whether
that be for hearings. In 2016-17, the revised figure which is $12,400 higher, we
had legal fees. People would know the William's Harbour relocation was open to
judicial review. So this is where our legal fees would have been covered for
that.
The LSD
of George's Brook – Milton is interested in becoming a municipality. So the cost
for the consultant for a feasibility study would be in that amount.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
And we required less by way of planning consultants last year, again, for
hearings and so on.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The decrease in Professional
Services for 2017-18 relates to building from the ground up. There would be
appeal board fees and planning consultants that we would need, as well as the
impact of the departmental restructuring. Again, the budget for land use
planning and local governance would have been brought together.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So we wouldn't need the same amount for one division as we would for two.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Before
I go on to the next line, you mentioned the LSDs. I have heard recently of some
LSDs who are looking at amalgamation. Is there more of a move happening in that
direction or is it just sporadic?
MR. JOYCE:
Of course, when you speak to MNL, LSDs should become towns or should become
bigger parts.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
There are some towns
expressing to become LSDs but there's no major, across the province, asking to
become LSDs.
MS. MICHAEL:
And move into becoming
towns.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes. Some want to become
towns, but I know from MNL and part of the regionalization is, right or wrong,
and sometimes when you get an LSD one end of the road gets everything plowed,
everything done, not paying any taxes, but up at the beginning of the town you
have the town, the town boundaries – I know the Member for Cape St. Francis, who
is a municipal leader, heard this on many occasions. So there's a bit of an
issue there with it.
Jamie
just mentioned the LSDs on the corporate areas in the consultations also.
They're going to be involved with the consultations.
MS. MICHAEL:
They will be?
MR. JOYCE:
Oh, yes, they were invited
to be part of the consultations to see what we can do to make –
MS. MICHAEL:
Great.
MR. JOYCE:
LSDs are like a lot of
towns, too, sometimes a necessity. You have to become larger to help share with
the services and that in the areas. That's a big part with towns where
regionalization is more to help with the expenses, two towns.
I have
a good example out my way and I don't mind saying it, I've said it: Lark Harbour
and York Harbour, the same church, the same fire department, the same school,
the same firettes, two of them going right to – we did the study on the
amalgamation, that night both of them voted not to do it after everything was in
place.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. JOYCE:
There's no reason in my
opinion, and I told them, there's no reason why they should not be together.
MS. MICHAEL:
You can't force them.
MR. JOYCE:
A necessity eventually, it
will happen.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right, exactly.
My time
is up. Could I just ask my last line question, if that's okay with Kevin.
CHAIR:
The Member gives you leave.
Go
ahead, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just the Purchased Services,
what's included in that? This may be related to what you've been talking about
earlier in terms of the consultations, et cetera, but it's going up by about
$8,000 or so.
MR. CHIPPETT:
It is indeed related to the regional governance consultations, as well as the
advertising for road-zoning changes and so on.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Thank
you, I'll pass it over.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Parsons, did you have any more questions on 2.1.01?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah, I have a couple on
this section.
CHAIR:
Yes, okay.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Again, the last question you
just answered there that time, that's for what, did you say again? Ms. Michael
just asked a question. What's the increase again?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's related to meeting and equipment rentals and advertising, so both in terms
of the regional governance consultations.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, regional governance.
MR. CHIPPETT:
As well as advertising for the protective road-zoning amendments.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Grants
and Subsidies, can you let me know what's included there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Generally, we either pay the Grants and Subsidies line directly to a
municipality if they want to pursue a feasibility study, for example, on
amalgamation, if they want to pursue it themselves. In other instances we'll pay
through Professional Services to the consultant.
As an
example, in Grants and Subsidies here for example, the department's contribution
to Wabush and Lab City doing a feasibility study would be in the Grants and
Subsidies line because we paid it directly to the municipalities.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Say, for example, if a
municipality is interested in this, one is interested and the other says, well,
you know – does it go? How does it work when you have two municipalities? You'll
see some municipalities that have water and sewer and they have everything in
place and the other one says it's going to cost too much money to do it. How do
you delegate this kind of stuff, especially when it comes to amalgamation?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I think, Minister, it's safe
to say the policy in government is that there will be no forced amalgamation.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, not forced.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Usually we would expect both
towns to be at the table and agreeing in order to proceed with a feasibility
study.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I listened to one last night
on the radio. Now it's not towns, not a municipality; it was two local service
districts. One was talking about the services they had in theirs. Then they also
said the government was after – the one I just spoke to you about that time –
giving $1.6 million to improve the water in the other.
It
seemed like the conversation was that one wanted it and one wasn't really sure
whether they wanted it or not. If government is funding that and there's no
force, so as long as one says we're not that interested, then there's no money
goes towards it. Is that the policy?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, if both of them come to
an agreement. Like I just mentioned, York Harbour and Lark Harbour, if they
don't come to an agreement and one says no, at the end of the process there's no
way.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
We're not going to force
them in that.
I know
the one you're talking about that is next to Clarenville. We tried very hard
last year to get them together with the water supply from Clarenville. I know
the money was put aside to ensure clean, safe drinking water.
We
encourage it, but there will be no forcing of it. I hope towns can realize. As I
said, eventually it's going to become a necessity, but right now some towns feel
they can do it on their own.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What's the percentage of the
vote that's required for it to become amalgamation?
MR. JOYCE:
Well, no vote. Two town
councils have to vote on it.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The town councils separate,
there's no vote put in the community?
MR. JOYCE:
No.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
In that
case it would be a little bit different, though, because they were local service
districts, I think. They have to have a vote outside I would imagine.
Okay, I
want to go to the Revenue line. What's included here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That reflects the revenue
from appeal board hearings. The fees and revenue from appeal boards.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Now
that we're into appeal boards, I have a couple of questions, general questions.
Like I told you, Minister, I'd be asking some questions generally. Can you give
us an update on the regional appeal boards? I know there are a lot of appeals
waiting to be done. Where are we with the appeal process?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are five members now.
Eastern, in particular, I think is the area you may be speaking about.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There were three new members
appointed recently who went through the Independent Appointments Commission, and
there are two other members. Of course, the full complement for those boards is
five.
There
are two other members who've agreed to continue to serve until we find
appointees for those two other positions. Appeals are actually scheduled I think
for, or will be scheduled after we do an orientation with the new members.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So two members from the
previous board remained and we have three new ones. Okay.
When do
you expect that to start, the appeals to start? I know that –
MR. CHIPPETT:
Within a couple of weeks
from the orientation.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Do you know how many appeals
right now are needed, are out there to be heard?
MS. SPURRELL:
I have to get the exact
number for you, but I think it's in the range of 50 in the Eastern appeal board.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Fifty in Eastern. Eastern is
the part where there's no – is that the area where you have problems with
members on the board?
MS. SPURRELL:
The Eastern region is the
one where there are some appeals that haven't been held for a while because of
the members, but now that we've got the members in place we're going to do the
orientation and try to catch up on that backlog.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
That's
it on that section.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael, you were finished with that section as well. Okay.
Shall
2.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.2.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.2.01 carry?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I have a general question
right at the start of this one. Under the description there: “… the Minister and
Deputy Minister on corporate-wide initiatives.” What are they?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In terms of corporate-wide
initiatives –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– you'd be talking about things like access to information, training and
privacy, requests from the public and so on. For example, our ATTIP coordinator
would be funded under here, planning from the perspective of strategic planning
and annual reports; basically, things that would be required from all government
departments and agencies.
