May 5, 2022
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Abbott, MHA for St. John's Centre,
substitutes for Brian Warr, MHA for Baie Verte - Green Bay.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South,
substitutes for Chris Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Andrew Parsons, MHA for Burgeo - La Poile,
substitutes for Scott Reid, MHA for St. George's - Humber.
The
Committee met at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Pike):
Good evening, everyone. I'm
going to call the meeting to order.
I guess
there's a reason we're starting a half hour early, so I'm not going to try to
cut into any time by giving you any lengthy speeches or anything. But it's just
that I thank you all for being here. Thank you to the staff and the ministers
and thank you to my colleagues as well.
We have
some substitutions here this evening, which are– just one second now.
CLERK (Russell):
They were under here.
CHAIR:
Anything that looks like
it's not going together like it should, it's Bobbi's fault.
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
For Scott Reid, we have
Andrew Parsons sitting in; for Baie Verte - Green Bay, Mr. Warr, we have John
Abbott; for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Mr. Tibbs, we have Barry Petten. I
guess that's the only substitutes we have.
So
we're going to look at, as well, the fact that we can only do – by the way, we
have unaffiliated Members here. Does the Committee agree to allow unaffiliated
Members present to participate in the proceedings by allowing them 10 minutes
each to ask their questions, once the Committee has concluded its business
toward the end of the evening?
Does
everybody agree with that?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay.
What
about a break? Would you guys like a break tonight, say at 7 p.m.? Or do you
want to go right through?
E. LOVELESS:
Depends on the questions they ask.
CHAIR:
You might need a break, is
what you're saying.
E. LOVELESS:
I mean, I guess we'll see
how the time goes.
B. PETTEN:
Maybe a five-minute break.
CHAIR:
Five-minute break? Okay,
that's fine.
A
couple of housekeeping things now, for sure. Always identify yourselves and wait
for the tally light each time you speak. Wave to identify one's self if the
light does not come on. Consistent with protocols in effect in Confederation
Building, masks must be worn in the Chamber by employees unless they are
speaking. It is discretionary for Members. Members and officials are reminded
not to make any adjustments to the chair they seated in; they are adjusted
specifically to the Member who sits in that chair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You never wrote that, did
you?
CHAIR:
No, I didn't.
Water
coolers are located in the corners and for those without their own water bottle,
glasses
are located next to the coolers at the north end of either side of the Speaker's
chair.
The approach in starting the meeting – first, we will ask Members of the
Committee and any staff attending with them to introduce themselves, along with
other Members in attendance. Then I would ask the minister to introduce their
staff. This is only an introduction and I ask the minister to wait until the
Clerk calls the subheads to start with an introduction of the departmental
Estimates.
Following that, I will ask the Committee to move that the minutes of the
previous meeting be adopted and then I will ask the Clerk to call the first
subhead to get us started. We will then proceed through the Estimates by
subhead. The Chair then asks the Committee Members and departmental officials
and witness to introduce themselves. The Chair then asks the minister to
introduce department staff. T
he Chair brings the minutes of previous meeting to the attention of the
Committee Members and asks if any revisions or amendments are required. If
revisions are raised, they are noted by the Clerk. The Chair then asks for a
mover of the minutes. A seconder is not required.
So the minutes of the previous meeting, I think everybody has a copy. It is
dated April 11, 2022. Does everybody have a copy? Do we have a mover?
Moved by Jordan Brown. Thank you so much, Jordan.
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
We are now going to do our introductions. So we will start with staff.
E. LOVELESS:
Elvis Loveless, Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Public
Procurement Agency. I will ask us to begin to my right and we can go up and then
–
H. TIZZARD:
Heather Tizzard, Chief Procurement Officer, Public Procurement Agency.
S. BURBRIDGE:
Stephen Burbridge, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations.
J. BAKER:
John Baker, Assistant Deputy Minister, Air and Marine Services.
P. MORRISSEY:
Patrick Morrissey, Departmental Controller, Transportation and Infrastructure.
D. MICHIELSEN:
Dan Michielsen, Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic and Corporate Services.
G. BUTLER:
Greg Butler, Budget Manager.
B. SCOTT:
Brian Scott, Director of Communications.
G. CLARKE:
Greg Clarke, Assistant Deputy Minister of Infrastructure.
C. GRANDY:
Cory Grandy, Deputy Minister, Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
There's a lady that's there
but she went to get my glasses because I need them, it's Margot Pitcher, she's
Executive Assistant to the Minister.
CHAIR:
Okay, now we're going to do
the Committee starting with Mr. Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Barry Petten, MHA for
Conception Bay South.
D. HYNES:
Darrell Hynes, Director of Research and Legislative Affairs, Opposition Office.
J. BROWN:
Jordan Brown, MHA for
Labrador West.
S. KENT:
Steven Kent, Sessional Support for the Third Party Office.
J. PUDDISTER:
Jess Puddister, Sessional Support for the Third Party Caucus Office.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Loyola O'Driscoll, MHA for
the District of Ferryland.
L. STOYLES:
Lucy Stoyles, Mount Pearl
North MHA.
J. ABBOTT:
John Abbott, MHA, St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi.
A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo
- La Poile.
D. HAMLYN:
Dave Hamlyn, Sessional Support, Government Members' Office.
P. TRIMPER:
Perry Trimper, MHA for Lake
Melville.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
We're
now going to introduce the first subhead.
CLERK:
For the Public Procurement
Agency, 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Chair.
Before
I move into the Public Procurement piece, I just want to have a few words, I
guess. I won't read all the 21 pages that the comms record did for me, because
it would be too long. No, I'm just kidding.
Now
that the staff has introduced themselves, I just want to recognize each and
every one of them and to say they are valuable beyond words. I appreciate
everything that all of them do, as I said, it's invaluable.
From
the department's perspective, it's no secret that our employees touch on
services in all corners of the province. But I'll say as minister that much of
what we do sometimes goes unnoticed. We have dedicated employees who take great
pride in improving the safety and lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Before
I go further, we do have new ADMs this year. One is not an old face but is new
to the – and that's Dan – department and certainly appreciate and welcome his
experience. We have Stephen Burbridge, who plays a very important role in terms
of depots and the existence of them. He has visited a lot of them to date and
certainly getting a handle on what they do in the province.
And
just the staff in our department, I just want to make note of some of the things
they do. I know we all know what they do, but ensuring everybody who depends on
ferry, that they get home to see their family, I believe it's worth noting;
salting roads while we're asleep at nights and we're in our beds and we're calm,
they're out on the roads. They have family that are home wondering if they're
going to be okay because they're out in all elements. That's just to name a few;
there is more that I could say.
It
takes, certainly, a dedicated group of people to provide those services; we all
know that and appreciate it. I want to thank everyone right across the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador that do the work for Transportation and
Infrastructure because, as I said, sometimes they do get beaten up, even in
their own communities and it's a reality and nature of the work, but I certainly
value what they provide.
So from
a department's perspective, just to give you some numbers. Employees:
Transportation and Infrastructure had 1,658 employees as of March 31, 2022. This
includes 87 13-week employees. Of the 1,670 employees, we have 1,473 unionized,
non-management and 185 management. We have 1,427 male and 231 female; 767
permanent, 289 seasonal, 587 temporary, 15 contractual; 954 Operations Branch,
247 Air and Marine Services – my gosh, I am exhausted – 320 Infrastructure
Branch, 137 Strategic and Corporate Services; 609 in the Avalon region, 346 in
the Eastern region, 247 in the Central region, 379 Western region and 77 in
Labrador.
As I
said, the Public Procurement Agency, this year, we continued to modernize and
provide oversight of public procurement towards achieving best value in
government purchasing, which is important.
I know Members opposite know what's in
Budget 2022 so I'm not going to read any of that, but just to recognize that
$442 million investing in infrastructure funding and supporting a lot of
projects. I won't name any of them out because it is in the budget documents and
we have debated, even in the House, so far.
But I want to recognize something in terms of during 2021 this department and
our employees were faced with several adverse weather events. We talked about it
many times that most of them happen on weekends and so, again, those employees
are out attending to washouts when really the salt and the sand and the clearing
of roads is still their responsibility. So it has been a challenging season.
But before I end off I want to conclude with what we believe is good news.
During 2021, the department responded to a call for assistance from the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources to help battle forest fires in that province and
we know it is a mutual agreement that we have with different provinces.
Sometimes it could be them coming to us and us going to them. I think it's
positive when you have got two provinces working together.
Budget 2021
allocated $450,000 in revenue to be received from other Canadian province for
the use of Newfoundland and Labrador's water bomber fleet. As a result of the
province's efforts this year to combat the forest fires in Ontario, the
government received $1.235 million in revenues, which is $785,000 additional
revenues for the province. So that is a good news story. And I know in some of
the debates it was talked about how we interact and I thought it was certainly
useful to mention that here tonight.
Also, the department has made it a priority to reduce spending on leased spaces
and unused assets. Since 2016, we have reduced our office space footprint by
201,882 square feet, which is currently saving taxpayers approximately $5.2
million every year.
I will end with COVID-19. It's still with us so what's related to in protecting
employees is still a cost to us and over the last fiscal year we have incurred
expenses related to COVID-19 of approximately $545,000 but we know that's
necessary in carrying out the safety of employees.
I will conclude with that and we will move to the Public Procurement piece which
is a smaller piece of the whole department. I have Heather here with me and I
will allow the proceedings to begin.
CHAIR:
Okay, the first questioner for the Committee.
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under Public Procurement: Is there any training program online or in person and
virtual for public bodies pertaining to procurement?
H. TIZZARD:
We provide training to whoever requests it, so make a phone call to our office
and we'll make sure you get the training you need. We also partner with MNL,
PMA, the municipal sectors, whenever they have their conferences. When requested
we'll go out and do a larger training session, but we will do training for
whoever needs it and whoever wants it.
B. PETTEN:
Do you request feedback from
the public that can be reported back on these trainings? Do you require it, or
is it just an optional thing?
H. TIZZARD:
We don't specifically ask for it; I know after some of the MNL conferences and
PMA conferences sometimes it's one of the questions that they ask on a survey
that they do after, but generally not after our training sessions, no.
B. PETTEN:
So there are no actual
reports that's done, it's just if you request training, you provide it but
that's basically where it ends, is it?
H. TIZZARD:
Yes.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
During
COVID – this was used probably more during COVID than now, those trainings?
H. TIZZARD:
Well, I don't think COVID required more training. You know, we did extensive
training when the legislation was first introduced.
B. PETTEN:
Sure.
H. TIZZARD:
And like I said, we'll do training on demand, but I don't think COVID required
any extra training.
B. PETTEN:
No, I was meaning virtual
point – so it was all –
H. TIZZARD:
Oh virtually? Absolutely, yes.
B. PETTEN:
More in person I guess as we
gradually get back to normal.
H. TIZZARD:
Yes, absolutely.
B. PETTEN:
Whenever that is.
In the
years 2019-20, Deer Lake, Grand Falls-Windsor, Carbonear and Torbay were
provided training as it pertaining to procurement for municipal bodies. Since
2019-20, have any other towns completed the training, and are all towns aware of
this training?
