Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Ed Byrne, MHA for Kilbride, replaces Ray Hunter, MHA for Windsor-Springdale.

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

CHAIR(Walsh): Order, please!

First I would like to say good morning, and welcome. Mary is on her way down. So just to get the minutes out of the way, we can probably do that.

Before introducing the members of the committee, first we will deal with the minutes from our last meeting. The committee met at approximately 9:00 a.m. Present at the committee were the Chair, as well as the Vice-Chair and the other committee members, with Eddie Joyce replacing Mary Hodder for part of the meeting. Guests at the committee that morning was Roger Fitzgerald, who is the critic for that particular committee.

Appearing before the department at that time was the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, with the minister and her officials. On a motion of Mr. Sweeney, seconded by Mr. Taylor, the minutes of the May 1 meeting were adopted as circulated.

The Committee reviewed and approved, without amendment, the estimates and expenditures of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. On a motion, the committee adjourned at 11:50 a.m. until Monday, May 6, at 5:30 p.m. Any errors or remissions? Could I have a motion to adopt the minutes?

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Before beginning this morning's procedures the Chair has had a request from the Vice- Chair, under Section 69(1), with respect to the calling of witnesses before our committee. Before opening the floor for discussion, as Chair I would just like to cover a couple of aspects of that particular request.

Before I go any further, Ed, you are here this morning replacing - that is Ed Byrne - Ray Hunter and Fabian is here as -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay, I did not know if it had been in a critic's role, but as observer. Welcome Fabian Manning as well.

I want to deal with this quickly and welcome all of our members. We will do our identifications in a moment.

We had a request from the Vice-Chair to call a number of witnesses before the Estimates Committee in order to, as per the request, obtain information that may have an impact with respect to the estimates of the department. The Chair has done some research and there is no precedent since the Estimates Committees were established in the early 1980s, possibly 1979, where any outside organization, agency or corporation has ever been called before an Estimates Committee with the intent of that group having some influence or bearing on how a department would, one: have expended its numbers, or two: how it intended to use the monies allocated by this hon. House to that committee or to that department during a given fiscal year.

I have done some research with respect to some of the other jurisdictions. Although, historically, individuals are called before Standing Committees in other jurisdictions, including our own, indeed when a bill is being dealt with and that particular bill is, as we have seen even recently - for want of another word - moved across the Province in terms of a road show, where individuals would have the right to come forward and make presentations in a publicly announced and organized fashion. I see no precedent for it.

Beyond that, I would draw hon. members attention to Standing Orders 71-77, which deal specifically with Estimates Procedure; laying out the number of hours that a committee would sit, the number of days; dealing with the procedure of the committee in terms of the minimum numbers of individuals and the maximum numbers of individuals. I draw hon. members attention to Section 73.(6). To quote, for the record, it says, "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." Although, under Standing Orders for Standing Committees, the right to have such a request as exists under 69.(1) is there, and then for the committee to deal with it in their own right and decide accordingly.

Standing Orders 71-77, in particular 73.(6), and I will repeat again, "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister..." I think we all have accepted that procedure. The minister will defer a question to any of the officials that the minister so desires. But, notwithstanding that particular part, the "and may not call witnesses" binds the Chair into a situation where I would have to bring into question whether or not the request itself is in order. For other Standing Committees it might well be, but under our own Standing Orders, approved May 18, 1951 - but the amendments up to and including December 14, 1999 - would prohibit the Chair from, I believe, entertaining the request.

Having said that, I will open up the request for discussion. The Chair feels that its hands are even further bound by the fact, "may not call witnesses."

Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that is an opinion I personally do not share, based upon experience, practice and tradition, not only in this Assembly but across the country, and in Parliament as well.

The section under 69.(1) is very clear. There are four Standing Committees in this House. One of them is the Public Accounts Standing Committee, which calls witnesses all the time. Under the definition of Standing Committee - a Standing Committee of the House, in your reference saying that there is, I guess, an implication that the witnesses would have no relevance to the estimates procedure of the House.

I just want to refer you to 805 of Marleau which is Procedures and Practices in the House of Commons which is one of the governing documents in terms of how we and every other Assembly in the country governs themselves. "Standing Committees are permanent committees established by Standing Order." - which this one is. "They are mandated by the House to oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of federal policy...". So we are not confined, as an Estimates Committee, strictly to the Budget but anything that this Committee or members thereof see that is relevant to provincial policy and how it impacts upon the people of the Province, and also how it impacts upon the Estimates that are before us.

Section 69.(1) is very clear. It says, "No witness shall be summoned to attend before any committee of the House, unless a certificate shall first have been filed with the Chairperson of such committee..." - that was done in this case - "...by some Member thereof..." - and that was done by our Vice-Chair - "...stating that the evidence to be obtained from such witness is, in the opinion of such Member, material and important."

To suggest, for a moment, that just because there is no precedent, then we are not going to do anything, or we will just leave it as it is, is really not dealing with the issue, Mr. Chair. The issue before the Committee is in accordance with the established practices and procedures of this House of Assembly, of every other Legislative Assembly in the country and, in particular, of the House of Commons.

I want to refer members, if I might for a moment, to Standing Order 1, called General Rule. It says, "Application of Standing Orders & cases not provided for." I want to suggest to you, clearly, according to the rules of this House, that this is in order. This motion is in accordance with the definition of what a Standing Committee is; that it is not out of order whatsoever. That any member of any Standing Committee of this House has the absolute right and privilege, as being an elected member, to do exactly what our Vice-Chair has done. That is not questionable or something that can be questioned, it is a right and privilege of what it means to be an elected member in this Assembly; and any other Assembly, I might add.

Standing Order 1 says, and I will read it for the record, "(1) The proceedings in the House of Assembly and in all committees of the House shall be conducted in accordance with the following Standing Orders...".

"(2) In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders or by sessional or other orders of the House, the Speaker shall be guided by the following in the order in which they are stated: (a) the usages, customs and precedents of this House; (b) the Standing Orders and sessional orders and forms and usages, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and those of any province or territory in Canada."

I do not want to bore the Chair or members of the committee, or certainly the public servants from the Department of Mines and Energy, but this is in no way an exceptional request. It is in no way an extraordinary request. Standing Committees in this House, particularly the Public Accounts Committee, summons witnesses all the time. It is part and parcel of what it means and the definition of what a Standing Committee is. My view is that this is completely in order. I am not convinced, based upon our Standing Orders, that the member himself, who has written the question and who issued the certificate on the call for witnesses - we have an absolute right, as members, to have this issue dealt with by this committee.

In summary, that summarizes my understanding based upon my research and based upon the practices, traditions and customs of this Assembly, of the House of Commons of Canada and of other legislatures in the country, that this is not extraordinary. This is a regular occurrence for any committee, of any House, at any time, once the Standing Order is invoked. Mr. Taylor, the Vice-Chair, has invoked his right and privilege in asking for witnesses to come before this committee. I guess it is up to the committee now, or the Chair, to make a ruling; and any ruling that the Chair makes is appealable to the Speaker of the House, and ultimately the House of Assembly I suppose. That is our take on it. We believe firmly and strongly that we have exercised our right here. What is the big deal? - is the question that must be asked of every member on this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

The Chair certainly does not question a member's right to put forward a request, but if I might -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) out of order. It is not out of order and in saying it is out of order, I mean any member's privileges could have been - if you rule that way, in my view, it could be superceded by the Chair on a matter of an opinion.

CHAIR: That was Mr. Byrne rebutting the rebuttal before it was finished.

Under Standing Order 1.(1), as quoted by Mr. Byrne, says, "The proceedings in the House of Assembly and in all committees of the House shall be conducted in accordance with the following Standing Orders...".

Number (2) says, "In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders...". The request is within our Standing Orders. The request that was made falls squarely within our Standing Orders. It comes in Standing Orders 63 and 64. However, in the same Standing Orders that give the right for the request there happens to be another section of Standing Orders that are administered and recognized in this House. They are Standing Orders 65 through 70, which he has the right to request. Under Standing Orders of this House, 71 through 77, which cover the Estimates Procedure, it says very clearly that this committee may not call witnesses. Now, that is as clear and as plain to me as the right under Standing Committees other than Estimates to issue such a request, but the same Standing Orders that give the right to make a request have a provision to cover the request with respect to Estimates Committees. That says: May not call witnesses. The Chair, believing that I am dealing with the Standing Orders -

MR. E. BYRNE: May I ask the Chair a question?

CHAIR: When I finish, the Chair is certainly open, open to debate as long as we wish to.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough.

CHAIR: I have a Standing Order under the Standing Committees of the House of Assembly that says a request is in order. I have Standing Order 1(2) that says, "In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders...", what should be done. Then the Chair has a Standing Order that says Estimate Committees may not call witnesses.

Mr. Byrne is correct when he says that it will come down to a vote. I am just trying to deal with the procedure before the question is put. The Chair welcomes the question and is willing to receive the question at any time. I just wanted to try to deal with it within our own Standing Orders. Mr. Byrne is very correct, as well, that be it the Chair, the Chair of Committees, the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker, any ruling has the right to be challenged on the floor of this House of Assembly. That is also within the same Standing Orders that say Estimate Committees may not call witnesses.

MR. E. BYRNE: May I?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: A couple of points. First of all, Standing Order 69(1) supersedes Standing Order 73(6). You, as a parliamentarian, Mr. Chairperson, certainly as the minister across from you is a parliamentarian, dealing with legislation in this House from time to time or in every sitting, understand the difference - I would hope that you understand the difference - in the words "may" and "shall". "A committee may not question public servants ..., and may not call witnesses", is certainly open to the discretion of the committee. The Standing Orders are clear.

It does not say - and you know this - that a committee shall not call witnesses. Therefore, under any correct understanding under the rules, this section means that it is up to the committee. It is not up to the Chair to decide if a committee wants to call or does not want to call witnesses. It is very clear when it says, "A committee ...... may not call witnesses." It is not directive in the sense that it tells you, or any other possible chairperson of any Standing Committee of this House, that you can interpret that to say it is out of order, because the request is not out of order. The Standing Committees in this House have an absolute right, and members of the Standing Committees of this House have an absolute right, to exercise their option by filing a certificate with the chairperson of any committee before this House requesting that witnesses be summoned to give evidence.

Your reference to section 73(6) is really not appropriate, in my view, because of the word "may". It is not a directive to the chairperson, you in your capacity as Chairperson of this Committee or any future chairperson of any committee in this Legislature.

Secondly, I would like to ask this question: In terms of Standing Order 69(1) - and before I move on, is your opinion in that respect that, in terms of Standing Committees under the Estimates procedure, "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister ..." which is clear? The Minister, in his or her discretion, may direct a Deputy Minister, an Assistant Deputy Minister, a Director of Financial Operations with a department, or anybody else for that matter: Would you like to answer the question? Because if it is your opinion, then we need a ruling on this, that, "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." Are you telling this Committee, today, that you are interpreting that section of the Standing Orders to say that the request by the Vice-Chair of this Committee is out of order? That is what I want to know. We are not going to be move beyond that section until we find out an answer to that question.

CHAIR: Allow me to answer your question with a question.

Have you accepted, during your time in this Legislature, as I have accepted with my time in this Legislature, that all questions during, be it Question Period -

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

CHAIR: I will begin again.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry!

CHAIR: During my particular time in the House of Assembly, and indeed your particular time in the House of Assembly, having sat in on a number of these committees over the years, is it not principle and practice that all questions of a department before any committee are always through the minister, to the minister, and then on to his officials?

MR. E. BYRNE: There was one Estimate Committee, Mr. Chair, here, when I was first elected in 1993 - if memory serves me correctly - where the Employers Council participated, if I am not mistaken, in an Estimate Committee procedure in 1993.

As Chair, you need to answer this question, for me as a committee member and for the rest of us. Are you saying that the letter written by Mr. Taylor, as Vice-Chair of this Committee, under Standing Order 69(1), where he has invoked his right as a member of this House, and his privilege as a member of this House, to issue a certificate to the Chairperson of this said Committee to ask for witnesses to come before this committee to give evidence, which is important and material to the issues that are before us today, which is completely within the definition of a Standing Committee, are you saying that it is out of order based upon your interpretation of Standing Order 73(6), where a committee may not call witnesses? Is that what you are telling this committee this morning?