That
would be, our occupational health and safety is handled through the Policy and
Strategic Planning branch – legislation, as an example. Anything that would be
corporate review, central review of Cabinet submissions and briefing notes and
so on, that would all occur through this division.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. All right; I was just
curious to understand what you meant by that. Okay.
Under
Salaries, how many positions are included in this here?
MS. HAYES:
There are 17 positions here.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Obviously, there are some that were positions removed. What are they?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are a couple of offsetting things happening here again. We had three
directors of Policy and Planning in the three entities that came together. There
was a director in Fire and Emergency Services, there was a director for
Environment and Conservation and a director for Municipal Affairs.
We did
remove a director of Policy and Planning position and a management analyst
position. We also created – that's one of the things I think, Minister, we're
most pleased about in our budget, a dedicated position to complete a review of
municipalities' legislation. In addition, there was one retirement. So that's
how we go to the $1.2 million in salaries.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. So there were 17
positions this year, and three are gone? Is it three or four?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Three positions are gone. One was a retirement; two would have been reduced
through the management structure review. That was offset by the creation of a
director of legislative renewal.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Transportation and Communications, last year it was budgeted pretty high. Just
explain the variance on that and why it's reduced so much.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Transportation and Communications; again, that would have been the combination
of all those entities coming together. There's not usually a lot of travel
associated with Policy and Strategy Planning. So we would have done a zero-based
budgeting approach to our Transportation and Communications.
I'll
give you an idea of what's in here. Of that $9,600, again, building from the
bottom up, we have $3,600 in office phone lines, $1,200 in cellphone charges and
our travel would be limited to travel to conduct our consultations on the
environment assessment legislative review, and then miscellaneous divisional
travel costs. So that's basically what's in Transportation and Communications.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'd
like to go to Grants and Subsidies. If you could explain what the Grants and
Subsidies are.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Sure.
There
are three grants under this division. The first one is a grant that is provided
every – well, they're all provided every year. The biggest amount is $147,000
that goes to the Conservation Corps, so no change to that. The other two are
memberships in federal-provincial-territorial tables that we sit at.
There's
a group on local governance called PTOC. Our membership fee in that is $9,700,
which is paid out to that group as a grant. Similarly, we're a member of the
Eastern Canadian Premiers Secretariat, primarily involving environmental
initiatives, and our membership for that is $12,200.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Those
are the questions I have on that section.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Shall
2.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 2.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.3.01.
CHAIR:
No.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
2.2.01?
AN HON. MEMBER:
You called 2.1.01 twice.
CHAIR:
Okay. It's been a long day.
Shall
2.2.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 2.2.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
CLERK:
2.3.01 to 2.3.03.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.3.01 to 2.3.03
carry?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah, let Ms. Michael go.
She hasn't –
CHAIR:
And he was going to take it,
too, Ms. Michael.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I didn't speak to the other
one but he asked all the questions, so that was fine.
Just to
make a comment; it looks like here in the Salaries it's pretty stable. So does
that mean the positions are stable as well?
MR. CHIPPETT:
They are, and the increase is we rightsized our budget. This item has
traditionally not included overtime, stand by and travel costs for staff.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT: So
we included that in our zero-based budgeting exercise and that's why you see the
$653,900.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
But, yes, no change in position complement in that division.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
Transportation and Communications; obviously, knowing what
we're dealing with, Fire Services, we see what a lot of that line would be. I
guess your answer is going to be the reason for the lower estimate for this year
is because of the zero-based budgeting.
MR. CHIPPETT:
It is, and actually you'll see an increase in the next line. So we did
re-profile some funds within this activity.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Supplies budget, in particular, looks after training supplies for the
firefighter training school and for firefighter training.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Building from the ground up, again, we required more funds in that particular
line item.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Purchased Services is pretty stable also. What are the
services that are purchased here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
You're talking about things like vehicle repairs and maintenance. There's a
volunteer firefighter accidental death insurance policy.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are long-service awards and shredding costs. The biggest item in here is
the cost of running the training school which is held annually in May and runs
seven days.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
Coming down to Allowances and Assistance, this is constant.
I probably know this from last year but I can't remember what this line covers.
MR. CHIPPETT:
This is the workers' compensation premiums for volunteer firefighters.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, and no change in those premiums, obviously.
What about the Grants and Subsidies, what does that cover?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Again, these are consistent grants every year. There's been no change, and
there's an operating grant for the Association of Fire Services. There's a grant
to the Association of Fire Services for the Learn Not to Burn campaign.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
And the remainder is actually grants to municipalities for hazardous materials
response, hazmat training.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Also, if a municipality
responds or a fire department responds to an emergency outside a municipal
boundary, there's a subsidy provided through Fire and Emergency Services.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Of
course, that's in the briefing book as well I think, isn't it? Yeah. Thank you.
Moving
on then, I have no questions on 2.3.02, but looking at 2.3.03, Disaster
Assistance. I'm assuming that –
MR. JOYCE:
2.2.03?
MS. MICHAEL:
Pardon?
CHAIR:
Yeah, it's been called.
Go
ahead, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, it was called up to
2.3.03.
CHAIR:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah.
Under
Disaster Assistance, there's a lot of variance here in places where there wasn't
budgeting happening. I'm going to ask you in a general way, I'm assuming the
major rainstorm event must have been a big part of that. Maybe you could talk
about that.
MR. CHIPPETT:
You're absolutely right.
Generally, with the three biggest areas, from a salary perspective we have one
manager for Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program which, of course,
is run by the federal government. The increase in the Salaries, both in revised
and in '17-'18, are temporary staff brought on to handle claims.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The expenditures under
Professional Services and Purchased Services relate to, for example, the
insurance industry; we partnered with them to do the assessment of properties.
That would have been a professional service.
In
terms of Purchased Services, we pay out directly to contractors sometimes, for
example, on municipal claims. Then in terms of Allowances and Assistance, that's
the payments for private claims.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Really, all the expenditures
there are related to that. Based on the level of damages that occurred, the
Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program federally will compensate us
for 90 per cent of those expenditures.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
I guess
a lot of that is in the briefing book, the breakdown that you've gone through.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair, just one note
on that.
CHAIR:
Minister.
MR. JOYCE:
When this Thanksgiving
rainstorm hit and the people at Fire and Emergency Services and Municipal
Affairs got involved, there were assessments done, claims sent out, claims
received, adjusters in place before other provinces even got the applications
out.
MS. MICHAEL:
Really.
MR. JOYCE:
That's the work that the
Fire and Emergency Services and Municipal Affairs did in that job. I just want
to recognize the staff that did that. When we were going around – Nova Scotia,
some of the people didn't realize how quick we had it done. They were amazed how
quickly the professional staff at Fire and Emergency Services and Municipal
Affairs helped out municipalities, individuals, towns, businesses in the
province. I just want to recognize that.
MS. MICHAEL:
So I take it from that,
Minister, everything has been taken care of.
MR. JOYCE:
Everything is in the process
and being paid out. Some work – most of the bills are even submitted.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's good news to hear.