H. TIZZARD:
I can't speak to what towns are aware of; again, it's my understanding that MNL
and PMA, we speak with them at least annually, when their conferences come up,
so I think most municipalities are aware of them. I don't have a number of
municipalities that have done training, but it's regular from our office that we
do training. I think we did five municipalities just last week, as an example.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
The
Procurement Advisory Council consists of public bodies with the responsibility
for procurement. Are any meeting minutes available for review?
H. TIZZARD:
We have minutes, yes.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. So they're available
for review? Are they public?
H. TIZZARD:
They're not publicly posted, but I have them if you want to request them.
B. PETTEN:
Yes, please.
H. TIZZARD:
Sure, yes.
B. PETTEN:
With the implementation of
the MERX, has there been any increase in public bodies completing RFPs?
H. TIZZARD:
I can't speak to the number of RFPs that are conducted by public bodies. So we
do our own RFPs and post to MERX, but I don't know how public bodies conduct
their procurements with respect to what tool they use.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Has
this been accepted by the public? Do you feel that this system is working?
H. TIZZARD:
Yes, absolutely.
B. PETTEN:
There's a good reception on
that?
H. TIZZARD:
Yes.
B. PETTEN:
Is there a list of
recommendations for public bodies to improve and enhance procurement processes?
Is there any list of recommendations they have for making improvements?
H. TIZZARD:
We audit public bodies as a part of the function of our Audit Division in the
Public Procurement Agency. So every audit report that we give back to a public
body contains recommendations.
B. PETTEN:
They're public, too, are
they, or can they be public?
H. TIZZARD:
We don't post the audit reports, but again, they're available.
B. PETTEN:
They can be requested? Okay.
H. TIZZARD:
Absolutely, yeah.
B. PETTEN:
In 2021-22, Salaries,
$2,010,400 less than the budgeted amount, and this year you're budgeting $10,000
more than last year. This was $200,000 less in the budget line.
E. LOVELESS:
So are you asking the
decrease of $211,000, is that what you're asking?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
The decrease is a result of
lower salary costs due to vacancies throughout the year. There were four
positions that were vacant for a large portion of the year: two policy and
research analysts, buyer II and a procurement officer III.
B. PETTEN:
And under Professional
Services it was not a big lot of money, but it doubled, basically, and it's gone
back to $23,500 again. So it went from $23,500 to $47,500. What did that
include?
E. LOVELESS:
The increase is due to a
number of auctions resulting in higher auction fees based on a percentage of
revenue generated from the disposal of the assets.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
It's
understandable that during COVID there was less than 25 per cent of the
Transportation and Communications budget. Has consideration been given to do
more virtual meetings in '22-'23? Therefore trying to reduce the transportation
budget. Have you given any consideration to that?
E. LOVELESS:
The answer to it is yes, but
are you asking about the decrease and what that represents?
B. PETTEN:
Well, that was less
transportation due to COVID, we assume.
E. LOVELESS:
Right.
B. PETTEN:
But we're wondering, there
was a savings, is that something into the future that's something you're
considering?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, I think not just for
Public Procurement, but any division within our department if we can certainly
produce savings by doing webinars, absolutely. We're evaluating that on a daily
basis, I guess, to see what we can.
I think
we all can appreciate that the interaction is required moving forward as well.
So there'll be a balance and I think that's something that probably is a
positive thing that has come out of COVID-19 and the challenge.
B. PETTEN:
That's all my questions I
have on Public Procurement, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Petten.
Any
other Committee Members with questions?
MHA
Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
I only
have a couple of questions for Public Procurement there. Currently how many
vacancies are in the Public Procurement Agency right now?
H. TIZZARD:
I think we have eight vacancies right now.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Currently, does the Public Procurement Agency handle the larger procurement,
like the P3 for the correctional facility?
H. TIZZARD:
Infrastructure procurements are handled by Transportation and Infrastructure.
J. BROWN:
Okay, directly by the
department.
Perfect, that's all my questions for Public Procurement.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
MHA Trimper.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you.
I just
have one question, and it's just a bit of an update. I believe, Heather, you and
I spoke some time ago about the procurement of janitorial services across
Labrador, and some issuing of tenders, then withdrawing, then issuing again. I
just wondered if you had any comment on that, what might have happened, just a
status.
Thank
you.
H. TIZZARD:
So I apologize, I don't
remember that exact file, but if you want to talk to me afterwards or later, I
can certainly follow up on that for you.
P. TRIMPER:
Okay, just to sort of
refresh, in case it jolts – but I can reach out to you again. Certainly, over
the last 12 months, from various bidders across Labrador, there was frustration
because the tender had been called for services, they would have submitted, and
then it was withdrawn and then called again. There was sort of a couple of
start-stops.
One
other element that I just remembered on the procurement that I'm hearing from
some of the bidders is the requirement – and I don't have my notes in front of
me, I apologize. They're finding it exorbitant, the amount of money that's
required for the deposit, vis-à-vis the opportunity on the contract. I just
wondered if your department is seeing that across the board, or is it specific
to this, or maybe just to these bidders.
H. TIZZARD:
So is that the bid bond, you're referring to, I guess?
P. TRIMPER:
Yes.
H. TIZZARD:
I haven't heard anything
about that. Nobody's complained to my office or to me directly about that.
P. TRIMPER:
Okay. I'll reach out to you.
H. TIZZARD:
Absolutely.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Could you recall the
grouping, please?
CLERK:
Public Procurement Agency, 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Motion carried.
On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Motion carried.
On motion, Public Procurement Agency, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates of the Public Procurement Agency?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Motion carried.
On motion, Estimates of the Public Procurement Agency carried without amendment.
CLERK:
For Transportation and Infrastructure, Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to
1.2.06 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.06 inclusive carry?
Minister.
E. LOVELESS:
I know I am allotted some time, but all I want to do is just a household item,
really. So the Public Procurement binders for the three Members are on the desk
there, so you can get them after.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you.
Minister, I have got some general questions,
if you don't mind, in between through tonight. I guess you have binders for TI
as well, do you?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah. We have it on the –
B. PETTEN:
Stick.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
Got you, sounds good.
I'm
going to ask a couple of questions first. I have done Public Procurement from
MHA Wakeham – (inaudible) I'm more comfortable.
Anyway,
attrition plan – I know you give me lots of numbers starting out, but are you
still following the attrition plan?
E. LOVELESS:
We are. I'll allow the
deputy minister to give you the numbers on that.
C. GRANDY:
I'm actually going to refer to the controller if I can.
P. MORRISSEY:
(Inaudible.)
C. GRANDY:
For 2020-2021 and '21-'22, the department reached its attrition plan of $678,000
in 27 positions over two years.
B. PETTEN:
So right now, do you have
any idea how many vacancies are not filled by the department?
E. LOVELESS:
We currently have 93
vacancies in TI and some of them are seasonal.
B. PETTEN:
Some seasonal.
E. LOVELESS:
Yes.
B. PETTEN:
What about retirements? How
many retirements in that last year?
E. LOVELESS:
How many retirements? I have
to lean on the staff behind me.
P. MORRISSEY:
Retirements are 55 as of March 31.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Did you
get any funds from the COVID fund last year?
C. GRANDY:
There were a couple different places where COVID funding through the federal
government came. Is that your question? So there was a piece of the ICIP, and I
don't have the amount right in front of me. There was a COVID resiliency fund
that we did avail of funding under ICIP.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. That's the
federal-provincial-municipal fund, right?
What
about from the contingency fund? Did you get any funds from the contingency
fund?
E. LOVELESS:
I am being told no.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
How
many new hires in the last year?
E. LOVELESS:
New hires?
B. PETTEN:
Yes.
E. LOVELESS:
Like from the whole
department perspective?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, basically.
C. GRANDY:
That is not a number
that we have with us tonight. There is regular turnover in terms of recruitment,
whether it is through retirement or people leaving. So it is a very fluid
number.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. Have there been any positions eliminated last year?
C. GRANDY:
Nothing beyond the attrition number we had discussed.
B. PETTEN:
I have got some line items. I will go back (inaudible) after tonight.
Minister's Office – I guess a question on Transportation and Communications. It
appeared to be stable. It is not a big amount of money but there was no change
in funding. We have noticed that there has been some savings in other
departments and wondering why the Transportation never changed.
E. LOVELESS:
So are you asking under Transportation and Communication?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, 1.1.01.
E. LOVELESS:
There was no change there. What we budgeted –
B. PETTEN:
With other departments we have seen savings but it is the same amount. It is
straight – there was no dip. There was no less funding last year. Do you know
what I mean?
E. LOVELESS:
I don't know how to answer your question any more than what we budgeted, we
spent. So we didn't go over and we didn't go under. We were right on target. I
actually put a smiley face on that page and I need all hon. Members to use
#TIawesome.
B. PETTEN:
Right on.
E. LOVELESS:
On this one that is.
B. PETTEN:
That is right.
Under 1.2.02, Administration and Support, the reduction in Salaries of $104,000.
E. LOVELESS:
Just give me a minute – trying to follow it through.
1.2.02. Correct?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
Under Salaries – why am I not seeing that?
This reflects salary plan changes, including vacancy factor and step changes.
That's the budgeted revised from 2022-2023 budget. There is also a budget, less
the 2021-2022 revised, there was an increase and the increase in salary plan
changes, including filled vacancies and step increases.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Then Employee Benefits went from $2,098,000 up to $2,588,000. Can you explain
what that increase is for?
E. LOVELESS:
$2 million to $2.5 million?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
That increase was workers'
compensation payments. They are demand driven and can vary based on the number
of claims submitted and duration of the claims. TI was also notified during the
year about a new WorkplaceNL retirement benefit that applies to all injured
workers who receive extended earnings loss benefits.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
In
Transportation and Communications, the revised expenditure of Transportation and
Communications was $113,000 less than budgeted.
E. LOVELESS:
Yes. That was a reduction in
travel for financial operations and corporate safety divisions, partially due to
the pandemic. Also savings on mobility contract and reduced postage costs.
B. PETTEN:
And Purchased Services:
What's the decrease? What was the reason for that to drop from $123,000 to
$70,000?
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased Services, under
same heading, right?
B. PETTEN:
Yes.
E. LOVELESS:
Why the decrease? That was
through savings at headquarters and regional offices for Xerox printing costs
due to the pandemic. Also less than anticipated ergonomics assessments
throughout the year. This is demand driven and can vary year over year.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Purchased Services in 1.2.03, there's a drop of $37,000.
E. LOVELESS:
In 2018-2019, the Department
of Transportation and Infrastructure entered into lease agreements for mail
machines in the regions, as these new machines are newer, they do not require
the same level of maintenance; however, as the machines age, maintenance could
increase.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
In
1.2.06, it's a small amount, but just curious, there's two unbudgeted
expenditures under Professional and Purchased Services, $2,000 and $10,000.