CHAIR: What I am saying to the Committee is that the Standing Orders I am dealing with, that were first issued in 1951, revised through to and including 1999, are there to govern the procedures of the hon. House.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

CHAIR: And, I am saying that in those said Standing Orders there are Standing Orders 71 through 77 which govern the Estimates Procedures to the finest detail.

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I am saying that, as we have for many years accepted the fact that all questions in these committees go through the minister to the officials, meaning may not question the public officials directly -

MR. E. BYRNE: Public servants, it says, Mr. Chair, those who are employees of the government and of the minister.

CHAIR: I prefer to refer to them as officials as opposed to servants of anybody.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just quoting Standing Orders.

CHAIR: I understand that, but I think of them as officials, not as a servant to anyone. That went out some time ago.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough

You can split hairs, but you need to deal with the issue now, not the semantics of words, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The amazing thing about it is that dialogue is best when each is willing to take the time to listen.

I will reflect also on an earlier statement that I made and that is: I draw to the attention of this committee Standing Order 73(6). I also said the Chair would welcome at any time the question with respect to the calling of witnesses, but I believe, and I want to be clear in all members of the Committee knowing that I believe, that under the Standing Orders, 71 through 77, which deal with the Estimates Procedure in particular, it says, "...and may not call witnesses." I am not going to split hair about what "may" means and what "shall" means. For me, in parliamentary procedure, you may not question the officials unless you go through the minister.

MR. E. BYRNE: It means that it is up to this committee, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: But again, we are open to a vote, as soon as the question is called.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important question that you did not answer for me. I am asking you again: Are you saying that the request by the Vice-Chair of this committee, in your opinion as Chairperson, is out of order based upon Standing Order 73(6), which says again, and I will repeat, "A committee may not..." - and I emphasize the word may- "...question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses."?

Now we understand, as legislators, how important words in legislation and Standing Orders are because they define our scope of what we can and cannot do. Just to give you an example of the importance of "may" and "shall", Mr. Chair: We debated legislation in this House recently in Committee with respect to the Environmental Protection Act and Water Resources Act. Let me pose this to you: In that act, it says the minister may have a Waste Management Plan. Do you think it would be different, or the interpretation of that would be different, if it said, the Minister of Environment shall have a waste management protection plan?

The fact of the matter is, there is a huge difference in the words "may" and "shall" when it comes to language in legislation or Standing Orders, and there have been many examples, but I am not going to bore the Committee with that today. I want an answer to my question, as a committee member, and I deserve an answer and I have a right to have an answer to it. I am asking again: Are you saying that the request by the Vice-Chair of this Committee, Mr. Trevor Taylor, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, is out of order based upon what you see as Standing Order 73(6). Yes or no. That is a yes or no question, Mr. Chair, so you can take five minutes to answer it.

CHAIR: The amazing thing is that I am dealing with the Standing Orders that are before us, including your quotation of Standing Order 1, that says that the Standing Orders of this House are laid out and that in all cases not provided for. The Chair is saying that, in my opinion the Standing Orders that cover the Estimates Procedure for me clearly state that this committee may not call witnesses. That is my interpretation of the Estimates Procedure.

MR. E. BYRNE: What does that mean? I am trying to get an understanding of what that means to you, in terms of "may" not call. Does it mean they may call witnesses, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: In my opinion that means, simply because, as Chair, I have received a request, I do not, in my opinion, have the right to simply issues summonses or subpoenas for people to be here. On top of that, I am saying that the committee may not call witnesses. The Chair is welcome to receive a vote on the question at any time, but I think it would be wrong for me not to sit here and also point out sections of our Standing Orders that give guidance to all members.

MR. E. BYRNE: So, do I ask the question to you again? This is an important question. It deserves an answer. Are you saying that the request from the Vice-Chair of this Committee is out of order based upon section 73(6)? Yes or no.

CHAIR: At no time have I said it is out of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, you implied it earlier. That is why I am asking the question.

CHAIR: I am implying that it is out of order with respect to section 73(6), where your interpretation of 69(1)-

MR. E. BYRNE: Not mine.

CHAIR: -your interpretation of 69(1) means that, simply because the certificate has been issued to the Chair that the Chair would automatically-

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did not say that.

CHAIR: That is what you are saying in terms of what I am hearing.

And that the Chair would automatically begin calling witnesses. I am saying that under 73.(6), "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." The Chair is not in a position -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, but would you interpret that as well to say that: A committee may call witnesses?

CHAIR: What I am saying is that I want the Committee to be aware of what Standing Order 73.(6) says. That if the Standing Committee is a master of its own direction and its own destiny, then the Standing Committee will make the decision. The Chair, simply receiving a request, will not issue subpoenas or summonses to anyone to (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You are saying though that the Committee may make the request, may call witnesses. You acknowledge that this Committee has the power to call and subpoena witnesses.

CHAIR: No, I do not believe it does.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

CHAIR: You asked me what I -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I am asking you. You are the Chairperson -

CHAIR: Yes, and I am telling you that I don't believe it does. I do not believe that it does and it never has -

MR. E. BYRNE: So, you are saying that the Standing -

CHAIR: - in the history of this Legislature. However, the Chair will accept the question any time it is put.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important fact because, Mr. Chair, the little political drama that is playing out here right now, the decisions are already made.

CHAIR: Well, the drama that is playing out is becoming a drama because you wish to make it a drama.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, because we exercise our rights. What is going to happen -

CHAIR: At no time in the history of this Legislature has anyone ever been called to a committee.

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe I have the floor, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Well, I guess I am probably following your rules in terms of how the floor works.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is going to happen here, eventually, according to what you are telling me, is that there is going to be a vote. There are three members of the committee on one side of the House and three on the other, which means, according to the Standing Orders - which you know full well - that you are going to have to cast the deciding vote. These questions are important to you, as Chair, because you will have to cast the deciding vote, and that deciding vote will determine what the action of this committee will be. So when you say, in your own mind, that you do not believe that this committee has the power to call witnesses, that is an important insight for committee members.

This is extremely important in my view. It is clear that under our Standing Orders - there are four Standing Committees in this House. That means they are appointed and year-round, unless appointments change or an election is called or whatever the case. Those committees, year-round, investigate matters that are put to them. We saw legislation recently that did not get through the fall Legislature that was put to Standing Committees of the House. So, the point is this, according to our Standing Orders, the four Standing Committees of this Legislature, which are defined in the Standing Orders - and I will say them for the record again. The Public Accounts Committee, Government Services Committee, Social Services Committee, and the Resource Estimates Committee. Those are the four Standing Committees of this House.

According to the powers defined for Standing Committees, this Committee has the power and the absolute right and privilege, if it decides, to call witnesses. If you are saying, as Chair, you do not believe that, then we need to understand why you do not believe that. Is there something in the Standing Orders of the House that the Chair fails to recognize in terms of our power to call those witnesses as a Standing Committee? I would like to know what the Chair bases his opinion on, either Standing Orders or through some parliamentary practice or procedure that I have not yet found, based upon my - I will say extensive, because I have put the time into it to make it extensive - research across the country on what the power of Standing Committees are. If the Chair says he is not of the opinion that committees can call witnesses, I would like to know why he has that opinion. Based upon what, does he stand on that opinion?

CHAIR: The Chair will recognize, Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, I will be the first to admit that I probably have not read and do not know all the rules and regulations when it comes to the Standing Committees, but I want to say, Mr. Chair, that this committee has met with the department for over three hours. The committee members of the day, at that time - I think there was five or six questions that were asked pertaining to the Estimates. All the rest were general questions. I think they probably went as far as to say: Who are the employees going to be if a project should ever go ahead?

My question is, through the Chair, to the Vice-Chair - who has put this question to you, sir, to the Vice-Chair. Apparently a request has come into to you asking the question that is being referenced now about people appearing before the Estimates Committee. My question is: Which heading in the Estimates will be affected or do they have concerns about calling witnesses in pertaining to which heading in the Estimates? Because I think all of the questions were asked prior to us adjourning before. I know they said they had another few questions to ask. That is the question, sir. I do not know if it is proper putting it through you or directly to Mr. Taylor, but if witnesses are permitted, what effect and which heading will this play out on? Which heading do they want witnesses called in reference of? Is it to do with the headings at all or is it just general questions?

CHAIR: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: I will make two points in response to that question. First of all, the Standing Committee on Resource, I would imagine, can ask any questions related to the department that it is responsible for reviewing. That is one point. When it comes to the government's general policy in that department, government's policy in general or a specific project. Secondly, when it comes to the Budget Estimates there is one major piece of the Department of Mines and Energy that is specifically responsible for negotiations with Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel, and that is the Major Projects Benefits Office.

Under subhead 1.2.02. I would imagine there are plenty of questions that could be asked of Inco, Voisey's Bay Nickel, or anybody involved with Mines and Energy on a major projects basis; whether that be ALCOA in Churchill Falls, if we so desired to go there, or the offshore, if we so desired to go there. I see where we spend roughly $1.5 million in the Major Projects Benefits Office. I think there are probably a number of questions that we could ask, and witnesses could be of use to this committee just under that subhead alone, I think, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SWEENEY: Could you read the request certificate? Do you have it there?

CHAIR: The entire certificate really comes down to 69.(1) of the request. Under 69.(1) it says, "No witness shall be summoned to attend before any committee of the House, unless a certificate shall first have been filed with the Chairperson of such committee, by some Member thereof, stating that the evidence to be obtained from such witness is, in the opinion of such Member, material and important."

The other paragraph simply lays out the member's right to call, under section 69.(1) - notify the Chair of his interest in having witnesses called before a committee.

MR. SWEENEY: If I understand this correctly, the witnesses we are calling are regarding a Voisey's Bay deal?

CHAIR: Yes, the three individuals - I am not going to enter their names for the record - are all Voisey's Bay (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: It is my understanding that there is no Voisey's Bay deal in place. So, why are we calling witnesses to discuss something that is purely hypothetical at this point?

MR. E. BYRNE: Good point (inaudible) real point, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Byrne, I consider it to be a very valid point, because I have sat in this House and I have repeatedly heard day after day that there is no deal in place right now. So, I consider it to be a very valid point.

CHAIR: Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: Nowhere in the certificate that has been issued do we refer to a Voisey's Bay deal, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. It would be a valid point if it was based upon fact, but it is not based upon fact.

We have issued - and I can read it for you if you wish. It was done in accordance and in consultation with the Clerk of the House of Assembly; giving the Clerk and the Speaker's Office the courtesy of what we are about to do. It says - and let me read it for the record so you are clear, and before you make the points on whether there is a deal or no deal, that is irrelevant, but it is relevant to our discussions here this morning. The point that is relevant here this morning: Do we have the right to call witnesses? This committee, in our view, does have the right to call witnesses. We have requested, according to Standing Orders, in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, which are the rules that govern our conduct as individual members and as members collectively.

It says: Dear Mr. Walsh, as a member of the Resource Standing Committee of the House of Assembly and in accordance with subclause 69.(1) of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly which states - the Chair has already stated that, I will not do it again - I hereby certify. You do not want members named, Mr. Chair? If you do not want to, that's fine. I will not do it.

CHAIR: I saw no reason to enter their names. If you wish, you may, but I saw no need.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, fair enough.

We have called three individuals from Inco and from the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, based upon - we believe they have information of evidence which is material and important to the work of the Resource Standing Committee of the House of Assembly in considering the 2002-03 Estimates of the Department of Mines and Energy. Nowhere does the certificate say, insinuate, or initiate anything about a Voisey's Bay deal. What is at stake here, what is at issue, and the point of the discussion is our right, as individual members and members of a committee, to issue a certificate to the Chair and to call witnesses.

I would like to ask the Chair the question again because this is important. It is going to come down to a vote and potentially, could be a tied vote on which you will have to cast the deciding vote. You have indicated publicly here that you believe this committee, in your opinion, does not have the power to call witnesses. I want to know, as Chairperson, on what basis you have formed that opinion? Because if that is the case and it comes to a tie vote then - if that is your opinion - we will not be calling witnesses, obviously. I want to know on what parliamentary tradition, procedure, or standing order, or fact that you have based that opinion?

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I asked a question to Mr. Taylor, he gave the response and I did not get the opportunity to ask another question. This would go to Mr. Taylor, again. In his response, when I asked him: Why would we want witnesses to come in, on what particular heading? He said 1.2.02.