MR. JOYCE:
Some money is getting ready
to be paid, been paid already.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
Under
Allowances and Assistance, though – I understand the Professional Services and
the Purchased Services, but under Allowances and Assistance there was nothing
budgeted last year. I'm assuming the revision was because of the Thanksgiving
event. Why do we have $1,300,000 in it this year when there was nothing budgeted
last year?
MR. CHIPPETT:
From last year, there was
nothing budgeted because at the beginning of the fiscal year obviously we didn't
know the event would occur.
In
terms of the revised, the things that happened most quickly related to private
claims that could be settled quickly. There were 244, actually, private claims;
226 of those have been closed. The $1.9 million was money that we transferred in
from another activity to pay for those private claims.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MS. CHIPPETT:
And the $1.3 million is what
remains to be paid out, or was remaining to be paid out when the budget was
done.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Would
that be the same thing for the Grants and Subsidies as well?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Grants and Subsidies
would be payment to municipalities.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHIPPETT:
In terms of their
infrastructure, we always fund them because they own the infrastructure. So the
Grants and Subsidies relate to municipal claims.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Coming
down to Revenue – I still have enough time left, I think. Under Federal –
Revenue, it looks like that money was budgeted, the $14.6 million.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Again, we wouldn't have had
any revenue in last year when the budget was done. So these are actually the
final payments from the federal government for Hurricane Igor claims.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
You
finally got the last of the money on Igor.
MR. CHIPPETT:
That is it.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, very good.
I just
have a few seconds left and I know that if I had another question, Kevin is
probably going to ask it, so I'll turn it over. They were all my questions.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you.
Hurricane Matthew is what we had last year, so the claims you're saying that 244
of them and 226 are paid out already?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
What
was the total cost? Any idea what the total cost of that whole …?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I know we're over $20 million, but I'll ask Robyn to speak to whether that's the
right number.
MS. HAYES:
It is around the $20 million mark, which will be funded by the federal
government 90-10.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm just going to stay in
this section first and then I'll clue it up because I only have one question and
then I'll go back to the other two questions. On disasters, there's a certain
portion before the feds will come in with their money. What's the amount that if
something happens, whether it's a flood or anything at all, before the federal
government will come in and say okay, this is – and is it in this section that
we find the funding for this?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It is where the funding for this would be, it would be in this activity but it's
only triggered of course if there's an event of a certain magnitude, as you say.
The first $1.6 million, the province is on its own. Then there are differing
splits. So the more you spend or the greater the damage is, then you work your
way up to the 90-10 category.
MR. K. PARSONS:
And that goes high? Does
that go to $20 million, $15 million, $10 million?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Whatever it is above the –
MR. JOYCE:
Over the limit.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Over the limit, the maximum
limit – whatever it goes over, it's 90-10 after that. You have to reach a
certain threshold for the 90-10.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just to understand again –
like I said, I'm trying to understand my zero-based budget as much as I can. In
a department such as yours where these things can happen, and it seems like more
things can happen, my understanding through the Department of Finance is that
zero-based budgeting is that this is what the department gets, everything line
for line for line. What happens in the department when there are incidents of
disaster and stuff like that? Where does the funding come from and how will we
get it?
MR. JOYCE:
There is emergency funding
in the department. I know last year and some of the other things that happened
in different departments is that contingency fund that we set up, $30 million
contingency fund, can be used for that. Also, in the department itself, there's
some emergency funding that we use for different towns.
Most
municipalities apply for it if an emergency happens. The latest one we had, I
think, was up in Labrador, Northwest River where they were one week without
water. There is a contingency fund there and the department emergency fund, plus
there is a $25 million contingency fund that we can use.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's in the department's
budget, is it?
MR. JOYCE:
No, that's in the Department
of Finance. The contingency fund has to be tabled in the House, if it's ever
used.
MR. CHIPPETT:
If I could just add to that.
A couple of things: One, there's always the option to go to the Legislature for
a special warrant, but using this as an example, obviously we have a large
allocation for infrastructure, so in this case we were able to use some of our
infrastructure funding to deal with some of the municipal claims and we were
able to transfer some of that funding in infrastructure. You know infrastructure
varies from year to year, based on when projects get approved and all those
types of things. So we were able to transfer in from within our own
infrastructure budget as well.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
On the
infrastructure part of it because when I did ask the question in Finance, they
basically said it would have to go back to probably Cabinet to get approval for
such funding and stuff like that because of the change. If you're going to use
it through your infrastructure funding, then that's where it would have to be.
MR. JOYCE:
That's the contingency fund;
we have to go to Cabinet to get approval. Under that fund, any money out of that
fund that's used has to be tabled in the House of Assembly within three days. So
it has to go to Cabinet for approval to use the contingency fund, but it is
tabled in the House of Assembly, whatever the use of it is for.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm just curious, just to
know where it would come from and stuff like that.
I want
to go back to section 2.3.01. Ms. Michael asked the line questions that I needed
to ask; I just wanted to ask one there.
MR. JOYCE:
2.3.01.
MR. K. PARSONS:
2.3.01.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Fire and Emergency Services,
is that still located over on Hallett Crescent?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
When we
talked earlier about positions, you said there were 25 and it was moved down to
23, I believe. Are those director positions?
MR. CHIPPETT:
One was the director of
policy and planning that we referred to earlier.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The reason the number is what it is, is a result of some of those temporary
positions that were hired as a result of the Thanksgiving rain event, but there
was one director position that was eliminated. I don't know what the second
position is offhand.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. So there are no plans on relocating the offices? Because in another
section it was due for rental that was –
MR. CHIPPETT:
The lease for Hallett Crescent is until 2018 or 2019.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael asked about Salaries. Okay, that's it on that section.
I asked
a question about the Appeal Boards. Emergency Services, okay, let's go to
section – I don't think Ms. Michael asked any questions on section 2.3.02.
CHAIR:
We've called up to 2.3.03.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, so I'd like to ask a
question on the Salaries, the difference in the Salaries, what the reason is.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The increase there is a result of salary step increases.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just salary increases?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yeah, the steps. No change to position complement in Emergency Services.
MR. K. PARSONS:
On the Employee Benefits,
last year it was $700 and then we obviously we didn't spend any. This year it's
$500. Can you explain the variance there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In the zero-based budgeting exercise, we budgeted $500 this year for conferences
and registrations.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
Purchased Services, last year it was $12,000. Can you explain the difference in
that line also, the variance, decrease and increase?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Generally, in Purchased Services in this division we're talking about meeting
room and equipment rentals and radio licence fees. We do pay a membership here
as well to the federal-provincial group for emergency management offices and
there are also repairs to our fleet.
Of
course, there are a fair number of vehicles involved in Fire and Emergency
Services and there's annual maintenance for the generator associated with the
building. So in terms of the $27,600, that's our actual expenditure under that
particular line. Last year we would have spent less on vehicle repairs and
general purchased services. That's why we didn't spend the $35,800.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'd
like to go to the Revenue line and just an explanation of the revenue. What's
the revenue there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We talked about the FPT
forum, the Canadian council of ministers of emergency organizations. This is
actually funding that we had for a year or so because we were the co-chair of
that organization with the federal government. As a result, we were provided
funding that we could use from a salary and operating perspective to support
that group.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I don't
know if Ms. Michael asked about Salaries or not. I'm not sure if she did. You
did? Okay, because I didn't have it marked up.