E. LOVELESS:
Did you say –
B. PETTEN:
They're by themselves. There
are two amounts, they're only small amounts, I'm just curious. The Professional
Services and Purchased Services, under Land Acquisition, 1.2.06.
E. LOVELESS:
Oh yeah, I've got two; I
must have missed over one.
B. PETTEN:
Small amounts, but just –
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the increase, overruns
due to Professional Services required for legal services related to land
expropriations mainly on the Team Gushue Highway.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
That's under Professional
Services. And the increase of $10,000 for 2021 revised, one-time appraisals
conducted for land valuations.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Minister, in the remaining time, I got just a few general questions.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
Can you update us on the
asphalt studies, any tests the department have done? I know that's been an
ongoing thing every year or regularly back in the day, but it's been forever.
Are there any new updates on that or where we're to with that?
E. LOVELESS:
I can, but I'll divert to
the staff after.
It's a
conversation that we certainly had and I have requested, but things get so busy
in terms of even touring the place that – I call it – mixes everything together.
But it's a good question, and even talking to contractors and various others,
this does come up. So it's a good question. But I'll rely on the staff to
provide some insight to it.
C. GRANDY:
So what we've assessed so far, we haven't been able to reach any conclusive
evidence that one of the tests were any better than the other. We continue to
monitor it. We try to do that twice a year. So we haven't done the measurements
following the winter season. We try to do it in the spring following the winter
season and then again the fall after the summer season. So there's nothing
conclusive in what we've seen so far in one test over the other. We continue to
monitor.
B. PETTEN:
So the polymer additive that
was supposed to really work good for the rutting, it wasn't a natural product,
it was artificial, that's not being used now, is that correct?
C. GRANDY:
We continue to use the polymer additive in the asphalt on higher volume roads. I
think there is clear evidence that on high volume that does add to the
elasticity in the asphalt.
B. PETTEN:
Synthetic is what I was trying to find. Synthetic, yeah.
C. GRANDY:
We do get better results from that.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. But on less busy roads
you're back to the regular?
C. GRANDY:
Yeah, we don't use the polymer additive across the board.
B. PETTEN:
Right, just regular 57,
whatever regular mix.
C. GRANDY:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
Grace Hospital land, besides
a tank being buried there, what are the latest happenings with that piece of
land?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, I think I was posed a
question the other day by one of the Members. We're progressively and
aggressively trying to come to a good ground in terms of that land because we
know it's valued land. We have the minister that sits behind you; we've had
conversations with this department from a social perspective.
We did
move a parcel of the land with the city and a developer that – I don't have all
the details on it, but in terms of parking, there was a parcel of land. I don't
know if the contractor has developed it yet in terms of – it's a building.
OFFICIAL:
It was the former fire hall.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah. The former fire hall
that is on that piece of land. But the parcel of land where the building sits,
no, we don't have anything concrete right now to – I'd like to, I'd like to be
able to tell you, but we don't. We're certainly actively looking at options. And
once we have something that's solid, we'll certainly be able to announce it.
B. PETTEN:
Is that the nursing, the old
nursing units or residence there – I drive by there regularly because I'm back
and forth the hospital lots over there last few months, that's a hazard, right?
I know it's under provincial – that kind of spurred my thought, I'm looking at
that a lot. It's dangerous, a lot of broken glass, windows. I mean, it's
provincial government, we own it, basically, as a province. It's a huge
liability, I guess. It's a valued piece of land; it's right in the centre of the
city.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
Well, I
know when I came into the department first, we had an extensive conversation on
it, just putting on, I guess, my real estate hat and looking at it, you know, as
you say, it's a liability. I mean, with the windows broken and there's a
contamination.
I don't
know what's in there, I haven't been in there, but presenting it as is when you
want to sell it and stuff. There are people – I know when I did the story at the
time, I had real estate agents that reached out to me about that, because they
know the location. I mean, when you're selling something: location, location,
location.
It is
in a good location, but certainly what you mentioned is a concern, but if
someone is willing to come to take it as is and we can negotiate terms, then I'd
be all for it, but realistically it is a deterrent, no doubt.
But,
again, on the other side of this, location, location, location is attractive. So
hopefully we can find the right piece and move this piece of land that will give
us good return, as well, for the province.
B. PETTEN:
Absolutely.
Minister, Team Gushue Highway, what's the status? When are we going to see it
completed? What's completed so far is pretty good but –
E. LOVELESS:
Well, I think from the
beginning of when all this started in terms of development of the Team Gushue
Highway, a lot has changed since then. We've met with federal counterparts and
we've met with the City of Mount Pearl, we've had a lot of discussions around
it. But no bones about it, in order to finish it, it's going to require
significant investment. Right now, that's not in our budget to do it. That's
kind of the discussion that we had, certainly, with Minister O'Regan and
some locals MHAs, it's of interest to them as well. I made it clear to them that
we need them at the table with us.
So we're hoping that's going to happen sooner rather than later because, as I
said, there is lots of interest in completing it.
B. PETTEN:
The Nain Airstrip, any updates on that status to replace or upgrades to that
airstrip?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, we have allocated – we had this discussion because I was asked the
question last night when we were hearing the Executive Council Estimates. We've
committed $3.5 million for a feasibility study and that's now with the
Nunatsiavut Government. They're taking the lead on it.
In terms of where it is right now, it is with them and we look forward –
obviously, we're partnering as well with the federal government so it's 50-50
cost shared in terms of that $3.5 million come $7 million. We look forward to
what that is going to bring us in terms of results and moving the file forward.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
I have just got some general questions there as well.
Right now, other than the correctional facility, is there any other P3 models
being discussed or evaluated right now in the department?
E. LOVELESS:
For –?
J. BROWN:
For any future construction – any consideration of any other P3 models?
E. LOVELESS:
There are discussions ongoing, you know, always around, I guess, infrastructure
needs in the province, whether in Labrador or the Island portion of it. But I
don't have anything that I can say concrete to you that here it is and list off
– but I don't know if there is any staff members who want to – did anybody want
to comment on – if you can add anything to it other than there are lots of
discussions ongoing in terms of infrastructure requests.
J. BROWN:
Okay. Perfect.
I know the Member for Conception Bay mentioned there about the old Grace
Hospital. Could we have an update on the Impacted Sites Liability Assessment
Program and any cleanup work and stuff that is going around at this time?
E. LOVELESS:
I will ask Dan to answer that, please.
D. MICHIELSEN:
Yeah. Sure.
You know, we participate in the
Impacted Sites Liability Assessment Program in partnership with Environment and
Climate Change. We provide, I guess, updates annually to them
and their experts look at
the sites and determine what is and what is not a liability.
This year is ongoing in
terms of gathering the information, but last year we had seven sites that were
confirmed as liabilities. The total liability of $990,000. But there was also
about $22 million in impacts related to properties that weren't considered
government liabilities. And a total of 64 sites that we have where we have
identified potential concerns and seven of them, like I said, were identified as
actual liabilities.
J. BROWN:
Could we get a list of all
the sites and potential sites, too, please?
E. LOVELESS:
Yes.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. Thank you, my
friend.
Under
the Land Acquisition: Was there any land acquired this year or in the near
future?
C. GRANDY:
We are, through this particular activity that you might be referring to, clueing
up old expropriations. So I think that is the bulk of what that particular
subhead would be used for.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
So
there is nothing new; it is just finishing previous work?
C. GRANDY:
Correct.
J. BROWN:
All right, perfect. Thank
you.
The
study that was done on the Labrador-Island link and that it was moved over to
the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Is there any ongoing discussions with the Canada
Infrastructure Bank on that project?
E. LOVELESS:
I haven't had any to date.
There had been some preliminary discussions but I certainly look forward to
further discussions on what it all means for Newfoundland and Labrador.
J. BROWN:
Perfect.
Thank
you, Minister.
E. LOVELESS:
You're welcome.
J. BROWN:
That would be all my
questions for this subhead right now.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you.
I have
no more questions in this subhead.
CHAIR:
Clerk.
CLERK:
For the Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure, Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to
1.2.06 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.06
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.06 carried.
CHAIR:
Clerk.
CLERK:
For the Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure, Operations, 2.1.01 to 2.4.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Road Maintenance, yeah.
CHAIR:
Operations.
B. PETTEN:
Operations.
CHAIR:
2.1.01 –
B. PETTEN:
2.1.01?
CHAIR:
– to 2.4.03.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah. I'm looking at Road
Maintenance.
CHAIR:
I was just making sure
you're on –
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, that's Road
Maintenance, 2.1.01, Administration and Support Services. Under Salaries, what
is the nature of the $354,000 extra spent last year?
E. LOVELESS:
That was overruns primarily
related to unfunded severance costs and increased overtime due to emergency
call-outs. This is primarily related to supervisors attending emergency road
repairs, as I referenced in my opening remarks, and snow and ice control
operations beyond their normal working hours.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Severance is included in that too, did you say?
E. LOVELESS:
Yes, unfunded severance
costs.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Transportation and Communications, there was an additional $300,000 over the
budgeted amount.
E. LOVELESS:
That was increased
communication costs for Internet services, radios in remote locations and
satellite phones in Labrador.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Purchased Services, again, there was an increase of $122,000 from what's
budgeted this year.
E. LOVELESS:
The increase represented
overruns primarily related to 511 enhancements plus utility and maintenance
costs for street lighting. This budget has now been rightsized.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Can we
get a list of the Grants and Subsidies there that are listed in that $40,000, or
probably even just explain it might be enough?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, this funding is
provided for local roads where it's more feasible to provide a grant for road
maintenance than carry out the work directly.
He's
smiling at me back there.
B. PETTEN:
He's laughing there.
2.1.02, Summer Maintenance and Repairs, increase in Salaries of $674,000.
E. LOVELESS:
That, again, is kind of the same explanation as before in the previous one:
Overrun due to unfunded severance payments and increased summer maintenance
requirements, overtime and shift differential due to road washouts.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
There was a drop in Purchased Services of pretty well almost half a million, a
little less than half a million.
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased Services decrease: Reduction primarily due to fewer repairs and
industry productivity levels.
B. PETTEN:
2.1.03, there is an increase in Salaries.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
As you can see from the revised budget, there was a decrease and savings
primarily due to lower than anticipated backfilling costs and overtime for the
year. Increase of $145,200: The department has rightsized the budget for
2022-2023 to reflect anticipated salary costs.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under Purchased Services, 2.1.03, there is an extra $400,000 in the unbudgeted
amount.
E. LOVELESS:
Are you referring to the increase?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
Okay.
The increase is primarily related to the additional cost for renting
snow-clearing equipment to support government's fleet. This is demand-driven and
depending on the conditions of the weather, there may be more rentals required.
For example, this year, additional snow-clearing equipment was required for the
Northern Peninsula due to significant snowfall. My colleague, Minister Howell,
had a lot of heartburn about that.
Listen, it's no secret that all across the Island – I mean with weather
patterns, you don't know what you are going to get. When you have snowfall like
that, then it proposes problems when the snowfall is a lot higher than the
equipment.