My next question is - for the life of me I cannot understand, I know questions were asked on that heading to the minister and to the officials - because I am going to have to cast a vote too, shortly: What is wrong with the responses that they received with regard to this particular heading, that is not clear, that is not understandable, that now we are going to have to call in officials from an outside source to deal with estimates on a budget that was put forward by the Department of Mines and Energy?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a point. I think right now we are trying to decide, or we are trying to get an answer, and the Member for Kilbride, certainly as a member of our committee here today, is trying to get an answer and a ruling on whether we are in order or out of order. I think we should certainly get that -

MR. BUTLER: That is not the question.

MR. TAYLOR: I agree it is not the question that you asked, but it is the question that we have not had an answer to yet. I guess that probably sums up, in part, why we want to call witnesses before this committee, because many of the questions that we have asked, not unlike the one that has been asked here this morning on whether we are in order or out of order, have not been answered yet. Once that one is answered, maybe we can move on.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I would like to attempt to answer Mr. Butler's question if I could.

CHAIR: Okay, then we will go back to Mr. Butler.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Butler certainly can answer for himself. The definition of a Standing Committee is clear. We are not defined to the departmental heads of any estimate, I say to all members. I can read what the definition is again.

"Standing committees are permanent committees established by Standing Order. They are mandated by the House to oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of federal policy...".

I will say it again: Standing committees mandated are to look at, "to oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of federal policy or to exercise procedural and administrative responsibilities related to Parliament." - or to, in this case, the House of Assembly.

Whether the answers provided by the minister's officials are satisfactory is not the issue. The issue is, from our point of view, is that we have exercised - you can make whatever you want to make out of it, but we have exercised our right to call witnesses who have evidence, in our view. You may disagree that the witnesses we have called or want to call do not have evidence that is important to the work of this committee or to the work of the government or to the work of Mines and Energy. That may be your opinion, but it does not take away from our right, as members, to ask and request for those witnesses to come here. If you want to say, as a member, that you disagree the witnesses that we have called from the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, or that we are asking to be called from the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company and officials from Inco and you want to say they do not have any information that is relevant to the Department of Mines and Energy, well then you can go ahead and say that. But, our view and our point is simply this: That we have every right, and we have exercised that right. We have invoked that right under Standing Order 69.(1), and that is what we have to deal with. I hope I have answered your question.

The second question, and I will ask it again. Mr. Chairman, you have said that in your opinion Standing Committees of this House do not have the right to call witnesses. If this comes down to a tie vote, you are going to have to cast the deciding vote. I want to know: What do you base that opinion upon, that this Committee does not have the right to call witnesses? As committee members, we deserve an answer to that.

CHAIR: As Chair, once again, I will answer my own statement as opposed to the one that you are referring to that I made. I think Hansard will show that I have said: I believe that members should also be governed by 73.(6). That simply because a certificate has been issued to the Chair, the committee may not call witnesses if they so desire. I want members to understand that simply because 69.(1) is there in terms of committee procedure, that under the Estimates Standing Orders 71-77, it also states that, "the committee... may not call witnesses." Now, if the Chair is wrong in informing all members of any other portion of a Standing Order, then I guess the Chair is out of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, I appreciate that.

CHAIR: But the Chair believes that it is my - not right - duty to -

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

CHAIR: - inform members of the decision that they have the right to make.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Although there may very well be the right to ask the question under 69.(1), there may very well be the right to deal with it under 73.(6). That is simply what the Chair is saying. The Chair is saying that because in terms of being out of order, out of order only if we were to assume that is the only Standing Order governing this situation. The Chair is pointing out that under the Estimates Procedure there is also a Standing Order that says, "may not call witnesses."

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for the record, I am glad that you acknowledge that the committee has the power then, I suppose, in your view, to either may call witnesses or may not call witnesses.

CHAIR: Has the right.

MR. E. BYRNE: Has the right. What you said earlier, in terms that you do not believe this committee has the power or the right to do it, well that is clarified from my point of view. You have acknowledged then that this committee has the right to either call or not call witnesses.

CHAIR: The committee has the right to deal with the Standing Orders as they exist, including Standing1 that says, there are precedents and procedures where there is not a Standing Order to cover. So, the Standing Orders are there to be dealt with, the Standing Order which the request was made under is a Standing Order of this House of Assembly. Standing Order 73(6) is also a Standing Order of this House of Assembly.

MR. E. BYRNE: Based upon that, then, we have invoked our right, an individual member has invoked his right to summon witnesses and has issued the certificate in accordance with Standing Orders. Your reading of it then, if you refer to 73(6), "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." So, what you are telling us then is, it is up to the Committee to say yes or no to the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Vice-Chair of this Committee for his request.

CHAIR: I think Hansard will also show, Mr. Byrne, that in my opening statement I said that any time the Chair would like to call the question, the Chair is ready for the question. That was in my opening preamble as well.

MR. ANDERSEN: If I understand the -

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Torngat Mountain is not a member of this committee.

CHAIR: May I deal with- unless you wish to be elected as Chair, I have the right, I think, sitting here.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. Sorry, Sir!

CHAIR: In this particular discussion, any member is welcome to attend a committee meeting, in my opinion of interpreting the rules, and participate in the procedures with respect to the department. In this particular case, I believe Mr. Andersen - and again not to slight any member, any of our guests here today. The matter at hand is a matter, I believe, for the Committee. It could have easily been held in a private session with Committee Members, although I will not say that your opinion may not be valid. I am not sure at this time.

MR. ANDERSEN: The point of order I wanted to raise is that Mr. Byrne said the request was put in by the Vice Chair and the Member for Torngat Mountains. I had no part of this.

CHAIR: He corrected that immediately. The Chair understood that comment to be nothing more -

MR. ANDERSEN: I am a little confused, so I just wanted -

CHAIR: No, that is fine.

It was just the selection of the name of a district. It was made by the Vice-Chair of this Committee. I get confused with the names and probably should not be referring to hon. members by their name, but I do not remember all of the districts either.

Are we then suggesting that we are ready for the question?

Mr. Butler, I am sorry.

MR. BUTLER: We are going to be asked the question, if we are in favour of witnesses appearing before the committee. I have yet to have my question answered, Mr. Chair. Maybe you can answer it for me. Before I vote on anything one way or the other, I would like to know why. Is it we are saying, or the members of the committee are saying, that the questions they ask the minister and his officials, whether it be pertaining to the Estimates or general questions, the responses are not adequate for whatever reason, and now they are saying they need to call other witnesses to verify what was said or try to get additional information? I want to know what the request is for. I know what it is about, but I would like to know exactly why we are voting yes or no, will we call witnesses.

CHAIR: The Chair cannot answer the question for the individual who made the request, so I will defer the question.

Trevor Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I attempted to answer that question before, and I will give a little more detail, I suppose. First of all, Standing Committees, "They are mandated by the House to oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of federal policy or to exercise procedural administrative responsibilities", with a department. That says what we can do and cannot do or says what we can do, I guess. I think I covered it all there, did I?

Secondly: Just as an example, Mr. Chairman, I will go outside of this House to the House of Commons in Ottawa. The House of Commons - and the Member for Port de Grave would be familiar with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, not unlike ourselves, a resource committee, however specifically mandated to review a specific department - the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans from time to time, quite frequently, calls witnesses. It does not just rely on the good opinions of the department, the minister, or the officials. It, from time to time, goes outside of government altogether to seek their views and opinions on specific initiatives, policies or whatever in the particular industries related to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Our request, in the certificate that I issued to the Chair on Thursday past, is not unlike initiatives undertaken by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. All we are asking for is the right to question a group of people who are involved, who could have information related to the Department of Mines and Energy for this Province; and that is it. It is not that we do not believe or have any problem with the answers that were given to us by the minister or any of his officials in previous meetings, just that there is another source of information out there that may have information pertinent to the Department of Mines and Energy for this Province and we would like to be able to question them.

CHAIR: Just for clarification, in terms of the context of the answer that you have given, Mr. Taylor, in terms of the Fisheries Resource Committee, I think that we have to realize that there are two branches of the Resource Committee of this Legislature. There is the legislative branch and there is the estimates branch, and the Fishery Resource Committee, that has traveled the country, has usually been dealing with the legislative side. I do not know of any federal department that has traveled the country in dealing with the estimates side.

We are not here today dealing with a bill, as we did with the FPI act when a Select Committee of the House was appointed and went on a tour and so on. The Fisheries Committee that has often visited Newfoundland has been from the, I expect, the legislative branch and not the estimates branch. We are here dealing with the departmental estimates, the day-to-day operation of a department, how the funds were spent in the last twelve months, and defending those numbers, good or bad defense but that is what comes forward, how the legislature will allocate to a given department it's monies to operate over the next fiscal year and how they would justify expenditures that they will make and then come back twelve months from now and do the same thing and justify how those numbers were spent. This as an Estimates Committee dealing with the numbers and the day-to-day operation of the department and not a legislative branch, as I believe you pointed out.

Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is only partially true, Mr. Chair. The Estimate Committee debates are not just about items in the Budget. You know that, every member knows that. I have been in the Legislature, elected nine years. Estimate Committee meetings are about - and according to their definition, not your definition, not my definition, not anyone's definition, but a parliamentary definition - that which you have just described, looking at the last year's budget, what was budgeted, what was estimated and where it was spent. It is also, in the definition of an Estimate Committee meeting, their absolute right and privilege to discuss general policy areas of the government, where it is going, where administratively this department is going, what is the policy of the department vis-à-vis, in this instance it could be Lower Churchill, could be mining leases, could be Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, it could deal with the Hope Brook gold mine, it could deal with anything. That is the scope and power of the Estimates Committee procedure and process that is defined for us. We do not define that. That has been defined for us. Secondly, Estimates as well: In terms of definition we could get into the priorities for the department for next year, what their future priorities are, what are the future directions the department is going into.

Thirdly, some members have said that has been done. In your opinion it has been done. According to Standing Order 69 (1), a member of this committee has exercised his opinion that there are other witnesses out there who would have information that is material and important to the discussions of this Estimates Committee. Now, you may disagree with that and I may disagree with you on that, but I will defend your right to disagree; I will defend that. But at the same time, you must defend a member's right here in invoking a Standing Order, that it is his right and privilege to summon witnesses. You can say yes or no to it.

MR. BUTLER: Why didn't it come up before he finished his questions last week?

MR. E. BYRNE: All I can say to the Member for Port de Grave is that, according to the Standing Orders, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North did exactly what he was supposed to do, that he issued a certificate to the Chairperson according to the Standing Orders. That is the issue, that the Estimates Committee's work is not confined to the twelve or thirteen pages of any department where the Estimates are. That is an important part of it and an integral part of it, but the Estimates Committee work is beyond that as well. That is defined for us. That is not an opinion of mine, that is defined for us in every parliamentary tradition right across the country, that the Estimates Committees look at the Estimates, they may question and have the right to question general policy areas of the government, they have the right to question administrative areas of the government, and they have the right to question future directions and future priorities of the government. That is the definition of Estimates Committee meetings.

CHAIR: The Chair has heard discussion from all members and, indeed, participated in the discussion myself.

Are we ready for the question?

WITNESS: Sure.

CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

WITNESSES: ‘Aye'.

CHAIR: Duly recorded.

MR. E. BYRNE: We want it noted.

CHAIR: That is what I am saying: Taylor; Byrne; Osborne.

Contra minded?

WITNESSES: Nay

CHAIR: Hodder; Sweeney; Butler.

The Chair is left in the position to cast the deciding vote and the Chair votes nay.

Duly recorded, the motion is lost by a vote of four to three.

With that in mind, are we now ready to move on to the Mines and Energy Executive and Support Services, bearing in mind that 1.1.01 has already been moved. and we will now revert to the questioning with respect to the Estimates?

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will move on to page 143, I guess, on the Budget Estimates. I will start on 2.1.01, the Geological Survey. It says, "Appropriations provide for a geological mapping and surveying program which provides geological maps, reports, mineral analysis, and other information on all areas of the Province and promotion of the Province's mineral potential to the mining and investment community." Under 01, Salaries, just about $2.5 million, $2.429 million, is identified there for Estimates.

Could the minister give us an idea of how - I mean, I can tell from the text how, in general, it is spent, but probably a little more detail on how that money is spent, the numbers of people who are involved in that section, you know, provide us with a little more detail than is there right now.