Other
than that, I think that's all I have in that area.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael, did you have
more questions in that section?
MS. MICHAEL:
I have one general question.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Go
ahead, Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
It has to do with the work
of NL 911 Inc. We've gone to their website. There's not a lot of information
there. I'm just wondering if you could give us some information of what's
happening. Do they submit an annual general report with budget to the
department?
MS. SPURRELL:
Yes, they do submit an
annual report. We should see that in the coming weeks as we move into year-end.
They do have a budget. I don't have it with me but I can certainly get a copy of
it for you.
MS. MICHAEL:
That would be great.
MS. SPURRELL:
Their priorities right now
are on the civic addressing and moving to Next Generation 911. So they're doing
some research around that cross jurisdictionally.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
I'd
appreciate that information, the budget.
MS. SPURRELL:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Great. Thanks.
Maybe
if you could just make a note, maybe the minister would table it anyway, but it
would be good to get their next report that you'll get from them, their annual
report.
CHAIR:
Okay. Are we all good with
this section?
Good,
Ms. Michael?
Shall
2.3.01 to 2.3.03 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.3.01 through 2.3.03 carried.
CLERK:
3.1.01 and 3.1.02.
CHAIR:
3.1.01 and 3.1.02.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Again, there are changes in
the description from last year, but we'll go to the Salaries. There's a good bit
of difference there in the Salaries. Can you just explain the variance of what
is there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are two things happening here from a management restructuring perspective.
We used to have regional directors in the department. Rather than having
individual directors in regions, we now have a director who is responsible for
all engineering and infrastructure, and a director that is responsible for all
municipal support.
Basically, before our regional offices used to report to two different people,
somebody from a regional support perspective and somebody from an engineering
perspective, because we have a director of engineering in the department as
well. The director of engineering oversees the headquarters group of engineering
as well as the engineers in all the regions, and there's a director for
municipal support.
So when
I say municipal support, you're talking about on the ground, financial support,
legislative advice and so on. Those staff will be overseen by a director from
municipal support rather than directors in different regions.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So if there were two
directors, now there's one?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Under this particular activity there were two directors and now there's one. We
also had a reduction in a regional manager position.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What region was that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Labrador.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Labrador.
Is that
something you're planning on filling?
MR. CHIPPETT:
No.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No. Okay.
Where
is it handled now? It's all coming into the department and one –
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's a regional manager in Corner Brook, and if you look at the –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I don't have the exact numbers with me, but if you look at the number of
communities we support in the Western region and Labrador, they line up very
well with the number of communities that are supported out of our Central
regional office and our Eastern regional office.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Employee Benefits, I'd just like for you to explain that line, why nothing last
year and what happened.
MR. CHIPPETT:
In our zero-based budgeting submission, or as I say building from the ground up,
in our Employee Benefits there's course registration for staff development and
we budgeted that at $400.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Purchased Services, what's
in this line? What does it include?
MR. CHIPPETT:
So you're basically talking about meeting room, equipment rentals, equipment
repairs and maintenance, and general purchased services.
In our
budget for '17-'18, the $56,400, we've got shredding services for two of our
regional offices. We've got Xerox stations. We've got an office space rental in
Gander, and we've got business insurance on some of our vehicles.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'd
like to go to the revenue line again. Where did the revenue come from?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Engineering staff in our Labrador office. We still have people on the ground in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There's a memorandum of understanding with the
Nunatsiavut Government. So we provide engineering services and support to the
Inuit communities and Nunatsiavut Government, and that's the revenue that's
realized as a result of that relationship.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
That
section there, I'm finished, but I can move on to the next section, Madam Chair,
if it's okay with you.
CHAIR:
Yes, we've called up to 3. –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Unless you have any – we
only called that one did we? I didn't know if we called it while I –
CHAIR:
We've called 3.1.02.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
All right, okay.
So are
you okay with us going to –
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'll go on to two, and then
when my time is finished you can ask any questions. Okay.
CLERK:
3.1.02.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Is that the one we go to
next?
CHAIR:
Well, we've called 3.1.01,
and 3.1.02 has been called.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, all right.
I'll go
to –
CHAIR:
And you do have five minutes
left on the clock.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, perfect.
Now
this section here, Minister, is interesting to me because, especially community
enhancement grants.
I've
got five minutes left on this one, right?
MR. JOYCE:
No, no, I was just looking
at a time, 9 o'clock. I was going to make a suggestion. I don't know if we're
going to continue on or we can come back, because there is a lot to go through
and we hate to be rushed.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's up to you.
MR. JOYCE:
No, because I don't know
what everybody else thinks here, but there are at least another 8-10-12 sections
and the rate we're going, it's going to be another couple of hours. I have no
problem coming back. I mean there –
CHAIR:
There are four subheads, counting the one we're on.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay, it's up to you guys.
It doesn't bother me, whatever you guys want to do.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I guess we're going to have
to come back and do it.
CHAIR:
The Chair will –
MR. JOYCE:
What do you think, Jim?
MS. MICHAEL:
I would be open to coming
back. I don't know what Mr. Parsons wants.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I got no problem with it.
MR. JOYCE:
What do you think? Are you
all right with that, coming back? We will be here for another hour and a half,
at least, if we don't.
CHAIR:
I guess because there are
still some Estimates ongoing, we will have to find a time that's available.
MR. JOYCE:
Or do you want to keep
going? We're here as long as you want to do it or come back.
CHAIR:
I'm just seeking advice
here. The Clerk is not sure there's a lot of time left to do this, to find
another window given what we have on the go.
MR. JOYCE:
Okay, we will stay. I'm
fine.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I think we can speed it up
if maybe we want to stay for a half hour or 40 minutes or so.
MR. JOYCE:
Sure.
MR. K. PARSONS:
We might be able to conclude
by then.
MR. JOYCE:
I just don't want it to be
said that myself and the Member for Cape St. Francis is having an argument.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, I understand that. I
apologize. I'll talk faster or something.
Okay,
so we'll just continue?
CHAIR:
You continue, Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, perfect.
This
section here, Minister – and I do know the community enhancement grants came
into this section from last year too. Can you just explain what was added, this
whole department here, Municipal Operating Grants, Special Assistance grants,
what was there last year versus to this year?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The only addition to this
item, to this activity, is the community enhancement operating funding. So
there's a separate section we'll see in a few headings that has the grants
separate, but the staff that manage that program are responsible for that
program. Their salaries as well as any operating funding required are contained
in 3.1.02.
What we
did in that instance, and you'll see in the binder that we provided, is the
existing manager of Municipal Finance was responsible for Municipal Operating
Grants, special assistance grants, review of municipal budgets and financial
statements. That individual now has the community enhancement program in that
portfolio as well.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
On the
reduction in Salaries that was brought over, can you just give us why the
variance there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
So it was basically similar
to a couple of the other examples we had in the Environment subheadings. We
created a new manager position that was responsible for all those Municipal
Finance activities, as well as community enhancement with the community
enhancement position. So there's one manager for all of the financial programs
that the department provides to municipalities.
MR. K. PARSONS:
All right.