B. PETTEN:
Minister, on that question, existing equipment we have, is that probably as a
result of some of that equipment not being repaired or in disrepair, not getting
on the road? Because I know that mechanics is an issue, not only in the province
but it is across the board in the country.
E. LOVELESS:
No, you touch on that. We've had many a discussions and it is no secret that
this equipment is out
in the elements of salt, water, freezing and thawing. Our equipment takes a
beating, no doubt about it.
Are we
challenged? Yes, in terms of getting mechanics. I mean recruitment, no
difference than years ago, every year; we're always recruiting, sometimes facing
challenges. Sometimes, when you don't have the mechanics it can pose problems.
I mean
overall we're doing a good job this year, but certainly faced with challenges.
In terms of our fleet, it's a yearly review we do anyways to see where we are in
terms of the needs in whatever parts of the province.
B. PETTEN:
Under 2.2.01, Maintenance of
Equipment, there's an extra $323,000 budgeted this year for Salaries to what was
spent last year.
E. LOVELESS:
2.2.01, correct?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
And you're asking about the
increase?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
So the increase is due to
step increases and anticipated backfilling requirements for the 2022-23 fiscal
year.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
And we
just touched on the mechanics thing. I was going to ask up there but I said I'll
wait. Are we short on mechanics now, the department?
E. LOVELESS:
I don't have the numbers in
front of me.
Do you
want to comment on that, Cory?
B. PETTEN:
I'll group that together,
Cory – and operators.
C. GRANDY:
We don't have a regional breakdown in terms of vacancies, but we do certainly
have vacancies in both operators and mechanics. I mentioned earlier the turnover
tends to be a regular routine thing.
We take
advantage, where we can, of the apprenticeship program, particularly as it
relates to heavy equipment mechanics. We have a fair bit of success with that,
but it continues to be a recruitment and retention challenge in both operators
and mechanics.
B. PETTEN:
I think the province needs
to do a better job with the mechanics. I've reached out to Minister Byrne's
department on it. There are mechanics waiting to go, but they have to wait until
they get a certain number to get in school to kick-start the program.
People
have to wait until the fall to start the program because they have five wanting
to do it; they need at least six. Typical government bureaucracy that kind of
gets in the way of – and I know that's not only just your department, but I have
people out in my district looking for mechanics. So it's something that
government should probably look at doing, promote it.
I think
word on the street is they'd probably get more interest, you know what I mean?
The salaries are another issue. I know that becomes a problem, too, because
there are people interested in other trades. It's a big issue. It's not just
within the department, but it's worth a conversation.
E. LOVELESS:
And it's a valid point. I
think we can all appreciate, as MHAs, that we hear it. Recruitment and retention
we've heard in the last several months is around doctors and nurses and
everything else but, operationally, for this department as well, we face the
challenges. Anything that we can bring in to fast-track getting a man or a woman
in a vehicle or whatever for Transportation, we should be there; we should
entertain it and do it. So I'm always open for that.
B. PETTEN:
I appreciate that.
So snow
clearing last year, do you have an idea of what you spent, with private
contracting out really. Do you have a number for that or contracts you have in
place?
C. GRANDY:
I don't have a full breakdown. If you look in that subhead, under Purchased
Services, the funding there would relate to mechanical repairs, the road
maintenance equipment and the vehicles. But in terms of a specific number within
that, I don't have that kind of breakdown here tonight.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
So the
increase in Purchased Services in 2.2.01, was that a purchase of equipment or is
that the rental piece? That went up to $1.7 million, or more than that.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the increase reflects
increases in auto insurance rates and sending more equipment outside to third
party garages for repair.
B. PETTEN:
To the point of –
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, exactly.
B. PETTEN:
Okay, my time is up.
CHAIR:
MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll
just ask a few general questions here first on that. The Labrador Highway
snow-clearing contract, is that located in 2.1.03? What was the amount spent on
that last year?
E. LOVELESS:
What's the section again,
Jordan?
J. BROWN:
I'm just asking if it was
2.1.03, Snow and Ice Control.
E. LOVELESS:
For Labrador you're asking,
right?
J. BROWN:
Yeah. What was the contract
total for Labrador for highway clearing?
E. LOVELESS:
I don't have that here in front of me. Cory, I don't know if …
C. GRANDY:
I think Patrick has that number for you.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
P. MORRISSEY:
$8.4 million was spent in '21-'22 for the Labrador contract for snow and ice.
J. BROWN:
All right, perfect. Thank
you.
Chair,
just a quick question, we're up to 2.4 is it we're going to? Yeah, 2.4, I just
wanted to make sure.
2.2.02,
Equipment Acquisitions: Would that be for new acquisitions of new equipment into
the fleet or just rentals and leases?
E. LOVELESS:
It provides for the
acquisition of heavy equipment and light vehicles for core government
departments. There are 938 light vehicles in the fleet and 794 heavy vehicles.
J. BROWN:
Okay, so this is for new.
Are you looking at any new equipment or just replacement of existing into the
fleet?
E. LOVELESS:
I'd love to be looking at
new. But, obviously, it comes with a cost. I mean, in that section there,
unfortunately, we had a fire in Baie Verte last year that destroyed two plough
trucks, so that was one example that we had to purchase two new replacement
trucks.
It
speaks to the overall challenge around it, but certainly what we're looking at
as department is our need versus our cost and what we will invest in, moving
forward, trying to stay within the financial envelope of the department.
So we
certainly could need new equipment in lots of areas, but we're doing a balanced
approach. The new ADM, he's certainly done a fair bit of travelling to even look
at that as well. Even when I visited a lot of districts last year, I certainly
had a discussion with the local depots to say what's your need, we'd like to
know. I think that planning is important because certain areas of the province
have tougher winter seasons than other parts. So putting it all together to
determine where we will invest, that's part of the process.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. Thank you so much,
Minister.
2.3.01,
Building Utility and Maintenance, there's a reduction in Salaries in the revised
from '21-'22 but there's an increase going into '22-'23. Can you explain this
and what's the process here, Minister?
E. LOVELESS:
Explain the increase is what
you're asking?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, and then the decrease
but now the increase in the future budgeting.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
The decrease was savings due to extended recruitment and vacancies. That was the
explanation for the decrease.
The increase of $176,900 was a one-time savings in 2021 and salary plan
increases in 2022-2023 including backfilling costs and set progressions.
J. BROWN:
Okay. So I guess there are people required that you are going to need in the
future coming up by the looks of it.
Under Transportation and Communications: Was the decrease a result of COVID and
less travelling?
E. LOVELESS:
Yes.
J. BROWN:
And under Supplies, the sharp increase under Supplies.
E. LOVELESS:
If I can just –
J. BROWN:
Oh yeah. Sure.
E. LOVELESS:
So you asked about Transportation and Communications, 2.3.01.
J. BROWN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
The decrease you asked about correct?
J. BROWN:
Yeah. Was it COVID related?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah. Reduced travel for building maintenance staff based on operation
requirements in their respective regions, but some of this is also due to
COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. So I didn't want to just – I know COVID was
mentioned there but –
J. BROWN:
Yeah. Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
When I saw other explanations there I just wanted to give you the fulsome
explanation.
J. BROWN:
Oh, absolutely. I appreciate it.
Under Supplies, the sharp increase in the spending on Supplies: What was the
rationale for that?
E. LOVELESS:
This one is due to COVID-19 PPE supplies.
J. BROWN:
Okay. Perfect.
And under Purchased Services, there was a large increase in Purchased Services
for this year: What was the rationale for that?
E. LOVELESS:
TI paid $847,000 of the invoices in 2021 that should have been paid in fiscal
2021 and has seen a CPI increase on various service contracts including HVAC and
cleaning services and an increase in building maintenance. Fuel cost for
government-owned buildings is also $1.6 million higher than last fiscal.
So when one thing goes up, it all goes up.
J. BROWN:
Yeah. Absolutely.
Under Building Maintenance, just a general question. My office in Labrador West
is in a government building. I've noticed that every year there seems to be like
a lot of, you know, out of service in the building up there. And I get a lot of
comments especially where it's shared with the courthouse. In the men's room, on
the courthouse level, only one toilet out of four is available right now. And
you see like a broken tile, you see a broken – and it has been noticeable for
the last number of years.
I am just wondering: How is it being categorized and prioritized for repair in
these government buildings? Because I have noticed that this has been – like the
toilet has been out of order since I moved into that building in 2019.
Just out of curiosity, what's the priority system for getting these things
repaired in these government buildings?
E. LOVELESS:
So you're telling me the
only toilet in your building is out of service?
J. BROWN:
There's one in the men's
room that's available right now on that floor – it's a multi-floor building.
E. LOVELESS:
Okay.
J. BROWN:
And that's the courthouse
floor.
E. LOVELESS:
Right.
J. BROWN:
And I don't know in the
women's room, because I haven't been in there, but in the basement where it's
currently a lot of vacant offices down there, there's only one office down
there. Everything down there seems to be fine, but this is the floor that's used
by the general public, the courthouse floor.
I'm
just curious on how you prioritize things getting fixed, because I see year to
year there are some things that just go year to year to year.
E. LOVELESS:
Right, okay.
I'll
let staff speak to it.
C. GRANDY:
That situation does sound a little bit unusual. I think I'd take that away as a
particular item in that particular building. We try to keep everything in
service. In a lot of our buildings, it's as you break you repair it.
Now, I
do know we've had some retention of staff issues in Lab West. I don't know if
that would've played a point. I think there are (inaudible).
J. BROWN:
It's hard to say because I
haven't noticed anyone missing or new or anything like that. But it just seems
that 2019, 2020, going on – it just kind of sparked my curiosity, how do you
prioritize. Because I understand it's not easy, I did building maintenance, I
understand. It's just I'm curious on the evaluation that you're using right now.
C. GRANDY:
In that kind of a situation when a washroom is out of service, we certainly
would prioritize it and put it back. I think you've raised an interesting
question here, I think we'll probably have to take away and just (inaudible).
J. BROWN:
Okay, yeah, perfect, I
appreciate that. Just out of more curiosity than anything else. No, that's fair,
thank you so much.
I just
have one more question on 2.3.01, the revenue: Just where does the revenue
stream come into for this here?
E. LOVELESS:
That's the revenue from the
rental of government buildings and sale of steam heat.
J. BROWN:
Okay, yeah. All right,
perfect.
And
then 2.3.02, can we get a list of leased accommodations, buildings and stuff,
currently leased by the provincial government?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, we can provide it, but
it is available online.
J. BROWN:
Oh, it is provided online.
Okay, I wasn't 100 per cent sure. But, yeah, even if it's just a link to it, it
would be appreciated.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay, we're going to have to
–
J. BROWN:
Yeah, perfect, I'm good.
Thank
you so much, Chair.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, deferred maintenance on various government buildings; do you track
that? Is there any tracking, or how do you follow for (inaudible)?