CHAIR: May I interject, just before beginning, to remind individuals who are attending with the minister to please identify yourself for Hansard. I neglected to mention that earlier. I think with the Members of the House of Assembly, Hansard tends to recognize our voices having heard them on a regular basis. It will not take long for them to pick up on other members, but if those attending-

WITNESS: I notice the minister has a change in -

CHAIR: I was going to note that - thank you! - that you have additional officials today. If you wish to introduce them before answering the question, by all means do so. I remind those individuals, should you be called upon by the minister to answer a question, watch for the red light in front of you and in doing so begin by using your name first.

Mr. Minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Chair.

I do have some additional and different officials with me today, so in order to facilitate identification I would ask all of my officials to identify themselves and their area of work in the department for the record, starting with Charlie.

MR. LESTER: Charlie Lester, Director of Policy and Strategic Planning.

MR. BAZELEY: David Bazeley, Director of Electricity Industry Development.

MR. YOUNG: Geoff Young, Legal Counsel, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. CROCKER: Ralph Crocker, Executive Assistant to the Minister.

MR. RYDER: Wayne Ryder, Director of Project Management, Mines Branch.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is it, but be assured that the cast of officials I have are more than able to support the line of questioning that you will put to me this morning.

Page 143 of the Estimates, Mr. Chair, I believe is where the Deputy Chair of the Committee is focusing. I am not sure what information you would like to have, other than to know what this Geological Survey Division of the Mines Branch of the department actually does. The main function is really involved with the geo-science database that provides information technology support to the geological survey and facilitates, amongst other things, of course, the storage of the geological database that we not only collect on an ongoing basis but that we maintain from whenever we started the collection information, and improving upon and building upon the bank of information that we have. It is really a support branch to the survey program that collects information, analyzes information, stores information and makes information that we have available to the industry, to the general public but, I guess, more specifically to the industry, for purposes of them moving forward with their prospecting business, with their ongoing activities with respect to trying to identify and develop new perspective mining opportunities in the Province. If you want to know exactly how many people are working in that division, I can get you that number. As a matter of fact, Wayne, you may be able to help me with that because, quite frankly, I do not have a number for each individual facet of my department in terms of the numbers there. But if it is helpful, Wayne, can you indicate in a range, maybe?

MR. RYDER: There are forty-three staff members in geological surveying in total.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is in terms of numbers of staff involved in that geological survey area, within a range, between forty and forty-three or forty-five people.

You will notice that we were down a couple of people last year. Therefore the Estimates, as revised for the year, were somewhat less in terms of expenditure than what was originally budgeted. We were expected last year, by virtue of government direction and policy, to try and achieve some savings in the area of salary allocations and service provision.

MR. TAYLOR: I will just move to 02, Employee Benefits. Why would the Budget of $7,700 have jumped to a Revised of $19,600 last year?

MR. MATTHEWS: That particular vote covers registration costs associated with attending the geo-scientific conferences and seminars relating, of course, to the promotion of the mineral potential in the Province. In that context, while the figure of $7,700 was budgeted, the actual costs that we incurred with respect to the activity of conferencing and seminaring and promoting the mineral potential for the Province actually came in at $19,600. So, there was a revision upwards. We have still only budgeted $7,000 in that area this year, but the amount of money that you can spend in an area like that can significantly move with the decision to attend, say, one conference that was different than the previous year's conference, and the registration fees associated with it might be significantly different. One conference may replace the other, or there may be a change in registration costs. So it is really that type of a variable in terms of that expenditure.

MR. TAYLOR: I will go down through this one now, because there are a number of differences in last year's Budget and this year's Estimates. Under 03, there is $41,200 less for Transportation and Communications this year. Have your officials, I guess, decided on how you identified, I suppose, that cost saving and how do you feel it will affect the department's ability to carry on with its work in this area?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, essentially, we lay out preliminary plans for activities that involve all of the activities in that branch for the year. Based on that plan, we calculate, in an estimated fashion, how much money would be needed to travel and to, you know, be associated with aircraft support, flight travel costs, field travel costs, freight charges, communications and all these sorts of activities. Once we conclude what we think our costs will be for the year, based on the program we have laid out, then we come up with our estimate of costs under this subheading, 2.1.01.03. This year we are estimating $328,800 as what our costs will be. Last year we had budgeted $370,800, but we actually only spent $364,400. It is an effort to, as best we can, estimate what the costs will be for all these travel and service provision activities. We determine the figure based on those estimates - I was going to say Mr. Chair - Mr. Vice-Chair.

MR. TAYLOR: I do not see where transportation or communications costs have dropped much, or are expected to drop much, from the price of gas when I drove home last week. I know that is probably only a small part of it, but it has not improved. I guess it is safe to assume that, with a 12 per cent reduction in that section, you would be doing less transporting and communicating.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, yes. Vice-Chair, as I was saying, these are only preliminary costs based on preliminary plans. The actual survey program is highly dependent, of course, on considerations which develop as the year progresses. It does not mean that we will be doing less work under the program, it simply means that we expect to incur less costs. Probably it is an indication, Vice-Chair, of the level of additional efficiencies which my officials believe they have identified or can identify throughout the year in terms of cost expenditures; not to say that we have not spent wisely or prudently in the past. It is an indication that we expect and we hope to get as much work done this year because, obviously, our staff allocation is the same as last year. We expect to get as much work done, but probably a little less expenditure on the support side of it which is the travel, the whole range of costs that are associated with going out and doing geological surveys. As you can appreciate, going into the field to do geological survey type work, data collection, all these sorts of activities, is outdoor work that requires my staff to work outside of the glorious confines of the Natural Resources Building on Elizabeth Avenue.

MR. TAYLOR: Under 06, Purchased Services, there is a $30,200 reduction there. I guess, two questions: One, how do you expect to achieve that and, more importantly, what type of services are purchased under that subhead, Mr. Minister?

MR. MATTHEWS: They are costs associated again with program delivery, such as vehicle and equipment rental, maintenance, sample analysis, (inaudible) preparation, micro-probe services, as well as costs directly associated with the publication of maps and reports that emanate from the field program, and, of course, the storage space rented for the geological survey. Again, these are Purchased Services to support the geological survey program, not much different than any type of standard costs associated with field programs in any department of government. For our purposes, this is the Mines Branch and the geological survey is a big part of what we do down there, what we do on an ongoing basis, as government, in support of the industry, and to sustain our own knowledge base, quite frankly, of what the opportunities are for mineral finds and mining development in the Province.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a general question, I suppose, sort of a local interest, constituency or district interest question. Given that we are on the geological survey section here now, I suppose it is an opportune time to bring it up. The Northern Peninsula: Do we have anything down there besides rocks? This might be a stupid question now, but for a fellow who has spent all of his life out in a boat, it is not as stupid as it might seem.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, probably it is time for him to come ashore and see what we have on land.

MR. TAYLOR: That is better than saying, it is better for me to go back out.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no. It is time for you to come ashore, brother.

Yes, there is lots on the Northern Peninsula other than rocks.

MR. TAYLOR: But not trees.

MR. MATTHEWS: Surprisingly, you do have trees down there. Canada Bay Lumber - and this is out of my department, but there has been a fair bit of logging activity over the years in the Roddickton-Englee area. So, you do have a lot of good forest stands down there. Also, in the Conche area, there is good potential for -

MR. TAYLOR: Marble. Is that what you were trying to say?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I was going to say slate rock and marble and those types of things. There are some finds down there that have being identified. It is a question, I guess, of the proponents coming to a conclusion that there is a business case to be made to move forward with development of these things. That is not unlike many areas of the Province where there are significant and important finds of various types of minerals, but the challenge in the mining industry, as I understand it and I am not an expert in this area , but it seems to me the challenge, in moving from exploration and significant discovery to completing bankable feasibility studies about the prospect development and then moving on to raise capital as an industry to get into the development, is there is a lot of work that has to be done. I forget what the figure is. Probably, Wayne, you could help me or somebody else. I think it is, for every significant find that is identified in the mining sector, I think for every fifty finds or something like that, there is only one development that eventually occurs. So the challenge of finding enough of whatever it is you are looking for and bringing that to development is a long lead time in terms of process and a big challenge in terms of the economics.

That is why, I guess, when mines do start, while there is an assumption that when mines start up they must be terribly, terribly lucrative and be able to pay all kinds of benefits to the economy, that is not always the case. Some of them are very marginal. Some of the operations, as an example, on the Baie Verte Peninsula, while they operate, they operate on a limited resource basis. They are marginal operations and there are only certain parameters in which they can operate and go forward or they will not operate at all. A gold mines may not always be a gold mine, it may be just a marginal development when it is all said and done.

MR. TAYLOR: Bordering on a fool's gold mine.

MR. MATTHEWS: Bordering on?

MR. TAYLOR: I said bordering on a fool's gold mine, in some cases.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

To the hon. Vice- Chair I say, there is much more than rocks on the Northern Peninsula. There are minerals up there. Daniel's Harbour is an example of where there were significant minerals found a number of years ago. There was a mine operating there for a long time. It is now shut down because it is no longer viable. The logging operations, that I referred to in the Roddickton area, have been historically a pretty significant level of economic activity on the Northern Peninsula, and there are other finds, as I say, of slate and marble and that sort of thing in the Conche area.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Minister.

I will move into number 12, Information Technology. There is a sort of an up and down move there, $154,800 budgeted last year and $210,700 spent. This year the estimate is just- I do not know if I should say just - $92,000. Why such a wide variance over the course of a year, a year-and-a-half?

MR. MATTHEWS: Last year the revised upward figures had to do with costs for the site licensing of the GIS package, the ARC info package that was purchased. Also, the department purchased disc tape storage for our UNIX box, the u-n-i-x box. I am not sure what box that is or what it means. All I can tell you is that it is Information Technology procurement purchases that we had throughout the year. The GIS package, the ARC info package, that they purchased was what drove the Estimates up from $154,800 as budgeted to an expenditure of $210,000.

I think what is noteworthy, as well, is that this year the budgeted is down dramatically because IT programs very dramatically, and purchases in one year, can make extraordinary costs occur as they did last year which affects, directly, what we think we will have to spend this year. We have already made a significant acquisition in last year's budget that substantially takes care of our IT needs for this year. So, that is the explanation there. It is really still purchased product that we need to run the department efficiently.

MR. TAYLOR: I notice, throughout the Budget Estimates, there is a significant amount of money spent by all government departments, obviously, and for understandable reasons, on Information Technology. How is this procured? Is it through purchases or through tender or what?

MR. MATTHEWS: The procurement of IT services and technology?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is done in a tendered fashion in accordance with the Public Tendering Act. Everything, of course, that is purchased throughout government is subject to the Public Tendering Act, I think, with the exception of consultants' fees, lawyers and the professional services. Other than that, everything else is subject to the Act. These purchases certainly would be, whether they are vehicles or IT information packages or whatever.

MR. TAYLOR: Before I leave this section, I will jump back to that general question I had on the Northern Peninsula. There was a significant amount of work done in the Daniel's Harbour-Parsons Pond-Portland Creek area. I suppose it must be five years ago now since there was any amount of work done there, I believe, in oil exploration. I guess most of it was seismic survey work, I believe. Is there any indication that anything more will be done in that area that you are receiving from either the people who were involved before, the companies that were involved before, or other interested parties; continued exploration, anything positive to come out of it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Most of the parcels of land that have been acquired for exploration purposes over the past number of years would be on-land stuff. The offshore stuff is controlled by C-NOPB. We can speak to that as well.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: Onshore, it is controlled directly through the department. Most of the lands, I think, that have been put out for exploration purposes have had some level of work done on them, including the ones that you have referred to up there.

I cannot speak specifically to what plans any private company might have with respect to lands that they are holding this year, because I frankly do not know. We could make inquires to see what they may be able to offer. What I can tell you is that this year - as a matter of fact, I announced it in the House about ten days or two weeks ago - we will, for the first time in a number of years, hopefully, be going for additional expressions of interest on land sales on land to see if we can get some more activity, particularly, I would think, on the West Coast which has a high level of prospectivity for hydro carbons moving forward.