Just a
general question here, Minister, on the community enhancement grants. I know
that we have a lot of issues in the fishery, rural Newfoundland and stuff like
that. Is there any contingency that you're going to be able to look at to be
able to help communities that are really going to need employment in their
communities? It's a major concern.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, there is still a fund,
the Fisheries Fund in the Fisheries Department for workers affected by any
slowdown in the fishery. There's also the community enhancement.
Also,
we mentioned earlier that, if need be, there's a contingency that we have. If we
feel that we need additional funds to help out people who are affected by the
downturns this year, our department can always approach Finance and Treasury
Board and ask for an allotment of the reserve that's in the contingency fund.
Once again, I'll say once we make that move to the emergency fund contingency
fund, we'll have to table in the House what it's for.
There
is money available to help out people who are affected by the downturn in the
fishery. I know Minister Crocker mentioned that in the House. Yes, there are
funds available and, yes, we are anticipating that there may be some people
using the fund that's already in to the Department of Fisheries and also the
community enhancement. Plus, if need be, we'll go to the contingency reserve
fund which we put aside for that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, that's it for me on
that section anyway.
CHAIR:
Do you have any more
questions?
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I don't.
CHAIR:
Okay. Are you done with that
section?
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, wait now, I'm sorry, one
general question very, very quickly.
Oh no,
I asked it. No, that's it. Sorry.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Shall
3.1.01 and 3.1.02 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.02 carried.
CLERK:
3.2.01 and 3.2.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.2.01 and 3.2.02
carry?
I'll
start with Ms. Michael this time.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I
really don't have a lot of questions for here. Except with the Grants and
Subsidies, can we get a list of the grants and subsidies if they're not already
in the briefing book?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Grants and Subsidies, there is actually one grant.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, is it?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I can answer that fairly
easily. This is funding for regional operators. You recall under the Community
Sustainability Partnership, government provided grants to the regional service
boards. In those instances, the regional service boards have hired regional
operators to work on water systems with communities, so it's part of the effort
to reduce boil-water advisories in different parts of the province.
Those
are three grants to three regional service boards for an employee and for the
operating expenses associated with an employee.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
And
where are those three regional boards located? What are the regions?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Eastern, Central and
Western.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, very good.
What
about Labrador?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There isn't a regional service board right now in Labrador.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Then
coming down to the Industrial Water Services, for the Professional Services last
year the budget and revision remained the same and this year it's down by
$30,000 – an explanation.
MR. CHIPPETT:
This was a Government Renewal Initiative. Government used to have, I think,
between 40 and 50 industrial water services that it operated. The department,
over the last number of years, has been working of divesting of these water
systems to communities and, as of now, actually, we only have two left to
divest, or one left to divest in Ramea. I think we've talked about, in Estimates
before, a salt water system.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So we would never be able to charge Ramea cost recovery based on what it would
cost for them to do so. We don't plan to divest and we don't plan to charge cost
recovery, but in the other instances we've been gradually divesting of the
systems and, therefore, all our expenditures would go down as we got rid of
those.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Under
Purchased Services, there's been a radical change there. Could you explain
what's happened there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's basically the same explanation. From a Purchased Services perspective, this
is operating expenditures. It might be electricity expenditures. It might be
repairs and maintenance for the water systems. So given the fact we're down to
two remaining, those expenses would be less, and basically that's why the
revenue is less as well. So the entire explanation under this heading is
basically, as we divest, we take in less revenue but we also have less
expenditure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay, thank you.
They're
really all the questions I have for those two sections.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I just have a question on
this section. Minister, I'm not sure if there is the proper section to even ask
this question. Your Ministerial Statement today when we talked about the
Regional Service Boards and a Citizens' Representative, is this the section
because it was also mentioned under Waste Management there also?
Do you
want to give us some details on what that's about?
MR. JOYCE:
What it is, we received a
lot of concerns and complaints about the boards and their mandate itself. I'll
give you a good example. There are some people who have a cabin.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's what I was –
MR. JOYCE:
They may not have
electricity to the cabin. They may be there one month a year. Under the Regional
Service Board, they feel they can collect garbage fees from that cabin.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. JOYCE:
We had numerous complaints
to the department. We have no authority to stop them from doing that; it's
within their mandate. So what we decided as a department was that we would put
it under the Citizens' Rep. If someone feels that they're not being treated
properly, they can make a complaint to the Citizens' Rep and then they can
investigate the complaint under their mandate to see if they're being treated
well by the Regional Service Boards.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
As an
MHA, and I know yourself, as a minister, and I'm sure most MHAs in the province,
especially in Eastern where this is happening, in the Avalon and stuff like
this, I know and I represented a good few cabin owners and met with the regional
board here, it seems like it's just cut and dry, whether the road is used during
the winter months because most cabin owners would be okay with it during the
summer months. But it seems like it's just cut and dry, it's one figure, $180
and that's the bottom line and there don't seem like there is anything we can
do.
What is
the Citizens' Representative going to be able to do?
MR. JOYCE:
They have the legislative
authority to do an investigation. And just for the record, they requested that
they have the authority to do this because they're hearing complaints; we're
hearing complaints. So as a Citizens' Rep they can do an investigation and make
sure their act is being followed and make recommendations itself.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Most cabin owners are going
to find this out and they're going to all go to the Citizens' Representative
and, as you know right now, they're a pretty busy department as it is.
Are
there any funds allocated for the added work that will be done and the resources
that will be needed to take this on?
MR. JOYCE:
From the Citizens' Rep, as
you know, we can't anticipate how many calls or how many that they're going to
have to investigate. As you know, the Citizens' Rep is under the Management
Commission. If they feel they need additional funds that's an avenue that they
have to go through, the Management Commission.
That is
something that they asked for; they feel they can handle within their resources.
If they feel that there's a volume where they can't, the Management Commission
is where – and it's like any other part of the House of Assembly, child, youth,
family, the Child and Youth Advocate, they can go to the Management Commission
to seek additional funds if they feel necessary. That's the avenue they must go
through and that's the avenue that (inaudible) for the House of Assembly.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
That's
good for that section.
CHAIR:
You're good with that
section, both of you? Okay.
Shall
3.2.01 and 3.2.02 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.2.01 through 3.2.02 carried.
CLERK:
3.3.01 to 3.3.06.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.3.01 to 3.3.06
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Again, the questions here,
Minister – and I think I have a good idea of what's happening here, but it's
nice to get an explanation. As debt comes down on municipalities, obviously,
there's a reduction in the amount of funding here. If you just want to give this
a quick say.
MR. JOYCE:
You're 100 per cent correct.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
Debt is being paid down,
it's being lowered and so is the interest on it.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Municipalities always come with more grants and everything else and we do
funding and stuff like that. Why is it coming down so much? You're still giving
out money and they still have to finance.
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah, but most of the
municipalities now go through the banks, get the loans from the banks.
MR. K. PARSONS:
They use the banks more than
they did. Okay.
I'm
sure that 3.3.02 is the same answer that you just gave.
I'm
happy to see that the Municipal Operating Grants are staying the same. Is there
any change in the towns, like, for example, the ratios?
MR. JOYCE:
The ratios have changed,
yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
They have changed. I'm
talking about the Operating Grant itself for the towns. So they're still the
same no matter what it is?
MR. JOYCE:
They're the same. Yeah.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's all based on
population, right?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, population is the same.
MR. K. PARSONS:
On the larger towns, I know
there are 22 larger towns that also have funding under I think it's multi-year.