E. LOVELESS:
Deferred maintenance on
buildings?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
C. GRANDY:
We do have a program that does look at deferred maintenance. The accuracy and
the number that is in that system – and the name of the software now is escaping
me, the name of the program that we use. The accuracy in that number depends on
how much you refresh from an inspection point of view. So we do track it; how
well it reflects the true nature of the building, someone might question. I
don't have that number here tonight in terms of what that value is, but there is
a system that we use to track it.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
2.3.02, in Leased Accommodations, in Purchased Services, an even $400,000. Just
curious what that is, I guess.
E. LOVELESS:
2.3.02, right?
B. PETTEN:
Yes.
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased Services?
B. PETTEN:
Yes.
E. LOVELESS:
Are you asking about the
decrease or the increase?
B. PETTEN:
Decrease, yes. Well, it's
gone up again, the decrease from revised.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the savings were
primarily due to delays in moves and terminated lease.
B. PETTEN:
Moves by government,
terminated lease, okay.
In
2.3.03, under Salaries, a drop of $657,000 – drop to sorry, not of.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the decrease –
alterations and improvements work being influenced by the pandemic; fewer
employees working on projects, therefore less salary recharges that occurred
during the year.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Professional Services, there's a budget of almost $3.1 million, but last year it
was less than a million spent, but it's gone back up to the regular amount this
year. Can you explain that one too, please?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, the decrease was lower
than anticipated Professional Services due to pandemic, and the increase,
one-time savings in 2021-22 and budget returning to its usual allocation without
the COVID-19 resilience stream funding in 2022-23.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
What
about Purchased Services? There was $20 million this year, budgeted for $23
million and went down to $20 million, so the numbers seem to be fluctuating
about.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the decrease savings
primarily from the COVID-19 stream funding as a result of COVID restrictions and
delays in construction.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
So
under Revenue - Federal, again, self-explanatory in the question I am going to
ask, I guess. Deviation $16 million to $3.9 million and back to $18 million.
E. LOVELESS:
I'll see if I can explain it
to you. The federal revenue for ICIP COVID resilient funding, plus that
anticipated from the sales of properties no longer meeting the programs needs of
the provincial government. As we can see, the federal portion is $18.75 million;
the provincial is $678,000, which includes the sale of land and buildings.
The
$578,000 is a one-time sale of government-owned property in Pleasantville. The
sale of properties 2021-22 included land for East White Hills Road, Portugal
Cove-St. Philip's and a wildlife building in Millertown.
I don't
know if that answers your question.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, I guess. I was just
curious as to whether the – so these acquisitions, would they be for the new
school?
E. LOVELESS:
No, the new schools unless –
B. PETTEN:
(Inaudible) for that.
E. LOVELESS:
No, not here.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
2.3.04, Purchased Services, you see, again, the fluctuation, I guess.
E. LOVELESS:
Are you asking – well, there
are decreases.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, $8.1 million last
year, it went down to $7.1 million and now it is down to $4.8 million this year.
So why the fluctuations.
E. LOVELESS:
The 2022-23 budget, less the
2021-22 budget, is about $3.24 million – well, that is a decrease obviously.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
That reflects contract costs
for low carbon economy projects that are to completed, which includes various
boiler additions, upgrades and conversions from fuel.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
That was on that $3.2
million. The notes here – the $2.2 million decrease and that's the 2022-23
budget, less the year before revised, and that reflects cash flow adjustments
for 2022-23.
B. PETTEN:
And what about Salaries,
there's a one-time salary there last year, $470,000.
E. LOVELESS:
In that same section?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, 2.3.04.
E. LOVELESS:
That was to reflect proper
job costing, TI staff are recharged to low-carbon projects for the amount of
time spent on them, and it says this was an oversight, as an allocation should
have been included in each of the individual line objects.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Revenue
- Federal down below there, it went from $5.9 million budgeted to $2.4 million.
Is that from those federally sponsored programs?
E. LOVELESS:
Yes, and again I will try to
break it down for you in terms of – so the '22-'23 budget, less the budget the
year before that, federal revenues associated with the Low Carbon Economy
Leadership Program.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
And the 2022 budget, less
the 2021 revised, that's the $2.7 million and the decrease in that reflects
anticipated federal revenues to be received.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
So in
2.3.05, under your Purchased Services, there was no expenditure of the $4.225
million last year, looked like there was nothing – then we're back to $2.149
million this year.
E. LOVELESS:
And we're back to $2.150
million – government had announced a biomass conversion in six CNA campuses. The
initial procurement for this initiative was not successful and cancelled. A
second procurement concluded in March 2022. Review and evaluation is ongoing and
money is carried forward into '22-'23.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
In
Revenue - Federal, I guess that's probably maybe tied to that, but again that's
half what it was last year, in 2.3.05.
E. LOVELESS:
That's associated with the
low-carbon economy cost-shared agreement. One hundred per cent federal.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
We like those agreements.
B. PETTEN:
And need more of them.
E. LOVELESS:
Yes.
B. PETTEN:
2.4.01, Airstrips, the Revenue - Federal piece there. There is a drop of
$131,000.
E. LOVELESS:
The decrease – there was a reduction in landing fees due to lower traffic with
the ongoing pandemic. This revenue source is demand-driven and depends on the
air traffic on the airstrips and federal revenues received toward the Natuashish
airstrip. The increase in the revised of $131,500 is revenues for landing fees
and those are demand-driven.
B. PETTEN:
Under 2.4.02, there's a $1.4-million increase from last year in spending and it
is gone back to $1.3 million this year. So again, any explanation or what was
included in that?
E. LOVELESS:
Which part of that?
B. PETTEN:
2.4.02.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
Purchased Services.
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased Services?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
The increase was due to an oversight during the budget 2021 process. Funding was
not allocated to the LCARP for the resurfacing of the airstrip at Makkovik.
Funding was allocated during the 2021-2022 year to complete this project. The
decrease to 2022-23 budget is reduction as per cash flow requirements in '22-'23
fiscal.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you.
I think my time is up there now, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
Just a general question on Airstrips now, and I know it was mentioned in
yesterday's Estimates in the House but I want to bring it here. There was a bit
of an update for the Nain Airstrip and that. I am just curious, is that going to
be cost shared with us and the feds, or is that project 100 per cent
federal-driven – the Nain airstrip relocation?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, I can only speak right now to the feasibility study, which is cost shared,
fifty-fifty, of $7 million; our cost being $3.5 million.
J. BROWN:
Okay. So, I guess, that's a (inaudible).
So at this current stage there is only the feasibility that is being carried out
right now. There are no other commitments.
E. LOVELESS:
Well, I mean it is all in stages. So right now we are at the feasibility study
and once that is completed, then who knows where it is going to go.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect. But that is going to be fifty-fifty cost shared.
E. LOVELESS:
Correct.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
That is my last
question for this section.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you.
I've
got a couple there. So under the Revenue - Federal, Minister, under Airstrips,
$3.7 million increase. It went from $1.8 million to $3.7 million, back down to
$1.3 million.
E. LOVELESS:
That increase was due to
additional revenue as a result of the timing of claims for LCARP. The $1.3
million, that's again anticipated federal revenue to be received for LCARP in
'22-'23.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
If you
don't mind, I've got just a few generals I'll slip in there now.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, sure.
B. PETTEN:
I was going to ask this in
the leased section but I know I had it allotted out to ask separate.
Government's footprint, I know it's been a big effort by this and the former
administration, or the same administration I guess, the Liberal administration
to reduce the footprint, leases, the duration, what have you.
So how
big is the footprint, or how successful have you been in reducing, I guess, the
government's footprint in the last couple of years?
E. LOVELESS:
I don't know if I have that
in my notes there. Well, since 2016, we've reduced our office space footprint by
201,882 square feet. And that brings the current savings to taxpayers
approximately $5.2 million per year.
B. PETTEN:
You don't have for the last
year – that's just 2016, but you don't know in the last year, if there's been
any –
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, I don't have it in
front of me. I don't know if we have it, but we can provide it.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
The
Roads Plan, Minister, and I know we talked about this already, but –
E. LOVELESS:
Say that again?
B. PETTEN:
Favourite topic, right?
Tenders this year, like carry-overs and cancellations, where are we to across
the board? You should do it right here than in the 45 seconds in the Question
Period –
E. LOVELESS:
I agree.
B. PETTEN:
Where are we with tenders
this year, because it is an issue of course.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, and that's the
difficulty about trying to answer a question in the House when you have 45
seconds in trying to do due diligence to it. We've had, I believe in terms of
carry-over, if staff can correct me, I think it's like $47 million that was
carried over from last year.
I had
conversations with the NLCA as well, because we've had a lot of conversations
around early tendering. And to give contractors some heads-up as to what's
coming and we, even in terms of the Roads Plan – and I make no bones about it;
that's difficult in terms of planning, there's no doubt about it. And you can
appreciate that. But we did do some early tendering and as per, really, the ask
of the NLCA – not them, but just conversations to the department as well. So we
did get some early tenders out on the TCH. More so because we know with the gas
prices and everything else it's a concern, obviously for contractors, a concern
for us, what's going to come back.
So we
did that and I believe, when we were walking over, that there are letters that
have not been signed – I believe you said you signed nine today – even though
the Roads Plan is coming out very soon. But we believe that was necessary
because then contractors can, especially on the TCH. And let me say there is a
lot of bridge work that needs to be done. We're at a point right now – and when
it comes to bridgework, when the department officials, the engineers come to you
and say a bridge needs to be replaced, there's no negotiating. And we're at that
point right now and that's going to be reflective in the Roads Plan. Not just
this year, but in the years to come. It's necessary, because I always refer to
it in the department, as what lies beneath the blacktop is more important than
the blacktop itself.
We're
working through it and I believe we've landed in a good spot in terms of talking
to contractors and NLCA and advice from across the way. We need to take that
seriously as well. So from a balance perspective I think we're in a good spot.
But what we get done this year, I mean obviously contractors have to do the work
as well. And hopefully we anticipate that we're going to have a good season, and
I certainly look forward to the roadwork being done.
B. PETTEN:
Have there been any
cancellations of tenders yet? Have they come in high? I'm anticipating they will
be.
E. LOVELESS:
We've had some that have
come in higher than we wanted it to be, but then some came in more normal. So
hopefully there'll be a balance – hopefully. Obviously, I can use every cent I
can get in terms of the road infrastructure.
I go
back to because we need more of those agreements. I agree; we all agree. We had
meetings with the federal minister, with other transportation ministers and, I
mean, the pictures show it for themselves. Out west, they had terrible rain
disaster out there and they need help. They can't do it on their provincial
budget. We can't do it on our provincial budget and I said the same thing.
We have
the Trans-Canada Highway. I told the minister I look forward to further
discussions on that, but we need them to come to the table and we need it now.
That's part of it as well, so I look forward to those discussions and hopefully
being able to say, listen, I got lots of money over here.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, there was an extra $10
million in the budget this year, too, of course for roadwork.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
Is that just anticipated to
catch up on tenders? It's not earmarked for anything in particular; it's just
added to the – it needed to be increased anyway, obviously, I would think.
E. LOVELESS:
No, fair question. Certainly
the Finance Minister recognized that, but we can all appreciate are even $10
million, for what it will give us in terms of results is – put it this way, you
think you would be happy to get $10 million, unless I win it in the lottery, but
in the department, it doesn't touch a lot.