What we have done, as I announced in the House, is we have asked the industry to indicate parcels of land that they might be interested in bidding on if we had a land sale. So we are going through that process now. Part of the reason why we are doing it, obviously, is because despite the lack of successful development of the oil industry on the West Coast, even after all of the years that exploration has been ongoing out there, despite that and despite the fact that we do not have an industry out there today, as such, on a commercial basis, we do know that there is a really, really high level of prospectivity in the West Coast area, generally, on land and to some extent offshore, in the gulf, that suggests that there is gas and oil out there still to be found. The industry believes that, we believe that, all the seismic data we have suggests that, all we know about the geology of the area suggests that, and so we are continuing to push to try and encourage investment activity on the exploration side on the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast generally, the Port aux Port Peninsula and wherever else there is an opportunity that the industry thinks is worth pursuing.

While no big finds have been brought into production, there is still, as far as we are concerned and as far as the industry is concerned, a lot of opportunity potential for exploration and new finds on the West Coast. That includes, certainly, the Northern Peninsula, but I think the Parsons Pond area has been historically associated with oil possibilities. As a matter of fact, I think there has been oil up there found many, many years ago. It is a question of quantity, proving up reserves, so that people can get on with commercial production. The West Coast certainly has not reached the level of the offshore yet, not by a long shot, but we are still plugging ahead. As long as the industry is prepared to invest money we are prepared to do everything we can through our various programs and data collection activities to be helpful to them.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I am going to turn it over to my colleague for a few minutes there now. I have to step out for a second.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, under Major Projects Benefits Office, the salaries this year are $454,700. How many employees would be employed in that particular office?

MR. MATTHEWS: Major Projects Benefits Office - have you moved back to-

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, 1.2.02.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you asking me how many people work in that branch?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not have an exact figure of how many people work in that branch, but maybe on of my officials has some idea. I have no idea as to how many people work there. I think we can extrapolate, from the salary details, that there are probably ten to fifteen people working in that division. I could get you that figure if you want, how many people work there. Do you want it specifically, as with respect to areas of activity within that branch, or are you just talking about the Major Projects Benefits Office?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I was asking particularly about the Major Projects Benefits Office.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. That area would be in the range of ten to fifteen people. But 1.2.02, Major Projects Benefits Office: These salaries relate to the more general administrative side of the department's activity in that area. If you are asking about who constitutes the major projects, for instance negotiating teams and that sort of thing, then that would be a question that I can answer separate from the support side of the department. I do not know if that is where you are leading with respect to the question. Is that what you are asking?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes. I guess that was where I was leading.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Major Projects negotiating teams are made up from officials within my department, but they also include officials from other departments of government that would be covered under other Estimates that come before the House. So, it is not possible to extrapolate how many people or who they are from my budget, singularly, as to who would be on, say, the Voisey's Bay or the ALCOA negotiating teams, because we involve people from my department, we have people on the teams from Finance, we have people on the teams from Intergovernmental Affairs and we have people on the teams from the Department of Justice; these four departments for sure. Normally we have people on these two teams from the Department of ITRD, the department of government that deals with the benefit side of what we do. Negotiating teams are generally made up of a group of officials across a number of departments for very obvious reasons, because we need expertise in all of these areas to feed into the negotiations and the discussions on any given project.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How many people, do you have any idea, within government are dedicated specifically to the Voisey's Bay file? Any idea?

MR. MATTHEWS: It varies depending on the area of interest that is under discussion or negotiation. I could have added to that list of departments, the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, because, to the extent that we are involved directly on the lands claims piece with respect to the Voisey's file, we have people also from Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs involved. The number of people who would be meeting on any given day would depend upon the issues that we are negotiating or having discussions with respect to. In total, there are probably six to ten individuals who I would consider part of the negotiating team that I lead on behalf of the department, on behalf of government.

In addition to that, of course, as I have indicated many times in the House, we engage outside help, outside expertise, to give us the best level of information and advice and support on these major projects, the best analysis we can find in terms of, let's say, if it is Voisey's, the nickel industry, the copper industry, the cobalt industry, that sort of thing, where it is all going, what it all means, what the real value of it is, what their assessment is of the positions we take at the negotiating table verus the questions that come forward from the company in terms of what they want; you know, that sort of thing. So, there are a lot of people involved in total, but, on any given day, the mix and the number varies.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under this subclause 03, Transportation and Communications, there was $65,000 budgeted last year, budgeted again this year, but there was $151,600 spent. I wonder if you can give some idea as to the reasons for the increase?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that line item has very, very specifically been affected over the last year because of the increased amount of travel, essentially, that has been undertaken with respect to the Voisey's negotiations. It was pretty difficult last year, in fact, it was impossible last year when the Budget was brought in for this vote, to know how much we would need for that activity during the ensuing twelve months, because, as of the time the Budget came in last year, we had not even decided to go back to formal negotiations. So, obviously, once we decided to do that, the level of travel by my officials, that we fund out of our department, bearing in mind there are a lot of other costs that go into this area from other departments, for my department, it was significantly affected. We have had a lot of activity in that regard, as you would appreciate, I am sure.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under the Supplies allocation, there was an increase from $4,100 to $13,700. That is back to $4,100 again. What would that have been?

MR. MATTHEWS: Essentially, that had to do with the extra requirements, additional workload, we had with respect to presentations on the major files that we have under negotiation, and commensurate with the increased activity associated with negotiations, particularly the Voisey's file. Commensurate with the increase in that activity were incremental costs, higher costs, in a bunch of other expense areas and this is one of them.

I think, if you move down to 05, you will see the same type of impact, where we went from $94,000 to $139,000. That is really an area where we cover off independent professional advice on technical and strategic issues related to the project. It is all in that vein of extraordinary activity last year on the negotiating side.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mostly on the Voisey's Bay file?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is the big one. It also pertains to activity that we engage ourselves in with respect to the promotion of the Bull Arm site through the Bull Arm Site Corporation. We have been entertaining some requests from proponents wishing to have information about, or possible access to, the Bull Arm site. We are trying to market that site, as difficult as it is to market as a project by project site. We have to do what we can to try and keep it before the oil and gas industry, generally, and before other specters as well because there are other possible applications and usage for that site. We have had some come forward that we are considering now as you would know.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On the Bull Arm site, there was some news coverage, probably about a week or a week-and-half ago, regarding I believe it was gas turbines, a chap from the United States looking at leasing the Bull Arm site. Can you give us an update on that and whether or not there is strong likelihood that will proceed?

MR. MATTHEWS: There is a group that has been discussing the possible use of the Bull Arm site in the context of an idea that they want to pursue to build combined cycle gas turbine power plants. It is the Helios Group. They have been meeting with the Bull Arm Site Corporation and with my officials. They have asked to have discussion with respect to possible accessing that site for some business opportunities that they are pursuing. We have asked them, of course, as would be the norm, to provide us with some information that would give us some indication as to the level of maturity in terms of their business plan on that account. As I understand it, they are, as we speak, putting together that type of business plan, information projections, information about their product line that they want to pursue, whether or not they have customers lined up, whether or not they have their financing in place, and to what extent. We are trying to determine, obviously, to what extent there is a real opportunity here for us, as government, to work with this group. Our position is very clear. We are anxious to find either one or more proponents that would be able to move into that site and set up some type of industrial or fabrication business development opportunities. That is the group that you are referring to.

We expect we will know, Mr. Chair, in the next several weeks, maybe, from this group as to how far they have moved in terms of developing their business plan and to what extent we can work with them to make the site available, or whether or not they still have an interest based on the normal requirements that we would expect of them to be able to access part or all of that site. It is one opportunity. It is not new, these people have been around from early to mid last year, I think. They have been talking to the Bull Arm Site Corporation people. They have been talking to the Chambers of Commerce in the Arnold's Cove-Come-by-Chance-Southern Harbour area and the Clarenville area, that sort of thing, talking up this concept and possible project. I can only say to them and all others who come forward, we hope that they all have a successful or good business plan that would see something happen in Bull Arm.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So there is probably a high likelihood that there is a very serious interest. Would you consider it a high likelihood that -

MR. MATTHEWS: On a scale of relative possibilities, I would not want to sort of suggest there is a low, medium or high likelihood of this company actually coming forward with a successful, good and sound business plan. I don't know, because the level of information that we have been able to get from them to this point has not been nearly sufficient for us as a government or the Bull Arm Site Corporation to determine to what extent there exists a real opportunity here. It is a concept of building combined cycle gas turbine power plants for sale worldwide and the identification of the market, the identification of the financing, and all of these other things, are still very much outstanding in our discussions with them in terms of them bringing forward the basic information that we would need to do a proper assessment of their business plan. They understand that. They are working with us and we are working with them. So let's hope there is a reality to, not only theirs, but the other inquiries we have had as well with respect to Bull Arm.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I think the Chairman is going to say suggest (inaudible).

CHAIR: I am going to suggest we take a ten-minute break just to give everybody a chance to stretch their legs. It has been, I would say, an unusual morning because the Minister and his officials have waited for almost an hour-and-some before we started, in terms of dealing with them. Maybe we could take a ten-minute break and then we could come back, and, hopefully, clue it up relatively quickly after that.

CHAIR: Welcome back.

I do believe that Mr. Osborne was asking questions. Shall we go back to you or Mr. Taylor?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will start again, sure.

I think we left off at 1.2.02. The Minister was giving some explanation as to the Professional Services in 1.2.02. Being as how there is only, really, Purchased Services remaining there with any significant expenditures, I will ask the Minister if he can elaborate on what the expenditures included for last year. There was $9,000 more in expenditures than what was budgeted.

MR. MATTHEWS: Under Purchased Services, 1.2.02.06, budgeted last year $15,000, revised to $24,000, is that the figure?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the specific vote, I should say, under which we have paid for some of the presentations that we received from consultants and some of the presentations that we have had to make. So, this is the very specific line that covers the cost of professional presentations that we have received and/or that we have had to make as a result of the files that we are dealing with.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. While we are still on that Major Projects Benefits Office, has Inco obtained the $100 million cheque from the federal government or, you know, have they obtained a concrete commitment for the development of the hydromet facility?

MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot, in all honesty, answer that question for two reasons. Number one, I do not know exactly what level of commitments they have extracted from Ottawa in any area that they have been seeking support. Number two, even if I did know, it would not be appropriate for me to answer, on behalf of Inco, what they may or may not have achieved with respect to funding support or other types of support from Ottawa. That is singularly their piece of business, as is the IBA, the Impact Benefits Agreement, that they are negotiating with the Aboriginal Nations.

These are three areas where, while we have our interest in seeing the things concluded successfully between them - because without that, of course, there can be no project move forward even if we have a commercial arrangement concluded between ourselves and Inco - but while we have an interest in those areas, we are not at the table discussing the IBA's, nor are we at the table discussing with the federal government what it is they have concluded and agreed to or not agreed to with Inco. Now having said that, we do, of course, follow with interest to the extent that we should be inquiring and we should be in the know as to what is happening or likely to happen, of course. We talk to Ottawa every day on a whole bunch of issues. So, we are interested in what is happening but we do not have the ability to speak for Inco and, hence, I cannot confirm or deny anything that might be rumored or speculative with respect to how much funding, from what departments, under what programs, they are seeking support and/or have obtained any level of confirmation. That is a question that I cannot answer.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, Minister - while I was making my notes, you mentioned that there were three areas that you could not get directly involved in and I made a note of two of those, the negotiations with the Aboriginal communities and their negotiations with the federal government. I missed the third one, I am sorry.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the three, there are two Aboriginal, two IBAs, one with the Innu and one with the Inuit, and the federal piece. These are substantially Inco's pieces of business that they are working through with those three groups.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Absolutely! I understand. While you were counting the Aboriginal as two, I counted them as one. I thought I had missed the third but I did not.

What will Inco invest in the hydromet process in Argentia with or without the $100 million from the federal government? What are they anticipating investing in that facility?

CHAIR: Before the minister answers, the Chair just wants to remind you, that although we are running with latitude here, we are now addressing a great distance from the actual Estimates of the department. We are now asking opinions as to what a third party might do and I am not sure what relevance that would have on the numbers that we dealing with. I will leave it to the minister and his officials to deal with it but, like I said, I am not sure where it fits here. I think it is a great question for question period but-

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I could interject for a second. I think we are still within the confines of what this committee is mandated to do and I am on Estimates questions. That is only the second question outside of Estimates that I have asked.

CHAIR: I understand that, but when we are asking what a third party might do, I am not sure if the minister can advise us whether he is a position to answer what a third party may or may not do. I would defer to the minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Chair.