Is that how it works there? Are they all done based on population also?
MR. JOYCE:
Usually it is based on
population, but what we did last year and what we did this year, it was
population plus the amount of money they received under the Wastewater Fund.
I'll give you a good example: Gander. Gander received $38 million this year.
In some
cases like Clarenville, for example, Clarenville never applied for any funding
under the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund. What happened was, with their three
years, we didn't decrease it as much because they had no funds. Most
municipalities, and I use Corner Brook, for example, which I'm a part of, this
year with the multi-year, plus what they got from the federal-provincial Clean
Water and Wastewater Fund already, they will be $4 million better off.
What
they submitted to us was their priorities. That's how we basically share –
MR. K. PARSONS:
So it's based on the need
for waste water first?
MR. JOYCE:
No, it's what the councils
apply for. Most of the councils applied for water and waste water as their
priority. Most municipalities that received funding from that fund plus with the
three-year, multi-year they received this year, most every town would be better
off in the long run because they will see that we took a lot of their money and
we leveraged federal money to put with their money to give them the projects
that they need.
There
are many examples across the province that we took some of our funds and then we
leveraged federal funding.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just a question, and you can
probably answer this, when I looked at the list I saw that something like CBS
got less money than Corner Brook – and it showed the list, so it was based on
the need for waste water and the funds that they allocated.
MR. JOYCE:
Water and waste water and
then, in some cases, what they received last year. That's how we tried to be as
fair as we can with it because we did have to take some of the funds to leverage
funding. And it did work. A lot of towns are much better off after these three
years and there is still the Small Communities Fund that they can apply for.
Next year – except St. John's I think is the only one cannot apply for that –
there are funds that they can apply for this year and there are funds next year.
Plus, next year there is also the second phase of the federal infrastructure
fund they can apply for also.
MR. K. PARSONS:
All right. That's good.
I want
to go to section 3.3.04. We're doing that one too, right? It went to 3.3.06,
right?
CHAIR:
Yes, we are. Correct.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
Special Assistance, just explain the line to me, Purchased Services, please.
What is the $38,500 for?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The $38,500 related to
decommissioning costs associated with the relocation process for Williams
Harbour.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know what a lot of the
grants are for but can you just give us what's included in the Grants and
Subsidies line?
MR. JOYCE:
Oh, yeah. We just used some
of the – the Town of Wabush, as we gave them with the Voisey's Bay, the
agreement that your government struck with them. We gave them a certain amount
of money.
Also,
there's a lot of special assistance in Ramea for example. When we had that major
disaster in Labrador, we used funds for that. I can assure you one thing, that
all the funds that are in this program are used for municipalities.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
This
fund now has been reduced over the last number of years, has it?
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah, and it's reduced
again.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Last
year, the revised was $7.5 million. Why the variance there?
MR. JOYCE:
Pardon me?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Why was it last year that it
went up to $7.5 million? Just the whole line, if you can explain. It was
budgeted for $3.4 million, then it went to $7.5 million, and this year $2.7
million under Grants and Subsidies.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The $7.5 million, we
transferred in funding to pay out the relocation costs for the property owners
in Williams Harbour. That's where the difference between the $3.4 million and
the $7.5 million comes from.
Then
the other piece, as the minister was speaking to Wabush Mines, their grant in
lieu from the province for the idling of Wabush Mines; that decreases over three
years. So the reduction or the last payment for Wabush Mines is $636,000 which
will occur next year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
This is
where the small municipalities can apply for grants to do different improvements
and stuff like that. That's the money allocated in this section, is it?
MR. JOYCE:
Everything (inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
Community Enhancement, I think you already answered my question on that before,
but that also is a reduction for the last number of years, too, isn't it? It's
after coming down a ways from what it was in the earlier years.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The budget is actually up this year for Community Enhancement.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah, it's up this year by a
couple of hundred thousand, but in 2015, when I look back, it was up to $5.7
million or $5.8 million.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yeah, it was higher. The
difference this year is the minimum wage increase.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So that's been factored in
to the allocations.
If I
could correct myself from earlier, the last payment for the Wabush grant in lieu
is actually this year not next year.
MR. JOYCE:
That is something we
started. I remember going back to Stephenville when Stephenville shut down and
Grand Falls, it was to help the town readjust with the loss of taxes from that
major industry. So we just continued on with the three years that they received
it.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
Provincial Gas Tax, why is it you spent more this year than last year's revised
the year before? Is that because of the increase of 1 per cent?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MS. TIZZARD:
The increase is due to the
forecasted and budgeted increase for the gas tax. So it went from three-quarters
of a cent per litre to one cent per litre.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Has
there been any change in the gas tax applications for municipalities? I don't
know if they've changed over the last number of years. It went from
environmental to – it still doesn't include recreation. What are the
requirements these days?
I
remember it used to be just some kind of environmental waste management. Then we
ended up getting roadwork done and stuff like that after a while.
MR. JOYCE:
That's federal gas tax
money; and, yes, you can still use that. It's under the federal gas tax that the
towns receive.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
You can do roads. The only
stipulation they have in that is if you get any program water, waste water and
it's up to 50 per cent, you can't, what they call stack, to get your federal gas
tax money to make it over 50 per cent of the federal contribution. It can be
used for roads and other things if it doesn't go over 50 per cent. You can't
make it to be over 50 per cent from the federal portion of the cost.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Gas tax
is used over what period of time? Is it every third year or something like that
that the municipality has their gas tax money to avail of?
MS. TIZZARD:
They get an allocation that
they can access every year. If they don't use it in a particular year, because
they don't have a particular project to fund, then they can carry it over to the
following years.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Is it two years max?
MS. TIZZARD:
No, they can carry it over.
This is the federal gas tax; it's not the same as the provincial gas tax.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Yes.
MS. TIZZARD:
They can carry it over until
they use it, so up to five years, which is the term right now of the fund.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Right.
Those
are all the questions I have on that section.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Basically, all I want to ask
is: Could we have the lists for the Grants and Subsidies from 3.3.03 to 3.3.06?
The amount of who got what in all of those categories.
MR. JOYCE:
3.3.06 (inaudible).
MS. MICHAEL:
From 3.3.03 to 3.3.06.
MR. CHIPPETT:
In the case of Special
Assistance and Community Enhancement, we wouldn't know yet what the grants are
for.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We could give you the
breakout of Municipal Operating Grants.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
In terms of those other ones
that are application driven, we wouldn't know until the applications come in,
with the exception of Wabush that we talked about in Special Assistance.
MS. MICHAEL:
Of course. What about the
provincial gas tax revenue sharing?
MS. TIZZARD:
That's all online.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's all online?
MS. TIZZARD:
The provincial gas tax
allocations for each municipality are all online.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, that's great. Thank
you very much.
That's
all I have.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Shall
3.3.01 to 3.3.06 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.3.01 through 3.3.06 carried.
CLERK:
3.4.01 to 3.4.04.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.4.01 to 3.4.04
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Ms. Michael, does she want
to go to the section?
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael, would you like
to start?
MS. MICHAEL:
No, he can go ahead.
CHAIR:
Okay.
You're
still a very co-operative bunch, given the hour of the day.
MR. K. PARSONS:
A very nice crowd, I tell
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm getting tired.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No problem.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair, just to let you
know, I usually bring that out in people. Co-operation is what I'm all about.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You have that on the record,
do you?