B. PETTEN:
No.
E. LOVELESS:
And this year we even – we
all know it; I've got lots of requests from the other side as well in terms of
signage. I don't know if it's because I'm Transportation Minister but I notice
every sign in the province. But I don't know if it's the weather or whatever, so
we have put a real focus on a sign plan that we need to get done this year. But,
moving forward, we've talked about that there needs to be more consistency in
terms of the plans around signs. If I'm there, then there's going to be a focus
on it.
B. PETTEN:
Minister, is that something
that the department has given any consideration to contracting out? I come from
a union background so I appreciate how our unions stand, but right now it looks
to be almost an issue with the manpower. The actual physical people –
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
– boots on the ground. I
guess I'll tie all that to a summer maintenance question in general to put it
together. Is that the issue? How do you get ahead of this stuff?
E. LOVELESS:
Again, I have had the
conversation because many people have made a suggestion: That's what you should
be doing. I remind people that it's easier said than done, because you have
union considerations. But we're having everybody coming back to the table and
say we're not getting enough work done
during summer maintenance. So why aren't we?
I have had conversations with TI workers and I have asked them directly: Would
you be offended if outside work was coming in to do work that you guys can't get
done? Why would we? It's only making their roles and their life and their
responsibilities much easier. So why shouldn't we take a look at it is my
response and, yes, we are taking a serious look at it.
Again, it's something that I want to focus on and drive as a part of – because I
believe if we have a better maintenance program, we won't have to worry about –
and even in my own district and I know you have got in your own districts – good
summer maintenance program, the same as him. I visited the province and
Labrador, but I believe, and everybody is saying the same thing, even the
workers down there, that a good summer maintenance program, you won't have to
invest in a lot of kilometres of new pavement and all of that stuff. Overall
people don't like potholes but I think a proper summer enhanced, upgraded,
whatever word you want to use, I think we can help us all out right across the
province.
So it will be a focus. It takes some work. We all work in partnership to get
where we need to go.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
J. BROWN:
I'm good with this section here.
CHAIR:
Clerk, can you recall the grouping?
CLERK:
For the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Operations, 2.1.01 to
2.4.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.4.03 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'aye.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.4.03 carried
CLERK:
For the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Infrastructure, 3.1.01
to 3.5.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I'm going to ask you a question now from my good friend behind me from
Ferryland. It's probably a valid question too. He was talking about signs, metal
signs as opposed to wooden signs. Is that something that probably cost –?
E. LOVELESS:
I mean that's a good question. We have talked about it. For me, we are exploring
all options. But we certainly have investment for the supports of sign install
and we even looked at the different technologies around sign install over the
last couple of weeks. I can't give you an answer of what it will be,
but we do have a road sign plan in place. So we'll see how it goes.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, it's a pet peeve of
mine. I think a lot of people feel the same way, too. I've been at that for a
long time.
E. LOVELESS:
In saying that, and I don't
mind saying it, down in my own district, not because I'm Transportation
Minister, but all signs down there – and I give credit and it should be, it
should be to the superintendent that's there, Murray Drake. I had a conversation
with him the other day. He said, no complaints about our signs, and they're not.
But he's done the proper assessment year after year after year on what we need
and getting it done.
It's
not reflective on any other depots; they all face different challenges, but I
just want to give a shout-out in my own district that he's done a good job.
Again, it goes back to the consistency on a people level, on a departmental
level.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
3.1.01,
Administration and Support Services: There's an increase in Salaries, a little
less than $300,000 from last year's number.
E. LOVELESS:
Salaries?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
Variance reflects salary
plan changes including filled vacancies for both chief, bridge and highway
design engineers, accompanied by general salary step progressions. That was the
increase; they're all increases there.
There
was an increase – hopefully I can get you to follow it through. There was a
salary overrun due to unfunded severance payments. That was $60,800, that was
the revised of '21-'22, less the budget of '21-'22, and the 2022 budget, less
2021-22 revised of $217,100, reflects the anticipated time management on road
construction projects for 2022-23.
B. PETTEN:
3.2.01, Salaries are there.
There is an extra $251,000.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, and that's increased
salary requirements, overseeing road construction projects and response to the
Southwest Coast flood event in November. Also there was unfunded severance
payments made during the year.
B. PETTEN:
Seems to be the theme with
the unfunded severance as well.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
And the road projects, staff are assigned to every project, charged off – I
remember this, but I'm just wondering if it's still the same. Engineers are
assigned to an Outer Ring Road job and the salary is assigned to that job, as
opposed to in the – it doesn't show up as much in the salary line, it would go
to that job, correct? It is something to that nature. Is that still done that
way? I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly.
C. GRANDY:
It is charged to the project. Now, you'll still see it in the salary line. There
are six activities here that make up the project for the Roads Plan projects. So
they're still reflected in all the salary lines, but you'll see it spread across
six activities. It's not all in the headquarters group; it's spread across those
six (inaudible).
B. PETTEN:
It's not duplicated,
obviously.
C. GRANDY:
It's not, no.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Supplies in that same section, it went from $100,000, then it was $1.5 million,
now it's back down to $40,000. What would that be?
E. LOVELESS:
Again, overall, the increase
of $1.4 million, that was a response to the Southwest Coast rainfall in
November. As a result of several road washouts, culverts and other supplies were
required.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
I would
be assuming Professional Services, that bump was the same thing as well?
E. LOVELESS:
Professional Services, there
was an increase there and that's the increase in consulting services in 2021 due
to a rehab of the CN Viaduct on Pitts Memorial Drive.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
3.2.02, Purchased Services, again, gone up to $8 million this year from
$800,000.
E. LOVELESS:
Are you referencing the
increase?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, big increase.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, so the increase there,
that's the 2022-23 budget, less the 2021 revised, $7.8 million. Projects are
allocated to current and capital activities based on the nature and scope of the
roads project, in accordance with public sector accounting standards. This
represents an increase in the current allocation for cost-shared projects.
B. PETTEN:
So what cost-shared projects
would they have been, under ICIP?
E. LOVELESS:
They're around road
maintenance projects, but I don't have any specific ones. I don't know if …
C. GRANDY:
So part of that is up under the ICIP agreement, specifically under the rural and
northern sub-stream. And then also there's an older federal funding program, the
New Building Canada, that's also included in this section.
B. PETTEN:
The Salaries piece there is
$250,000 allotted for Salaries for this year. Is that where you're tying the
salary to a project? That's what we were just talking about just now.
C. GRANDY:
That's correct.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Revenue - Federal, it's gone from $72,000 to $6 million. Is that the federal
share of that program? I've answered my own question.
E. LOVELESS:
The increase from $72,000 to
$6 million?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
That's $5.9 million, and
that's cash flow changes based on the scope of the program.
B. PETTEN:
So that's federal money for
a federally sponsored program, right?
E. LOVELESS:
Yes.
B. PETTEN:
Under ICIP again?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, this is federal
revenue from the federal government for cost-shared programs, and they're 100
per cent federal.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
3.2.03,
under Salaries, it went from $4.2 million down to $1.2 million, and it was
$700,000 actually spent less than the original budget from last year.
E. LOVELESS:
The $4.2 million down to
$3.5 million –
B. PETTEN:
And now that's down to $1.2
million this year, right?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, that decrease was
contractor productivity levels were reduced and less time required managing
projects. The $2.3 million, which is $3.5 million down to $1.2 million, that's
the cash flow changes based on, again, the scope of the program.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. So is that the
finishing up of a project that Salaries are no longer required there? Is that
the simplified explanation for that?
C. GRANDY:
Can you just ask that question again, just to make sure I understand you?
B. PETTEN:
This is a drop of $3 million
from last year's budget. So is that $3 million less salaries required this year
as a result of projects wrapping up? Do you know what I'm saying?
C. GRANDY:
Yeah. So our salary levels this year is our best forecast as to what effort will
be required for that particular list of projects. It will go up and down year
over year.
B. PETTEN:
Based on what you're
assigning to the project.
C. GRANDY:
Exactly.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Professional Services, $675,000 and it was only $100,000 budget. So I guess the
increase of $575,000.
E. LOVELESS:
So the increase going from
$100,000 to $675,000 is your question, correct?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
And that's professional
engineering and consulting services for Team Gushue Highway and Galway
interchange.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
I have
one final before the clock runs out on me now. Purchased Services, it's $11
million less, $70 million to $59 million.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, that variance reflects
pandemic and reduced industry productivity levels.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. I'll just let you go
to my colleague, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
Before
I start, I just have a general question.
Now
with the new Roads Plan – you're working on that – is the department looking at
studying or developing any climate resiliency in your Roads Plan coming up? Are
you looking at bigger culverts, wider sides and stuff like that because of
obviously what we see on the South Coast and other climate incidents over the
last couple of years?
E. LOVELESS:
That's already being done.
With culverts, I believe there's a requirement of 30 per cent. It depends on
where a culvert is, but due to climate considerations and concerns, there are
culverts that are put back, they're larger. But I can't tell you that there is a
consistent, because it depends on the engineering of it and what they determine
what size would go in there based on the surroundings and everything else.
Also, I
think it's important to mention it here at this point that I've had
conversations with the federal minister, Minister Hutchings, around the
concerns. I drove this man's district last fall and the coastal roads that we
have in this province are a concern. I said to the minister that we need to
address it and need to address it now. So there is a, I believe if I refer to
it, DMAF? Well, it's a mitigation fund that projects will fall under and there
are different times that they accept applications for this that we want to be
proactive so that it doesn't happen.
To be
honest with you, I love having the conversation, because we are being proactive
and we don't lose communities. And again, I travelled quite a bit, but his
district was kind of like – even though I knew where he was, I'm close to the
ocean in my district, but I don't have coastal water levels to the road
infrastructure like he does in a lot of his district.
J. BROWN:
Yeah, absolutely, I've been
down his way, I understand.
Another
consideration too, I'm just wondering has the department been keeping track of
the cost of environmental damage like storms and stuff, the damage that's being
done to infrastructure in this province? Are we keeping track of how much it's
costing us?
E. LOVELESS:
When there are disasters or
washouts and stuff, there is a process where we document it all, and it goes to
the federal government in terms of an application. I don't know, Greg, if there
is anything you want to add to it.
It's
well documented. We go through the process to the feds, in terms of our ask, of
what damage was done in the province. We go ahead and do the work because we
have to get the work done.
J. BROWN:
Yeah, absolutely.
E. LOVELESS:
But, certainly, it's an
important piece of us. Again, it's the feds being a partner. We need them at the
table on a lot of levels and that's another example.
J. BROWN:
Oh, absolutely.
Another
question, too, is regarding probably more on the physical building side of
things. Right now, what LEED level is the minimum that – LEED standard. Are we
doing all our buildings in our province to any particular LEED standard right
now, when we're doing for – how much carbon it costs to build the building but
also the carbon footprint, also how much lower energy costs that we're currently
using. Are we building all our buildings to a LEED standard right now, like
gold, silver or platinum?