In terms of the level and latitude of questioning, I am like every other person appearing, or the Committee itself for that matter, I am in the hands of the Chair and the Committee. I will do my best to answer the questions that are put providing the questions are permitted under the rules and the latitude that the Chair permits. I think the Chair is being very accommodating, as I have watched for the last five-plus hours now in this Committee hearing.

On that question though, we have said publically, Inco has said publically and we understand, that the R and D program associated with the hydromet demonstration plant that will be built is approximately a $130 million program. So the expenditure over the course of development and testing of the hydromet technology is within that range in terms of cost.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Does that include the $100 million that they are hoping to get from the federal government?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I would assume. My understanding is that that is the cost of the program. Now, whether or not they get partial, minimal or substantial support from Ottawa to go toward that is a question that is still outstanding. It goes back to your previous question: How much is Ottawa prepared to give them? I do not know. At this point, I do not know that they know, but you could ask it of them.

Obviously, at the end of the piece, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion that even if the company gets maximum support, let's say, under R and D funding programs, that there would still be a substantial amount of capital that they would have to invest themselves to get that done. It is not hard to figure out that if it is a $130 million program, the R and D piece for Argentia and pieces surrounding Argentia, and they get $50 million, as an example, from Ottawa, that there is still $80 million that has to be put in by the company. If they get $100 million, it is $130million. I do not want to get into numbers because I do not want to speculate. It would be imprudent for me to speculate on what they might or might not get from Ottawa. We will have to wait and see.

It is one of the pieces, along with the two IBA agreements, that the company, more or less singularly, are responsible to bring to conclusion so that they can, I suppose, know whether or not they can move forward to discuss closing on the items that are outstanding. Until we get back together and conclude one way or the other on the outstanding items, there cannot be a project. Clearly, I think, the indication from Inco and ourselves is that we all hope we can get a project. I think the sense of the people of the Province is that - I am convinced that the people of the Province are supportive of us getting the project moving providing we can get it right in terms of the terms and conditions. That is being rather rhetorical in terms of what I and the Premier have said many times over the last, particularly two or three months.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Over what period of time is the Research and Development? How long will that drag out? Do you know?

MR. MATTHEWS: The R and D piece, in terms of time needed to test up the hydromet technology, is around a couple of years; probably two years they would need to - and this is not new information. They have gone through this process in Goro against a completely different type of project in terms of the ore body there; all laterites. It is the demonstration plant in Goro that we visited along with a bunch of my officials last year. It is quite interesting to see what it is that is all about. Once that test plant, that test facility, concludes its work in terms of the hydromet technology against the sulfide ores coming out of Voisey's, it will continue to exist for future purposes and for future Rand D research opportunities, I guess, as it relates to the mining industry in particular for many years to come.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Moving on to Mineral Lands, subhead 2.1.02. Here, "Appropriations provide for administration of the mineral land tenure system, monitoring and regulation of mineral exploration activity, regulation and management of the exploration and extraction of quarry materials, collection of diamond drill core and operation of the core storage program, liaising interdepartmentally on land-use and providing information and professional support on such matters to government and external clients."

Just a couple of questions there. The collection of diamond drill core: Has there been any collection of diamond drill core over the last budget year?

MR. MATTHEWS: That I am not sure is information that I can provide to you directly. I am going to rely on my officials for that. The reality is this: When prospectors go out and prospect they have certain rights in terms of when they have to disclose what it is they have found or what it is they have come upon. They have rights, they have periods of confidentially. So whether or not I can speak to anything that has happened over the last twelve months in that area is a question really that I need answered by the officials. In the offshore oil and gas they have certain periods of time before they have to tell what they have found and that sort of thing. I am not sure who could help me with that; probably Wayne.

MR. RYDER: It is an ongoing program. Last summer there was some drill core collection mostly around Central Newfoundland and it is going to happen again this year. We have a project planned again this year for drill recovery. So it is an ongoing thing.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for St. John's South's specific question was: Do we know if any diamond core drilling had taken place over the last twelve months? I will have to refer that question again to Wayne, and if we do not have an exact answer I would happy to try and provide that to you because if the information is available you can have it, to the extent that we have it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Sure.

MR. RYDER: No, I am not aware of any diamond drilling that has been going on this last twelve months, but, then again, it is not my specific area. As the minister said, we could find out for you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. MATTHEWS: The officials have taken a note of that question already and we will try and provide that answer to you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Are there any prospects for significant diamond finds within the boundaries of the Province?

MR. MATTHEWS: Diamond prospecting is not an area of prospecting where I am aware, personally, that there are a lot of things happening or likely to happen. I compare it to the relatively high level of interest that is currently existing with respect to gold prospects in the Province. There is the Buchans area where there have been a lot of minerals found that may lead to a development out in that area. You are dealing with copper and other ores that are contained in copper finds. In Voisey's Bay it is nickel, cobalt and copper; that sort of thing. I am not aware of any - except in Labrador, over the past couple of years, I think there was some work done, some drilling done, some prospecting done, on possible diamond finds. I have not heard anything, either publicly or in the department, to suggest there is much happening at the moment with respect to the work that was done about two or three years ago on possible diamond finds in an area in Labrador. There is not much to be said other than what you already know about that. That was some prospecting done, there were some signs that there were some diamond related possibilities, but nothing that is off a commercial nature yet.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Minister.

Under 2.1.02.01, Salaries, the amount budgeted this year and last year are approximately the same. However, there was less spent last year than budgeted. Was that due to a lay-off? What would be the reason for that?

MR. MATTHEWS: It was due to the delays in filling certain positions that became vacant. As you know, if you delay filling positions, by virtue of not being able to find the candidates or by virtue of just delaying on a time basis, it reduces your budget uptake there. The Budget this year is the same essentially as last year. We intend to fill the positions that are vacant based on the need to fill them, and in the context of achievements that we are trying to make throughout government in terms of the five and eight guidelines that we have put out for all departments to follow. That is in the area of (inaudible) expenses and salary savings.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under subclause 03, Transportation and Communications, I guess my question there is: Could you give a brief explanation as to the transportation costs there? I mean, it almost sounds self-explanatory, but if you could me some idea as to where that money was spent for transportation and what types of transportation were involved in that particular appropriation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The only thing I could add to that is that it was just normal transportation expenses. It was down a little because, as I mentioned earlier, we had a little less staff last year in the department due to positions that were not filled and, as a result of a reduced level of staffing, there followed a slight decrease in travel activities. The types of travel that we engage in would be the normal types; air, land and sea.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They all have been within the Province?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I would guess that all of these travel costs would probably have been within the Province, because, as an example, we manage the Core Storage Program and we maintain six regional core storage libraries and they go all the way from St. John's to Pasadena, Buchans, Springdale, Baie Verte and Goose Bay. We have quarry inspection offices in certain locations, such as Grand Falls, Windsor, Pasadena, St. John's, Goose Bay and Wabush. Our activities are very much spread out across the Province, because we operate in a number of locations. While we are not a big department with a lot of staff or a lot of money our activities are spread out largely throughout the Province because, on the mines side of it, that is where most of the activity takes place, all over the Province and into Labrador. The travel of $74,200 down from the budgeted $77,900 is just regular, normal, routine travel costs. I cannot add more to it than that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So there would not be anything there for travel regarding any of the major projects?

MR. MATTHEWS: No. That does not cover any of the major projects' development costs or negotiating costs. Absolutely not!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Core Storage Facilities: You say there are three now. I am not sure that there was a storage facility in Torbay, on the old airport site. My understanding was there was some mineral storage or core storage down in that area. I think the building was destroyed or demolished back a number of years ago, four or five years ago probably. Is my understanding of that correct?

MR. MATTHEWS: Wayne, where is our library core storage in the St. John's area?

MR. RYDER: It is down at the old airport, across from the airport. I think you are referring to a building that was destroyed a few years ago. It was not core, it was rock samples in that building. We still have a core storage building down on that site. It is down next to the Rec Centre in Torbay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. The rock samples and so on in that building were destroyed with the building. Is that correct?

MR. RYDER: The samples were not destroyed. We had them stored there. The building was destroyed. We had to retrieve the samples and recap a lot of them and we have done that. They are now housed in a different building.

MR. T. OSBORNE: My understanding was, I think, that the building was destroyed while the rock samples were still in the building.

MR. RYDER: That is correct.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, were all of the rock samples recovered from the building?

MR. RYDER: No, I would say about 70 per cent to 75 per cent were.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess, while it probably was not within your tenure as Minister of Mines and Energy, I will ask the question: How could that have happened or why would a building be destroyed while there were still government properties such as rock samples, mineral samples, within the building?

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you asking me how the fire started?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, no. I think it was bulldozed, if I am correct.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh! All right. I am not familiar with the destruction of the building and how it was destroyed. I mean, now you are getting into minutia that predates me. Wayne, if you can be helpful?

MR. RYDER: Well, I do not think anybody really knows to this day how it happened or why it happened. It was a pretty old dilapidated building and the rock samples were just there temporarily. They were in buckets. From the outside, it was not pretty looking. I think that the people who destroyed it thought there was nothing in it at the time. It certainly did not look like there was from the outside.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is kind of a bazaar story, how a building containing government materials can just be bulldozed. Now, I am not saying that that is probably not a good idea at times, but-

MR. MATTHEWS: It is curious, the way they operate. I mean, they could decide to bulldoze this some day and we would be here. So, we would like to have some notice.

CHAIR: Most people wish we were..

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a couple more questions under Mineral Lands, and then I will pass this over to my colleague for some further questions.

Under Purchased Services, there was $10,000 less spent last year than was actually budgeted and that is up almost $8,000 again this year. What would those Purchased Services have been?

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you on 2.1.02.06?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: That vote is the vote under which we take care of things such as repairs and maintenance of office equipment, field equipment, including vehicles and trailers, actually, and the equipment in our core storage libraries, our vehicle rentals and our accommodations, printing, publishing, advertising, micrographic filming and photographic services. So, it is really Purchased Services in support of the Mineral Lands Division that looks after the land tenure legislation and the administration of the Mineral Act and the Quarry Materials Act.

We have a fair bit of activity in the department with respect, also - although it is not thought about a lot - to the management and the governing, in terms of regulations, of all of the quarries and pits that we have in the Province; the sand pits, the gravel pits, the quarry pits. All of these have to be regulated. The regulation of them has to be managed and we have to continuously be renewing permits for the operation of these quarry pits all over the Province. So, there are a lot of administrative costs associated with managing, as I say, the quarry pits in the Province, all the way from sand and gravel pits right up to mines.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will ask this: What were the total transportation costs last year associated with the negotiations and the development, I guess, of Voisey's Bay, the total associated travel for Voisey's Bay?

MR. MATTHEWS: The total costs associated with negotiations and travel involved in the negotiations of the Voisey's Bay file that were accrued or incurred in my department was the figure that was under the Major Projects. Back to subhead 1.2.02: The travel costs there were $151,600, but that does not tell the whole story, as I pointed out earlier. That, for instance, does not include travel costs that were incurred by myself as the minister, or my staff traveling with me, which would have been part of the negotiations. This is part of the officials' costs. Nor does it include the travel costs that were associated with some other officials that work out of other departments of government that support or are a part of our negotiating team. As I mentioned earlier, a good example would be the Minister of the Department of Justice.

In order to give you a full cost of every cent that was spent in terms of the negotiations on the Voisey's file, that would have to be a constructed cost that would have to be prepared across a lot of departmental lines and provided in a different setting than the Estimates of my department. You can look and see what I have spent, as a minister, on travel in my department. Part of that would be as a result of the Voisey's Bay discussions, negotiations and meetings. My deputy, who also travels, part of his costs would probably be in Senior Administrative and Executive Support.

If you want an answer to that question you really should put that question in its proper forum, in a different forum than the Estimates hearings and we would have to try and come up with it for you. It is not a cost that we do not want to identify, it is just that it happens across a bunch of departments. It is not only peculiar to the Voisey's file. If three officials from three different departments are traveling to Ottawa on one specific issue the costs are allocated through the departments that the employees travel from. That would be a given. It is just the way it works.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, the $151,600: Was that entirely on the Voisey's Bay file?

MR. MATTHEWS: No. I will just double check that, but I believe that was associated with travel costs that were mainly the Voisey's Bay file, but may also have included some costs with respect to the Bull Arm Site Corporation activities, promotion of that particular issue. So for the most part it is Voisey's, but there are also some other costs there pertaining to the Site Corporation's work.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, am I able to ask your department to put together those numbers or is that better under a FOI request?