MS. MICHAEL:
Hansard
to (inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah.
I know
a lot of the questions I've asked already, so I'm just going to ask some basic
questions here also. Municipal Infrastructure; Minister, on the Municipal
Infrastructure there's one question I do have that I want to ask.
From
last year there were a lot of tenders and everything put out. I wanted to know
just where we are with the amount of tenders that were put out and where these
projects are. Are we getting – I know as tenders are put out, how many are
really going out? I've heard concerns and had some municipalities say to me,
like the slowness of –
MR. JOYCE:
From my understanding, and I
stand to be corrected, there's about 50 per cent now out to tender, and there is
a very high percentage we're working on now, with the design in. My
understanding there's 50 per cent right now of last year, the $120 million, out
to tender, and there is –
MR. K. PARSONS:
So the other 50 per cent
that's left to go out, is that a carryover to this year, or how does that work?
MS. TIZZARD:
So yes, they'll just continue to carry on. Some will be tendered next week; some
will be tendered in a couple of weeks, but most of them are moving along and
hope to be tendered within the next month or so.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's just like as normal –
is it going faster or slower?
MS. TIZZARD:
For the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund, we're trying to really push that one
because we have to have the expenditures done by 2018-'19.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. TIZZARD:
So we're really trying to
push that one along. We try to push them along all the time, but that one in
particular because the funding has a time limit to it right now. The federal
government has stated that it will start looking at some possible extensions,
but communities have to apply for that. So nothing is guaranteed there. So we
are trying to push that particular one.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
That's
an opportunity for me to say thank you to the department for the announcement we
had on Friday down in Pouch Cove. I really appreciate it. That's one I hope that
you kind of push through and gets along pretty quick because it's pretty
desperately needed. It was a good announcement, but thank you for that.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair, just another
note on that. With the size of the fund and with the expediency that we need to
try to get it done, I just want to recognize the department is working more
diligently than usual to ensure that once they come in, the turnaround is very,
very high to try to get the tenders out.
Once
again, the department understands and the officials understand that we have to
turn this around as quickly as possible. They're doing a great human service to
get a lot of this out, because it is a lot of money. The other concern that we
had at the very beginning is some consultants may get a lot and may not be able
to get the design work done, but we see that most consultants are getting the
work in and there are a lot of projects getting out the door.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, all right. Like I
said, it was a good announcement in my area, so I was pretty pleased with it,
too.
Just a
scattered question here now, I'm not going to go into too many, but I'd like to
have a look at Transportation and Communications and just give us a description
there on that line, please.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So again, the travel component of this would vary, depending on the number of
projects, depending on where the projects are and so on. We have budget
requirements laid out there in our zero-based budgeting approach for each of the
regional offices. There are cellphone charges and office phone lines, as well as
freight and courier and delivery charges. So that's what makes up the $192,900.
Again, the regional staff and engineers are on the ground supporting the
projects we just talked about. So the bulk of that item is $164,500 for travel.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'd
like to just go to Professional Services too. Last year, we budgeted $174,000
but we only went – can you tell us what's happened there where it was only
$9,000?
MR. CHIPPETT:
You said Professional Services, right?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Professional Services generally relate to engineering and consulting services
that we would do through the department for use in terms of waste management or
engineering or what have you. So we didn't use much of that funding last year
because there weren't projects to engage in, but in terms of the $150,000,
that's money we have budgeted for – he's not here now but one of the minister's
biggest priorities is a review of the Waste Management Strategy. So we would
expect in the coming weeks to release two RFPs that would assist with a review
of the Waste Management Strategy.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Again, I want to go to
Grants and Subsidies and just give us an idea of what they are.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Effectively the money for provincial-municipal capital works and provincial,
multi-year capital works are held in this line item. So there are two reasons
for the reduction.
The initial reduction from the '16-'17 budget to revised
relates to some re-profiling of funding where the federal government came in and
assisted with the funding in terms of some already existing projects. Then the
reason for the decrease in '17-'18 is, as the minister said earlier in his
opening remarks, about 50 per cent of all our infrastructure spending is being
funded from the federal government this year. So when we turn the page to the
federal-provincial portion of our infrastructure funding, you'll see those
numbers are significantly
up. That's what is happening there in Grants and Subsidies, that's the
infrastructure grants to municipalities.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You just answered the next
question that I had because I was going to that section next.
If you
look at the revenue, I guess the revenue under the federal-provincial – that's
in section 3.4.02 – the revenue that is federal funds that's coming our way on
these plans.
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's the next section that would have the federal revenue in it.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So there's almost $70 million in federal revenue that is budgeted for '17-'18.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Can we go to 3.4.03 now?
CHAIR:
You certainly may, Mr.
Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
On
Salaries there – basically, Salaries are basically the same; I won't ask that
question. Professional Services, again there's a variance that we spent a lot of
money last year. What happened in the revised last year?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We transferred some funding to that line item to do a consulting contract
procured through an RFP on an asset management framework work plan. So from an
asset-management perspective, municipalities in the province have very differing
capacities and have very different systems for managing their infrastructure
assets.
So one
of the things we're using the province's portion of the federal gas tax for is
to try to develop a uniform framework across the province that would help us in
budgeting and prioritizing what we did from an infrastructure funding
perspective, but would, in particular, assist municipalities in building their
capacity to maintain, oversee their infrastructure, focus on expenditures over
the lifespan of a piece of infrastructure, rather than the traditional approach
of focusing on the capital cost when it was built.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Grants
and Subsidies, again I'll ask the same question: What's included here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
That's 100 per cent of the
federal gas tax allocation that Heather spoke to earlier. The variances are
based on – for example, the $59,900,000 with the $29,400,000 that was actually
in the revised. It would be because municipalities did not have approved plans
or did not have their auditing and reporting done so that the funds could be
released to them. That's why the big variance in those numbers.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
If I
could go to section 3.4.04, is that okay?
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael, are you okay
with leave for that?
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I have a couple of
questions.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, (inaudible) one of two
questions I have here if I go too long.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, okay.
Good,
so I'll just ask those. I just have to find them now.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, yes.
Minister, I don't know if you've had any kind of feedback, but with the
announcement in March regarding the three-year municipal infrastructure
programming and roads being cost-shared 50-50, we have had some – even large
municipalities say that this was going to be very, very difficult for them. They
see the roads getting worse because of it.
Have
you had any feedback like that? What are you saying to people?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, I have. Some mayors
have expressed their concerns about it. I have called many mayors and explained
there were decisions that had to be made to try to leverage federal funding.
They understood that because a lot of towns – I know out my way, York Harbour
and Lark Harbour still doesn't even have one house on water and sewer.
From
MNL's point of view, they want us to leverage every possible cent we can from
the federal government. Behind closed doors they definitely expressed their
views about 50-50 cost-shared ratio on the roads. It has been brought to my
attention.
On a
note, with the capital works for roads this year, there has been $100 million
worth of requests even with the cost-shared ratio. Some towns obviously must
have money through their gas tax or other ways – almost $100 million request for
roads in the province this year.
MS. MICHAEL:
And how does that compare to
last year?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I don't know the exact
dollar figure, but in terms of percentages, roads are usually second or third in
any given year. So I would think it's in the ballpark of where it's been in the
past, but I haven't done the exact comparison.