E. LOVELESS:
Listen, I'm going to let the
officials address it. I would say that, yes, we are, but in terms of how it all
works, I'll let the staff answer that one.
C. GRANDY:
We strive to meet the LEED Silver rating under the LEED program.
J. BROWN:
Okay, so that's what you
strive for right now.
C. GRANDY:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
Are there any projects or
anything that you're considering, anything above Silver right now?
C. GRANDY:
No, there is nothing that right now we're aiming for higher than LEED Silver.
J. BROWN:
Okay. Perfect.
3.2.04,
the Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Framework: We budgeted $2
million to get from the feds but it never showed up. What was the reasoning for
that?
E. LOVELESS:
That's 3.2.04 you said?
J. BROWN:
That's correct, Minister.
E. LOVELESS:
Okay, I think I'm at the right one. So the department did not receive the final
revenue payment from the federal government due to the project not being fully
completed. However, the department is working with the federal government to
receive the final holdback funding in 2023 in relation to the Team Gushue
Highway.
J. BROWN:
So this is for the remainder
of the Team Gushue.
E. LOVELESS:
Right.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
3.2.05,
Trans-Labrador Highway, standard question there: Will it be done on time this
year?
E. LOVELESS:
I hate to say, yes, it's
going to be done on time. We're going to strive to have it done on time.
J. BROWN:
Strive to have it done.
That's (inaudible).
E. LOVELESS:
There are other forces in play in terms of the work being done, because who
knows what can happen, whatever. But as far as we are concerned, it's on time
and we are anxious to cut the ribbon.
J. BROWN:
Okay. I'll make sure –
E. LOVELESS:
And it is going to be a photo op.
J. BROWN:
Okay, I'll remember this. Just remember where you have to cut the ribbon is not
far from my cabin.
E. LOVELESS:
That's right. I'm having a shovel
and everything.
J. BROWN:
It's not far from my cabin.
Last spike, there you go. Absolutely.
Under the project, obviously, all the reduction from last year's budget to the
current budget is to indicate this is the last section that is currently not
(inaudible).
E. LOVELESS:
Right.
J. BROWN:
So that makes sense. This is obviously the tail down on the project.
3.2.06, Federal - Provincial Cost-Shared Agreements: We noticed it was budgeted
$4 million, but only $2.4 million was spent in Salaries and we're spending $2.7
million. What is the reasoning for such a steep decrease there on this program
from budgeted to revised?
E. LOVELESS:
So the budgeted to revised – let me get my numbers here correct now. Budget of
2022 less – that's $1.7 million – no, $2.1 million. That's a result of reduced
productivity levels from contractors. Less time was required for staff to manage
projects.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
Then we go from $2.4 million under the revised and the Estimate for '22-'23 is
$2.7 million. Is this because the project was dragged out longer?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, it is cash flow changes based on the scope of the programs for the '22-'23
season.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
What project would have been under this federal - provincial cost-shared
agreement?
E. LOVELESS:
In the notes here and, certainly, the agreements included in the activity: We
have the NBC projects, the Rural and Northern – so it's the cost-shared programs
that fall under this category – Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, and we
have green infrastructure and trade and transportation.
J. BROWN:
So this is all kind of
shared with the federal government and so it's those projects – what was I
saying. I know that Purchased Services is going up significantly under 3.2.06. I
notice that there's an $11-million increase in Purchased Services. Is this just
because the scope of the project is changing? Or is this another project coming
in to this?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, that reflects the
anticipated contract costs for the province's cost-shared roads projects.
J. BROWN:
Okay, thank you.
3.3.01,
Building Design, Administration and Support Services: Under this subhead here,
is this where you look at for the new federal correction facility?
E. LOVELESS:
Is there a certain section
you're asking about or just a general question?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, 3.3.01 –
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
– under Building Design,
Administration and Support Services. For Building Design there, would this be
the section there now where you'd see the design and implementation of the
federal correction facility – or the new provincial correction facility?
C. GRANDY:
The staff that are involved in that project would be – some of the management
staff would be under this activity. But further on, in 3.3.05, is where you
would actually see the project funds.
3.3.05
is Justice Infrastructure. That's where you would see the …
J. BROWN:
Okay, so that would be the
actual (inaudible).
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Brown.
MHA
Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you.
Let's
go back to 3.2.05, Salaries. Minister, there's a noticeable drop there. Is that,
again, from projects wrapping down? Trans-Labrador Highway, 3.2.05, drop in
Salaries.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the 2022-'23 budget
less the 2020-'21 budget. That reflects salary requirements. That's the decrease
for the Trans-Labrador Highway project. Reduction from the 2021 budget, as the
project is due, as we just discussed, to be completed this fiscal year.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
3.3.01,
Purchased Services: There was an increase from $3 million to $4.3 million.
E. LOVELESS:
So the increase was – you're
asking about the increase, correct?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
The overrun is due to
increased premiums and property claims.
B. PETTEN:
Premiums and property
claims, what is that?
E. LOVELESS:
Let's see if I can explain
here. The funding for property insurance and to pay deductibles on insurance
claims – anyone want to go further with that?
C. GRANDY:
This activity is where we also fund the insurance premiums for government-owned
property, so the increase that the minister noted was an increase in those
insurance premiums.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. So that's basically
from mostly insurance premiums, most of that increase?
C. GRANDY:
Yes, all the insurance premiums are under this activity for all government
facilities.
B. PETTEN:
Needs to cap insurance.
E. LOVELESS:
The bulk is premiums.
B. PETTEN:
3.3.02, Health Care Infrastructure, under Purchased Services, what's included in
that one there? What are those costs? $2.9 million, went down and still $3.3
million. What's included in that line item?
E. LOVELESS:
I'll try to see if I can
follow that through for you. The 2021 revised, less the 2021-22 budget, the
decrease is due to service payments withheld as a result of unavailability of
Central Health LTC facilities in accordance with the project agreement, and that
was $683,300.
There's
an increase of the 2022-23 budget, less the 2021-22 revised, and payments
expected on the Central Health long-term care, as well as the NAMHAF parking
garage, plus the annual CPI increase on project payments in accordance with the
project agreements. Does that help you?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, I understood it as
much as you did.
E. LOVELESS:
But there's also the '22-'23
budget less the 2021 budget. The increase is in part due to a full year of
service payments being required on the – someone want to tell me, NAM, what all
that stands for, so they can appreciate it?
B. PETTEN:
Acronyms, yeah.
OFFICIAL:
The mental health facility currently.
E. LOVELESS:
There you go. The mental
health parking garage in 2022. As opposed to only five months in 2021, it opened
in November of 2021. As well as the annual CPP increase in the monthly service
payments on all P3 projects in accordance with the project agreements.
B. PETTEN:
So they're kind of like
service progress payments?
C. GRANDY:
That is the operating period of the P3 projects.
B. PETTEN:
Got you.
So are
you expecting those to increase in the out-years now with all the new
facilities? The mental health and addictions, Corner Brook hospital – the
projections, will that increase now? That should increase I am assuming.
C. GRANDY:
As those projects come online, this particular activity is where you will see a
portion of the service payments that relate to the 30-year contract agreement.
B. PETTEN:
What we call a mortgage
payment, so to speak.
C. GRANDY:
Exactly.
B. PETTEN:
That will be in that section
there, okay. Lots of good acronyms in government, isn't it?
Under
3.3.03, School Facilities, Professional Services, there are only $350,000 – it
was $2.8 million budgeted and –
E. LOVELESS:
3.3.03?
B. PETTEN:
Yes.
There
is only $354,000 actually spent and now it is down to $150,000 this year.
E. LOVELESS:
That decrease – the budget
for 2022-23 is now rightsized to reflect anticipated expenditures. Also, less
consulting will be required as multiple projects were substantially completed in
last year's season.
So that
explains the decrease from $2.8 million to $354,000. Was that your only
question?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, I guess that is fine
for that one.
Under
Revenue - Provincial, there is no funding there this year. Can you explain why
that is?
E. LOVELESS:
That is no variance, as
insurance proceeds for Bay d'Espoir was received in 2021-22.
B. PETTEN:
So most of that fund is the
result of the new school down in your district.
E. LOVELESS:
Yes.
B. PETTEN:
The one that was replaced.
E. LOVELESS:
Opened and I am going there
next week.
B. PETTEN:
Is that opened now?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
Oh, good. Ribbon cutting?
E. LOVELESS:
No.
B. PETTEN:
I asked that seriously,
actually, that time.
E. LOVELESS:
No, I think the ribbon has
already been cut.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
It is just that with COVID
we had challenges going down there and stuff. But I think I said it in my notes
that they're holding the provincial badminton tournament down there; 105
athletes from the province going down there.
B. PETTEN:
Perfect.
E. LOVELESS:
I'm going down for the
opening ceremonies and we'll see if I can take a ribbon down there with me.
B. PETTEN:
I would take a ribbon down
there if I were you, too. Ribbons are not all bad.
E. LOVELESS:
No, absolutely.
B. PETTEN:
Minister, the new schools
that were announced in the budget: Kenmount Terrace location and Portugal
Cove-St. Philip's. So is the land purchased for those? What is the plan for
those constructions?
E. LOVELESS:
I am going to have to hand that over.
C. GRANDY:
So the funding that was this year's is planning funding. There is no land
purchase or no specific site selection for those properties.
B. PETTEN:
So there is no actual site selected for those. It is just a matter –
C. GRANDY:
It is the very beginning of the planning process.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
3.3.04, Facilities Development: Purchased Services, again, $2.8 million to $7.2
million.
E. LOVELESS:
Let me see. That's the $4.3 million increase, correct?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
The increase is as a result of additional funding for priority planning – Bay
St. George public building construction and CNA Film and Media Production Centre
renovations.
B. PETTEN:
Purchased Services appear to be mostly where the funding goes for projects
within the department. It seems to be most of the money is there.
E. LOVELESS:
Yes. To the contractors and the associated costs.
B. PETTEN:
Under Professional Services, 3.3.04, I guess it is gone up triple the amount. It
was only $64,000 spent. What are the details on that one?
E. LOVELESS:
Why are we moving to $729,800?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
That is an increase in '22-'23 as a result of additional funding for priority
planning – Bay St. George public building construction and CNA Film and Media
Production Campus renovations.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under 3.3.05, Justice Infrastructure, there is Purchased Services there of $9.4
million but there was only $275,000 that was spent last year.
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased, right?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
You were asking from the $7.5 million down to the $275,000 or the $275,000 –?
B. PETTEN:
Well, the fluctuation was $7.5 million, went down to $275,000 and now it is back
up to $9.4 million. Can you explain that variation?
E. LOVELESS:
Okay.
The 2022-23 budget, less your 2021 budget, which was $1.9 million, reflects
anticipated contracts for '22-'23 for the Labrador
correctional facilities and
the adult corrections facility. The '21-'22 revised less the 2021-'22 budget,
that was a decrease. That was the Labrador corrections facility expansion in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Your 2022-'23 budget less your '21-'22 revised, $9.1
million, that was an increase and that reflects cash flow requirements for
'22-'23.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Okay, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
3.3.06,
Health Care Infrastructure – now this one, along with 3.3.02, was just carried
over from Health and Community Services new to this year, correct?