MR. MATTHEWS: Off the top of my head, I would suggest you could put the question to my department, and if we cannot or it should not be our responsibility to pull that together, then we could reflect that in our response. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether you should make that a FOI request across x number of departments or whether you should - I suggest you put it to my department and let us respond to it because we are the lead department on the Voisey's file obviously.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One final question, before I refer back to my buddy.

What are the costs to the department - again, I would imagine the answer would be similar, that it would be across a number of departments. What would the total costs of the Voisey's Bay file be across all departments? Is that something you keep a tab on, or is that something that has to be calculated?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not something that we keep a tab on in this sense; that the services of the Department of Finance, the services of the Department of Justice and the services from the officials in Aboriginal Affairs, they provide those services as part of the work they do on behalf of government. They may be in Justice. As you know, they provide services to every department of government and the extent to which the Department of Justice would keep an allocation of costs between Health, Mines and Energy, Finance and Work, Services and all of that, is a question that you would have to put to them. Frankly, I do not have the answer to that. I would suggest that they do know, within reason, what services they render to each department, but the allocation of those costs is for their information. Again, the provision of that type of information, I say to the hon. member, would be a question that you would have to put in a different form and context to get that type of answer. We would have to figure out how we would pull it together for you or to whom we would direct you for that type of information.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. I should address those to you and you will put them to whomever in your department.

MR. MATTHEWS: My simple answer would be yes, because if it is not for us to have the ability or the responsibility to provide that, then we would communicate that back to you and you could direct your questions elsewhere. But, in the first instance, I think it would be entirely appropriate to direct your questions to my department.

CHAIR: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. I guess I will start with 2.1.02. It is a small number, so that is probably the easiest place to start and work from there. Under 2.1.01.05, Professional Services: As I said a number of times before, this consumes a great deal of the finances of the Province, I suppose, if you look at it across all departments. Since it is $7,000, maybe it is a small enough number that you could tell me exactly what that professional service is. I do not mean in general, I mean like-

MR. MATTHEWS: Under 2.1.02.05?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Sir.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is an allocation for charges associated with the Mineral Rights Adjudication Board that is responsible to hear grievances that are filed under the Mineral Act. We do have some level of activity in that area; not a big lot, obviously.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I will move back to, I guess, 1.2.02.05, Professional Services. The $139,000 there - and I know the Minister, in a general way, when I questioned him on this one before, gave an explanation, but what would it be, specifically? What individual or what company, or within the department if it is within the department, or externally if it is externally, would that be?

MR. MATTHEWS: Under 1.2.02.05?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: That covers independent professional advice on legal - well not so much legal, as on technical and strategic issues related to the project. The project means the Voisey's Bay Project. I can tell you that we use people such as Merrill-Lynch who have financial expertise in terms of doing analysis for us on mining projects. They have technical expertise because I have met with some of them in terms of telling us what is happening in a specific industry sector such as the nickel industry or the copper industry. They have specialists on virtually every type of metal that is produced in the world. They advise us in terms of what is happening in the industry, the trends, the projections in terms of where the industry is going, the value of the product that is likely to be mined and produced; all that sort of thing. This is external, independent, technical advice for the most part that we engage all the time, particularly in the context of these discussions, the Voisey's discussions. My officials meet with them, I have met with them on a number of occasions; various independent experts whom we engage to give us independent advice.

MR. TAYLOR: Skipping over to page 144, 2.1.03, 05, Professional Services again: There is a budget estimate of $190,000 this year similar to last year. There was $144,500 spent last year. I guess, in a general way, I would imagine what it was spent on, but, specifically, what would that $144,500 have been spent on last year?

MR. MATTHEWS: This is another vote where we pay for some professional services that we access within the department. Under this particular area, Mineral Development, this is in a general sense where we seek to manage the provincial mineral development programs, generally. The mineral exploration is continuing in a number of the highly prospective areas around the Province. We were down somewhat in our expenditure on this vote last year and it is, in some measure, related to the delays in the development of Voisey's Bay, because this has to do with services that we need to help us manage the development of projects. Obviously Voisey's Bay, as a project, has not started into the developmental stage. Monies that we had anticipated in the Estimates last year that would be needed if the development went forward were obviously not expended because the development, as we speak today even, has not started. We spent more in the management of the various developments in the Province that we anticipated might happen, including the Voisey's one, than we had budgeted for.

MR. TAYLOR: Maybe you answered and I missed it, but specifically the $144,500: I mean, it is not a large number. It is larger than what is in my bank account, by $140,000 probably.

I would be interested in knowing. I know you are not interested in this questioning continuing much longer.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is okay. I am in the hands of the Chair like you.

MR. TAYLOR: I was just joking, minister.

What specifically would that be spent on? Who would you pay there or what would you pay them for? I would be interested in knowing who they actually are, who or what it actually is. If I was paying $144,500 for professional services in a life outside of politics, I think I or somebody around me would be able to tell me, pretty well specifically, what that was for. I was wondering if you or some of your officials who are with you today might be able to enlighten me on that.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is a fair question, actually. I do not mind the question at all, because this vote covers professional services that we have to purchase with respect to new discoveries and the development of new discoveries. As new discoveries move forward there are activities that have social and economic implications and issues that have to be dealt with before they are approved and as they are going through the developmental stages. It ranges all the way from dealing with economic and social issues that arise from new developments all the way through to infrastructure analysis, environmental impact work that we have to get done, economic and technical feasability studies that we need to have done from the department's perspective to be able to sanction or help move forward new developments. It is that type of professional services, environmental work, infrastructure analysis work, technical feasibility studies and economic analysis in terms of projects. All of these are activities that would be paid for, for the department's benefit and purposes under the 2.1.03.05 vote.

MR. TAYLOR: So that would be done internally or externally?

MR. MATTHEWS: That would be external consultants' work that we would pay for. Now, in terms of providing you with a list of who we paid for what, in terms of how much environmental work we had done under this vote and how much economic analysis work we had done and how much technical analysis we had done, that is a question that you would have to put to me in a different forum. We could respond to it if you are interested in that level of detail. But, obviously, on the environmental side we used environmental firms; firms that are involved. In terms of a technical side of it, we would use the firms that would be giving us the best technical information depending on the type of development, the type of minerals that are under development, and all that sort of thing, you know.

MR. TAYLOR: You mentioned the environmental evaluation, I suppose, in this section. Can the Minister tell me what kind of information your department, either under this sub or some other place, if at all, would have on the impact of - I know it has been raised as a concern in the Southern Gulf and on Georges Bank and, to a lesser extent here in Newfoundland and Labrador, it has been raised recently; the affect of seismic survey work on fish, specifically? Maybe it is not a fair question for you, I do not know. Maybe it is an environmental question to the Department of Environment. In this one here: Do you or have you information or do you, over time, accumulate information, to conduct research or whatever to determine if there is any negative impact on fish habitat and stocks and what have you, as a result of seismic work or drilling or whatever?

MR. MATTHEWS: This has to do with our mineral development program in our Mineral Development Division. So, my guess is that - and I will ask Wayne to respond if he has anything to add, because it is a guess - the amount of seismic work that is concluded under this program is minimal. My guess is that we spend most of this money on professional services to do with environmental initiatives and with technical aspects of a new development that is coming or proposed to come on stream. From the Mines side of it, from the regulatory side of it, the responsibilities we have, we execute our responsibilities and know what is going on from questions that we have to answer to the environmental process, as an example.

The Department of Environment has responsibilities to issue certain approvals after they have done their due diligence in terms of what requirements companies and mines have to meet up there. From our perspective, we want to ensure that the department can promote development, it can also defend the promotion of the development and can speak to the environmental issues that we have a responsibility to give responses to.

Wayne, I do not know if there is anything else that can be said under this.

MR. TAYLOR: If I could jump in there for a second, Minister. I did not mean to suggest that specifically under this subheading of Mineral Development - in your answer, you mentioned the environmental issue, so I just spawned a question, I suppose, related to it. I meant to ask it and I figured it was just as well to ask it here as anywhere. I am looking for information on seismic surveys, I guess. If it is somewhere else and not here at all, I would be interested in knowing where it is.

MR. MATTHEWS: How much seismic work, I guess, do we get involved in with respect to mining? Seismic, to me, is more the offshore.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. RYDER: None that I am aware of in the Mineral Development Division. I think your question probably would be better answered by the Environment officials. We have no involvement with seismic in this division.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Wayne.

My understanding is that all (inaudible) seismic work and activity in my department has been singularly focused in the area of seismic with respect to the offshore, to try and find out what is underneath the water, underneath the seabed type thing. On the mineral side, as I understand it, there is more of a conventional type of activity called exploration, drilling, core samplings and those sorts of activities that lead to indications of reserves, indications of ore bodies and that sort of thing. I would guess - and I say guess - that there are not a lot of seismic, if any seismic, services covered under this vote.

MR. TAYLOR: As I said - and I say again - my question was more a general one than it was specific to this section. I realize there would not be much of an impact irregardless of whether there is seismic work or not done on land to fish out in the middle of Bay St. George.

My question was just that, there has been seismic work done off the Port au Port Peninsula, as I understand it, and the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh yes.

MR. TAYLOR: I was wondering if there were any one department that would have -

MR. MATTHEWS: It would not be under this one. This is the minerals one. This is the mines side of my department. That stuff would be under the Energy side where the oil, gas, hydro and other forms of energy projects and management responsibilities are taken care of.

MR. TAYLOR: I will move over to Petroleum Projects Monitoring, subhead 3.1.04, and ask you the same question. No, I won't do that.

MR. MATTHEWS: What page are you on now, hon. member?

MR. TAYLOR: No, I was just joking on that.

I just assume, from your answer, that you do not do it and it is more of a question for the Department of Environment.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. Fair enough.

On 3.1.01.05 again, Professional Services: I wonder if you could enlighten me on how that $263,500 is going to be reduced down to $163,500 this year? Again, I guess, as specific as you can get, tell me how that is being used.

MR. MATTHEWS: The issue of the Nova Scotia-Newfoundland boundaries offshore hearings and the dispute that has finally been resolved, has been concluded. Some of the expenditure under this vote related to our work with the boundaries dispute. Obviously that work is done so we would have no requirement this year for purchased professional services on the issue of the boundaries dispute. That is done. Last year, while we were a little above as result of increased activity there, this year coming we do not need nearly the amount of money, we think, for professional services to do with strategic and policy planning. This is the Strategic and Policy Planning vote for professional service that you are now dealing with here. The boundaries dispute means we need less money this year, we think, in that budget, in that vote.

MR. TAYLOR: I only have a couple of final questions here, Mr. Minister.

This is more of a general question, I guess, but I suppose it would be related to the Major Projects Benefits Office. Tax royalty projections: I do not know if it is a fair question or not, but what kind of projections do you have that you think this Province would realize on a year-to-year basis, from the development of Voisey's Bay in particular?

MR. MATTHEWS: On the Voisey's Bay project?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: We have not concluded, because we have not brought it before the House, the changes that we are committed to making to the mineral taxation act, royalties taxation act. So, I do not have a figure that I can project today based on legislation that we are committed to bringing in but that we have not finalized and therefore have not passed. Specific to the Voisey's Bay file, that would be a question that we will be able to answer and we will have to answer, obviously, if we get to successful conclusion of our negotiations. Obviously one of the questions would be how much royalties and how much taxation would come from this project to the Province.

We are committed to bringing in amendments to the Mining and Mineral Tax Act, which is really a finance bill. It is not a bill that would come from my department. It is a finance bill which will come under the auspices of the Minister of Finance. When that bill comes to the House, depending on the final outcome of that bill, we will be able to project then what the royalty take will be on the Voisey's project. That information has not been determined, and it is not calculable at the moment because we have not changed the act yet. Now we could do an analysis based on the old act, but that is really a bit of an academic exercise, as we have already said that the ten-year full stand-alone holiday that exists today will not continue to exist in that form. So that will change.

MR. TAYLOR: In total, is it possible for the minister to tell me how much we receive now from our mineral developments in the form of taxation and/or royalties?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, that is not a piece of information that I have readily available because it is a question that really would be asked under the Department of Finance's Estimate hearings.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Fair enough.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is a revenue figure and it comes from legislation that stands in the name of the Department of Finance. I could answer, generally, how the royalty structure is put together, but that is not what you are looking for, and it could be a bit of a long diatribe you probably do not want to inflict upon yourself at this point.