MS. TIZZARD:
The roads applications generally varied from about 20 to 21 per cent of the
applications. So right now, based on this year's applications, they're 18 per
cent of the applications we have.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
Just with the Community
Sustainability Partnership fund that was brought in a few years back, there are
still funds going to towns. A lot of towns can find ways to find some funds.
When you actually do an assessment, you look at debt ration of towns before.
I
understood the decision that was going to be made, and in some towns it would be
– but to ensure that we have the federal money, we looked at the debt ratio of a
lot of towns and with the $100 million request for roads, we feel confident that
money will be used – that we will have under the small communities fund will be
used for roads. Some of it will be used for roads for towns that did apply for
it. Some expressed concerns, and some that expressed concerns did apply for
roads money.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Actually, just one thing, and that's 3.4.04, the Grants and Subsidies. This is a
fixed number it looks like. Are these Grants and Subsidies already known, and if
they are, could we have a list? Because it looks like that does not depend on an
ask.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We would not know, at this point in time, what that funding would be used for.
There are two things in here. There's a $1.5 million budget for fire vehicles
and a $280,000 allocation for fire protection equipment.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Could
we have the list from last year, from 2016?
MR. CHIPPETT: No
problem.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Maybe in the other ones that I asked about earlier; we got
the 2016 list.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
That's it.
CHAIR: Okay.
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, just on section 3, last year's budget for fire protection, fire vehicles
and stuff like that. It was all used, obviously? Okay.
This year's vehicle requests, are they down any from what
they were last year? I know when it was – because most municipalities could go
90-10 and stuff like that. Now, where it's reduced down to – well, some as low
as 60-40. Is there a reduction in the amount of people applying for vehicles, or
the applications are probably not in.
Are they in yet?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes. First of all, for
vehicles it hasn't gone down to 60-40, it's 80-20.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's 80-20 on some. Okay,
for 7,000 –
MR. JOYCE:
Yeah.
MR. K. PARSONS:
– that's gone down by 10 on
an average.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, it's just gone down by
10 each one.
We
can't answer that yet because we don't know how many applications are actually
coming in. Some are received. We can give you that information once we get it
all, but when speaking with some of the people in Fire and Emergency Services,
the Newfoundland Firefighters Association, they still feel confident that the
money allocated for five or six trucks will be fulfilled this year with
(inaudible).
MS. SPURRELL:
I can tell you that last year we had a total of $14 million in requests and we
only budgeted $1.8 million. So we certainly get more than we have money for
every year, but we're just getting the applications coming in.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
that section there I'm finished; but, Minister, I have two questions I'd like to
ask once we clue up this, if that's okay, or else I can ask the questions.
MR. JOYCE:
You do what you have to do.
CHAIR:
Okay.
So
neither of you has any further questions on what has been called. Okay.
Shall
3.4.01 to 3.4.04 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.4.01 through 3.4.04 carried.
CHAIR:
Before I call the totals,
Mr. Parsons has a question.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I just have a couple of
questions.
I know
last year there were some municipalities that had major concerns about snow
clearing being downloaded to the municipality. In some areas they couldn't get
snow clearing done in their area because of no one to do it and the private
couldn't do it.
I know
this could be probably a question for the Minister of Transportation, but some
municipalities had a concern that when they found out about this they budgeted
up to December, and if they had snow in November – which is quite possible,
right from October or December – it could be a major problem for the town. I'm
just wondering if that's still on the go because there are municipalities, as
you know, that do have concerns about that.
MR. JOYCE:
It is through Transportation
and Works, but that is still the ratio. It has gone up. Municipalities have been
notified by Transportation and Works of what they would have to pay if they had
asked for it last year. So it's still in place, but all municipalities now from
the budget last year are well aware of what they need to budget for this year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, and if a municipality
cannot find adequate snow clearing services –
MR. JOYCE:
What happens then, if they
can't find it, they would get Transportation to do it for the cost of what –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Of what it is.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, because I think
municipalities were concerned they'd be gouged if there's only one operator in
the area.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm not saying
municipalities won't be gouged, but I know some municipalities that said, no, we
can't do it, Transportation and Works would come in for $5,000.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
Someone in the town then
would put a bid in to clear it, $10,000-$12,000.
The
policy now is if you can't get someone in your town or remote area then
Transportation will do, but if there's a contractor in your area, you have to go
to your contractor to do it. Some municipalities may – I don't know if they've
been gouged, but some municipalities knew the system and were getting their snow
clearing a lot cheaper than most municipalities when they had to get their own
contractor because they were getting Transportation and Works to do it
themselves, and I know personally of that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The last question I have for
you is on the NEAR plan. I'm just wondering: can you give me an update on where
we are with that now?
MR. JOYCE:
Yes. The last meeting was
just recently. It was a very good meeting. Hopefully, we'll have a – there's
been ongoing – Graham can speak to that. Graham is chairing that.
MR. LETTO:
Yes, we meet on a monthly
basis now with Stantec, who is the consultant that is going through the NEAR
plan. Consultations are pretty well completed. It's going as planned, and we
should have a conclusion and a plan in place very soon.
CHAIR:
Okay, everybody is good.
Ms.
Michael, nothing further?
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
MR. JOYCE:
Can I just have a few words
in closing? I just want to thank everybody for their questions. It was a great
evening to sit down and discuss it because it affects all municipalities across
the province. I know the office and staff are open. I just wanted to recognize
the staff across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who are working in
the department, that they do on a continuous basis.
Sometimes when there's a big problem you come in and the staff – it's just
routine to the staff. They are so professional in their ways. So I just want to
recognize that. I want to thank them and thank all the staff, and thank Graham,
of course, for all the work Graham – past president of MNL, and his experience
and knowledge has helped me a lot. I thank all the staff for making my job a lot
easier.
I know
the Member for Cape St. Francis, who is the critic – I want this on the record
also – is that when we sit down and discuss things, he asks questions, is to
better services for municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is to
improve the services. We had many conversations on it. I just want to thank the
Member for that because sometimes we do have the to and fro, but I can guarantee
you that most of the conversations we have, the vast majority, is how we can
improve the system, and this is the way it should work.
I just
want to thank you for that, for the last 18 months, for your contribution and as
your past experiences as a councillor also.
MR. K. PARSONS:
One final comment.
I'd
just like to thank the staff also for your patience. Sorry for running you over
a little of time tonight, but I really appreciate your time and effort here
tonight.
Thank
you so much.
CHAIR:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I, too,
thank you, Minister, and all your staff. It was a great evening actually, long
but a good evening. I thank you, and thank you for what you're going to get to
us because I know you will do that.
Again,
I join with the minister in thanking all of you and the staff across the
province because it's very necessary work and very hard work.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll try again.
Shall
the totals carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of Municipal Affairs and Environment carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
So the next meeting of the
Social Services Committee will be Thursday morning at 9 a.m. here in the
Chamber; Children, Seniors and Social Development. If there are any
substitutions required for that meeting, please notify the Government House
Leader in writing.
With
that, I am very pleased to ask for a motion to adjourn.
MR. FINN:
Amen.
CHAIR:
Mr. Finn.
Thank
you.
Have a
good evening, everyone.
On motion, the Committee adjourned.