MR. TAYLOR: Under 3.1.05, Electricity Industry Development, it references - this is a general question, I suppose - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I will not ask it. Forget it.

Section 05, Professional Services: Again there is $70,000 budgeted. What would that be for in this section, Minister?

MR. MATTHEWS: Under 3.1.05?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, under 3.1.05.05.

MR. MATTHEWS: This is under the Electricity Industry Development area and it is, basically, to fund associated costs with respect to the future of our natural gas industry and the strategy that we are seeking to develop with respect to that industry or to that, hopefully, perspective industry. So, the funding is provided for the purchase of specialized consulting expertise and the development and the implementation of policy options, more than anything, related to the electricity industry and the analysis of the electricity industry in other jurisdictions.

You want to know what natural gas has to do with electricity. Well, of course, electricity is one of the things that can be generated and made from natural gas, as they are contemplating now in Nova Scotia.

MR. TAYLOR: I am going to refer over to my colleague here. He has a couple of questions here now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

A couple of questions, I say to the Minister. I just want to refer back to 2.1.03 for a moment, evaluations of potential mining properties. I just wonder if you can give us some indication of new potential mining properties in the Province that may have been either established or prospected over the past twelve months?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, in terms of potential for new mining developments or mining properties, as you call them, they would be probably as readily known to you as to me. The big potential for development, of course, is obviously the Voisey's Bay project, the Voisey's Bay area. There is potential there for a massive development and, I suppose, coming with that, there would be, probably, potential for more finds. Not much is happening on either account at the moment, as you know. A recent area where properties have become really interesting on a prospective basis is the Botwood basin where the gold stakings have gone this way over the last two or three months, based on some interesting signs in that area. Beyond that, the area around Millertown-Buchans has got sufficient reserves proved up for a mine. I think the company has got their bankable feasibility study done and it is a question now of how soon they can raise the capital to develop that find and when they are prepared to move forward with it. Of course, all these things depend upon availability of capital and prices in the market, as projected, for the type of metals that they are going to produce; copper, lead, zinc and the like.

When developments will occur is a call that the industry makes when they think it is the right time to go into those developments and invest their money. Areas of high prospectivity, as I say, are the Buchans-Central Newfoundland area, the Botwood basin and, certainly, the Coast of Labrador.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It also says there under the explanation, "... management of incentive programs for exploration and development." What incentive programs are currently available in the Province for both prospectors and mining companies or operations for exploration and development?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we have the five-year $22 million cost-shared program that was introduced. We are into the third year now, I think, of that program. I do have more specific information here available to me but, off the top of my head, I know it is broken down into assistance under three programs; the Prospectors Assistance Program, Junior Company Exploration Assistance Program and there is a Dimension Stone Incentive Program. So, there are three parts to the five-year $22.5 million program. We allocate the money out under three areas. If you give me a minute, either my officials or I - Charlie, do you know where that is? I can tell you exactly what goes out under each program, if you want to know.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, that would be helpful.

MR. MATTHEWS: I have it right here. It is on page 144. It is the Prospectors Assistance Program, $250,000; the Junior Company Exploration Assistance Program, $1.75 million; and the Dimension Stone Incentive Program, $250,000. That is the major source of funding, almost the only source of funding, we have within the department to promote the industry, generally. So, it is 2.1.03.10.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would fall under Grants and Subsidies, item 10?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How are the Grants and Subsidies there determined? What amounts would be paid to a prospector or a mining company? Does it depend on the mineral? Does it depend on the location?

MR. MATTHEWS: It is all based on an application process. People apply and, based on the criteria set out in the application, we determine the level of assistance that we can offer.

I might add, also: In terms of this program, while I have indicated to you what we have allocated under each of the three subheads, we are somewhat flexible under that program. The objective is to encourage prospecting and that sort of thing. So, if there is a need to move money around from one of these subheads to the other, because it is all under the one vote, you know, we are flexible in that regard. We are not rigid, that $250,000 and that only has to be spent there or it doesn't get spent. The objective of the grant there, the vote, is to promote exploration in minerals, generally. These are the three areas where we spend the money in terms of category of applications.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Is there an auditing done of the monies made available to prospectors to determine compliance? I guess that would lead to another question: What type of compliance is there? My question is: How does the Province determine whether a prospector is living year-to-year on grants and subsidies, or is there actual prospecting taking place when a grant is provided?

MR. MATTHEWS: Funds that we provide under this program are no different than funds that government provides in other programs. There is an accountability piece to it that ensures that the recipients of assistance are accountable for how they have spent the money. Inasmuch as it is cost-shared, obviously it is only accessed when there are other expenditures made by the companies themselves. So it is not a case of throwing money at any one applicant and not knowing what it is going for or if it is spent properly or wisely. It is very much a program that has an accountability attached to it. I think that would be the norm and that would be the given for any program of government assistance. We assist companies for development of call centers through another department, but it is based on performance. It is based on demonstrated and audited performance criteria. It is the same thing with this program.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So a grant would be basically prorated based on performance?

MR. MATTHEWS: Not so much prorated, but it would be approved based upon a program that is outlined in the application depending on which program they are applying under. It is an

application-based approval type of program that has accountability attached and associated to it. I cannot tell you more than that. If you wanted to know more than that, then I could provide you with the application forms and the package of information that deals with the accountability piece that would be attached to the application forms.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Do you know off the top of your head, or one of your officials, the number of grants that were provided last year under that appropriation?

MR. MATTHEWS: Wayne, I do not know if you would know how many grants we provided under each or in total. I do not have the exact number in front of me, but I can get that for you. No, I do not have the number of actual grants that were made under each of the subheads or in total, but that is not a piece of information that is hard to get. You can certainly have that information.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

I am going to defer to my colleague again for some other questions at this time.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Minister, on 3.1.01, under Energy Resources Management: I do not think we have asked, I am pretty sure I haven't asked any questions on this section anyway. Under Salaries, there is $449,500 budgeted last year and $348,900 spent - I guess that was a late placement of an individual or individuals that may have made that change - and the budgeted this year, $402,400. You know, am I right in assuming that or is there a change in staffing levels within that section?

MR. MATTHEWS: Under 4.02.4?

MR. TAYLOR: No, 3.1.01.

MR. MATTHEWS: 3.1.01. Okay.

MR. TAYLOR: The $402,400 was the budgeted I was talking about. Under 3.1.01 on page 145, and 01 is Salaries, as always.

MR. MATTHEWS: What is the question?

MR. TAYLOR: The question was: There was $449,500 budgeted last year of which $348,900 was spent, so I assume that reflects a change in the staffing level last year, and a budget estimate this year of $402,400. I was just wondering if there is a change in the staffing level in this section of your department?

MR. MATTHEWS: Not a change in staffing level but there were delays in filling two vacant positions last year under that vote. One was the information manager's position and the other one was the energy policy consultant's position. They were vacant for a period of time beyond what was normal. That obviously meant we spent less money there. This year we intend to - I guess we may have already filled those positions, I am not sure, or they will be filled.

MR. TAYLOR: Down in number 10, that same section, Grants and Subsidies, I guess the question itself is self-evident; $85,700 budgeted last year with a revised figure of $489,300 and we are back to the normal level again this year. Maybe I should know this, but I wonder if you could tell me what Grants and Subsidies would be covered under that and why such a variance with last year's budget?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, the variance there is the result of a one-time grant requirement to deal with the establishment of the fuel price regulation. There was $290,000 put into that vote, expended under that vote, that had to do with the introduction of fuel price regulations. In addition, we also provided $18,000 as a one-time grant to the Women in Resource Development organization. There was some extraordinary expenditure there with respect to a climate change issue. So, you are right, that vote was considerably more last year than it was allowed for in the Budget, and it is anticipated this year that we will not have those recurring expenditures.

MR. TAYLOR: Minister, I meant to ask this question before under, I do not know what section, but just a general question there. That antimony mine that was going on in Central Newfoundland, what happened there and is there any-

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, my understanding of the antimony mine that was opened in Central Newfoundland in the Gander area is that it was subsequently shut down by the operators because the price of antimony fell in the marketplace and they could not operate profitably. My understanding is that antimony as a worldwide commodity is - the control of antimony, the big supplier of antimony and the country that ultimately decides what price antimony fetches on the market is China. They seem to have an ability, as a country, to dictate what happens in the world supply of antimony. If I have it right, I think the same circumstances exist with respect to China on the issue of fluorspar. They are the major supplier in the world of fluorspar and they control what the price is going to be on the market. They determine how many mines will operate, where they will operate and the price the product will fetch. Antimony became a victim of market forces. It is as simple as that. I have spoken to the owners and the operators of that on a couple of occasions and it just cannot work based on commodity prices today for antimony.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: We have been in debate now, Mr. Chair, with the Estimates for the Department of Mines and Energy for over six hours. I think there has ample time for questions on the Estimates and other references as well. The critic also had about an hour or an hour-and-a-half dealing with the Estimates. So, Mr. Chair, I am putting the question forward.

CHAIR: Do I have a seconder?

MS M. HODDER: Yes.

CHAIR: Seconded, Hodder.

I don't know it is a debatable motion, but I will certainly hear comments.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am not sure if it is a debatable motion either. I know as far as our side is concerned, the representatives from our party, we have a number of questions that are still yet unanswered. While I realize and appreciate the knowledge of the minister and his forthrightness in answering our questions, if we debate this in the Committee stage in the House, the remainder of our questions, we will not have the minister's staff on hand for questions that he is unable to answer. We have seen a couple of examples here today where questions were deferred to his staff. As a result, I would like to continue on with this process. I am sure we can wrap up pretty soon. If not, then maybe a half hour or an hour tomorrow morning would conclude it for us.

CHAIR: The Chair has heard the rational for wishing to go on, but the Chair also accepts the premise put forward by Mr. Butler, the fact that it has been some six-and-a-half hours of straight time for the Opposition. Government members have permitted members of the Opposition to have all of that time, including the invitation and giving up of their time so that the critic could have approximately an hour-and-a-half of direct questioning, somewhat similar to what is happening again this morning in terms of the freewheeling conversation. The Chair has heard the question and understands points put forward by both groups, but the question has been put and the Chair is in a situation where I have to deal with the motion that is on the floor.

The motion on the floor is to move the question which includes 1.1.01 through to - it is your motion, Mr. Butler. Is it through to 3.1.05?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

CHAIR: The question has been moved that the Estimates for Mines and Energy, 1.1.01 through to 3.1.05, have been put.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chair, if I could for just a second? I cannot see how we can vote on every expenditure within the department. Most of today's debate by myself and my colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, has been dealing specifically with the Estimates or the explanation of different components of the departments. We haven't strayed too far from that -

CHAIR: And the other three hours that Mr. Butler referred to, what would they have been used for?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, that wasn't today. How can we vote on all Estimate items today when we haven't yet discussed all Estimates items? I would be prepared to vote on up to and including 2.1.03. We haven't yet gotten into all items in 3.1.01 or beyond.

CHAIR: That is not the question. The question is on the floor and it has been moved and seconded, on the fact that there have been some six-and-a-half hours devoted to virtually all aspects. We have gone from 1.1.01 all the way through to 3.1.05, as Hansard will show, and then we have gone back and come forward again. It is not more than an hour ago that your colleague asked questions on 3.1.05 which is, in actual fact, the last one and then we went back to somewhere else. The Chair has to deal with the question that is on the floor.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We haven't asked any questions. I have made note of the appropriations we have asked questions on. We have not asked any on 3.1.04, 3.1.03-

CHAIR: In actual fact, the member moved all the way to 3.1.05.05. It is not a debatable motion. My understanding is, if the question has been put,-

MR. T. OSBORNE: I think he asked a question on 3.1.05.05 pertaining to a previous question, just to lengthen -

CHAIR: I do not believe it is a debatable motion. In the meantime, the question has been put, and the Chair will have to deal with the question that is put.

On motion, subheads1.1.01. through 3.1.05. carried.

On motion, Department of Mines and Energy, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: With that in mind, I would thank the Minister and the officials who have attended for the six-and-a-half hours over the last few days and, indeed, the new ones who attended this morning for some three-and-a-half hours. Thank you for your participation and, indeed, I thank all members for their participation.

Perhaps if some questions have not been answered, in Question Period or in Committee of the Whole of the House under some other heading, they may be able to be dealt with.

On motion, committee adjourned.