E. LOVELESS:
3.3.06?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, 3.3.02 and 3.3.06,
they were in – these are new to the TI this coming budget, correct? Those
subsections?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, they came to TI last
year, actually.
J. BROWN:
Okay. They just weren't
corrected in the book from last year, I guess.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, that's correct.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
3.3.06
Health Care Infrastructure: This is where the new mental health facility, along
with the addition to the Labrador Health care facility – this is for this
project here, correct?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, I can give you the
list of –
J. BROWN:
Perfect. That would be
appreciated.
E. LOVELESS:
You want me to provide it to
you now? I can read them out or we can provide them to you.
J. BROWN:
Just provide them to me.
That will be absolutely fine.
E. LOVELESS:
Okay. No problem.
J. BROWN:
Last year, it was budgeted
$500,000, then it was increased to $634,000 and we're only going to budget
$544,500 in the following year. What was the reason for the increase but, also,
why are we not carrying over the same amount?
E. LOVELESS:
So you're on Salaries,
correct?
J. BROWN:
That's correct. Yes, sorry.
E. LOVELESS:
Okay.
The
$44,500 increase, that's increased project management requirements. That's
construction advances on certain projects; i.e., the Corner Brook Acute. The
increase of $134,000 was an increased project management requirement anticipated
as construction advances on projects. The decrease of $89,500 was decreased
project management requirements as certain projects conclude.
J. BROWN:
Okay, so it's just as we
carry on.
Under
Purchased Services it was $3 million budgeted, it was revised to $4.5 million
and it's going to stay at $4.5 million in the Estimates. What's the reasoning
for that?
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased or Professional?
J. BROWN:
Sorry, Professional. My
apologies.
E. LOVELESS:
The increase was due to
higher professional engineering requirements specifically for Corner Brook Acute
as the project advanced to the next stage; example: operational readiness,
transition consultants, et cetera. The 2021 revised less the budget of '21-'22:
That was higher than anticipated professional engineering and architectural
consulting costs for various projects, including Central long-term care, Corner
Brook Acute Care and the new adult mental health and addictions facility.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. Thank you,
Minister.
Under
Purchased Services, we budgeted $64 million. We only spent $47 million, but
we're budgeting $79 million in the coming year. What's the transition there?
E. LOVELESS:
What we're estimating to
spend in '22-'23 is what you're asking?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, and why we under spent
in '21-'22, but we're going to overspend in '22-'23.
E. LOVELESS:
Right.
Well,
there was a decrease and that was cash flow savings on various infrastructure
projects. That's attributed to construction design work delays, including the
mental health facility, Central Health care and Corner Brook Acute Care. The
increase we're seeing in budget '22-'23 reflects planned expenditure for health
care infrastructure.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. Thank you,
Minister.
Moving
on to 3.4.01, Ferry Terminals: Under Salaries we had budgeted $40,000, but we
ended up spending $90,000 in '21-'22. And then we're going to plan on spending
$120,000 in '22-'23.
E. LOVELESS:
That increase of $50,000 was
the salary variance due to the higher number of small projects under ferry
terminal maintenance service contracts, which require increased staff and,
obviously, time, including coordination and management. The increase of $29,200,
the original budget did not reflect an appropriate salary allocation for the
chargeback of project management time.
J. BROWN:
Okay. Thank you, Minister.
Under
Transportation and Communications, it was budgeted a thousand dollars, then we
spent $14,000 and now we're budgeting $25,000. What are the planned increases
there?
E. LOVELESS:
The increase to the $25,000?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, from budgeting in
2021-22 we only budgeted a thousand dollars, but now for '22-'23 we're going to
budget $15,000.
E. LOVELESS:
The first increase that you
reference is the minor increase on travel requirements for ferry terminal
projects. Examples: Ramea, Makkovik, Farewell, McCallum and other remote sites
which will require additional travel and higher cost.
The
$10,900 travel costs are contingent on location and upcoming work in remote
areas. So that's the increase of $10,900.
J. BROWN:
All right.
Under
Professional Services, we budgeted $50,000 but we spent $90,000. What was the
increase there?
E. LOVELESS:
Consultant costs for wharf
assessment and design work in 2021-22.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
Then
under Purchased Services, we budgeted $1.3 million but we only spent $1.2
million, and now we are only going to budget again $1.2 million. What was the
reasoning – what didn't get done, I should say.
E. LOVELESS:
The '21-'22 revised less
your '20-'21 budget, which was $103,000, that was a decrease. That is cash flow
savings attributed to the Ramea wharf project.
J. BROWN:
Okay. And then we're just
going to rightsize that.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah. Then, while we're seeing a decrease of $100, that's a minor variance.
J. BROWN:
Yeah, minor variance. Okay.
3.4.02,
Ferry Terminals, Capital, Salaries there: We budgeted $200,000 but we didn't
even spend close to that. What was the reasoning for that?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, the $181,400 was a
decrease. That was less than anticipated TI project management as the Nain wharf
rehab work was moved to '22-'23.
J. BROWN:
Okay. That's the reason for
the increases –
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the increase would be:
Cash flow savings due to the Nain wharf rehab work was moved to that year, which
was self-explanatory.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
Under
Professional Services, $250,000 was allocated but we only spent $70,000 and
we're only planning on spending $50,000 in the upcoming year. What's the
reasoning for that?
E. LOVELESS:
To only spending $50,000
this year?
J. BROWN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
There's been a decrease of
$20,000. The budget was just rightsized to reflect anticipated engineering
consulting requirements for the upcoming season.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
Purchased Services, we budgeted $2 million but we only spent $95,000 and now we
are budgeting $5 million.
E. LOVELESS:
That increase is increased expenditure due to carry-over of Nain rehab wharf
project.
J. BROWN:
3.5.01, Municipal Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
Under Salaries in '21-'22 the budget was $2.7 million. In the revised it was
$2.5 million, but in the upcoming '22-'23 it is $2.8 million. What are the
variances there?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, we had a decrease. That variance was due to vacancies and extended
recruitment. The increase is delayed recruitment and vacancies in '21-'22.
Positions are being filled and some at a higher step.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Under Transportation and Communications, $146,000 was budgeted and only $50,000
was spent. What was the rationale for that?
E. LOVELESS:
We had a decrease and reduced travel communications due to the COVID-19.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
Professional Services, $136,000 was budgeted. We only spent $39,000 on the
revised and then we are expecting to spend $136,000 again this coming year. What
didn't get purchased I should say in that?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, the decrease was fewer applications requiring climate consultations.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
The increase of the same amount – a one-time savings in 2021 as we anticipate
full budget to be spent in 2022 for Climate Lens consultation.
J. BROWN:
Perfect.
Thank you, Minister.
E. LOVELESS:
You are welcome.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
I am going to go back to a few of my questions again, Minister.
E. LOVELESS:
Sure.
B. PETTEN:
Change it up.
The fixed link, any discussion with the federal government since that has been,
I guess, announced or discussed? What is the status of that?
E. LOVELESS:
We have had some conversations around it, but I can't say at a specific level
that we have had. The Canada Infrastructure Bank – and again, I don't have
anything to report here in terms of what I have had in the last several months.
It is a conversation that I had with – well maybe it is the last couple of
months with the federal ministers, O'Regan and Hutchings, and also the MP for
Labrador and other
MPs as well, because it's a topic that's important to all of us, but at this
point we don't know where it's all going.
So it is a conversation that
I have on my list the next time that I certainly meet with the federal minister
as well responsible for transportation and infrastructure.
B. PETTEN:
Minister, you announced or
you spoke a while back about ferry market soundings. There's not much spoken of
it since, so is that still ongoing?
E. LOVELESS:
It's completed. I haven't
had the opportunity yet to review all of it, but I certainly look forward to
that and to see what feedback we got, and trying to derive some of the common
denominators around the feedback and in helping us to assess where ferry
services are in the province and where we need to go.
B. PETTEN:
The new penitentiary
replacement – what's the status with the land ownership, and I guess the
progress of that outside – the procurement process is ongoing now, but the
planning in place. So with the land, White Hills, I guess, is all that in place?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, we're still proceeding
with that, but I'll ask if Cory wants to give a further update on that. I've
been questioned in the House. It's a valuable project, and I appreciate the
concerns. But as a department we have to do our due diligence, and we will,
considering the concerns that come from the opposite side, and we'll do that. We
believe it's a project that warrants proceeding and again we'll certainly do our
due diligence as a department.
Cory, I
don't know if you want to add something to it.
C. GRANDY:
No, we're still proceeding, as the minister said, with the procurement process,
and that process is very collaborative with the proponent team. We continue to
engage with the proponent team with what we require in the design. As the
minister said, we're doing our due diligence now that we're down to a single
proponent, which changes a little, but it's still proceeding and anticipate
concluding that process later this fall.
B. PETTEN:
Outside workers on these
capital projects – any idea how many are working on the new mental health and
addictions centre?
E. LOVELESS:
I don't have the numbers in
front of me, but I do think we have them. So I'm being told it's 100 per cent
Newfoundland and Labrador employment – 100 per cent, so you've got to repeat it.
B. PETTEN:
I won't do that much, but
that's good to hear. And that's being obviously monitored, tracked in the
department, okay.
Minister, the water bomber, I believe I asked about this last year, the fifth
water bomber that was damaged. Was that ever sold after?
E. LOVELESS:
It's not sold yet, but I'm
not going to say any more to that. I'll let the deputy minister give you an
update on that.
C. GRANDY:
So we will be proceeding with a process to dispose of the fifth water bomber
this fiscal, and it will be an open process.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
This is
another issue, too. I looked at minutes actually there recently preparing for
this, and I know me and your ADM, Baker, had a long back and forth on this last
year about the overtime costs on the ferries. The ADM actually made an issue of
it. So has that improved any? Is there any plan to address – I guess the status
of that issue, because you remember last year my argument was why don't we hire
more people if the cost were so exorbitant in overtime.
E. LOVELESS:
No, fair enough. I think
from a blanket look at ferry services and what it provides and the fact that
overtime is being paid in the areas that it is, it is concerning. But in terms
of your question around improvement and stuff, I'll ask John if you want to
comment on overtime for salaries in terms of ferry users. So he's asking has
there been any improvement this year in terms of overtime.
J. BAKER:
Yes, as a matter of fact, over the past four years, we've taken $1.4 million out
of overtime. And that's due to rightsizing and getting crew members back on
straight time rather than having the current member stay back at 1.5 or 2.2. And
we've done a considerable amount, and yes there is more to do and we will
continue to do it.
B. PETTEN:
So I look forward to there
being less on the sunshine list this year. There will be fewer of them on the
sunshine list. Thank you for that.
The
road to the North Coast, Minister, that study, was that ever done?
E. LOVELESS:
You're referring to the
prefeasibility study?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, I guess.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, that's the $200,000.
The draft documents were sent to stakeholders. That was done several weeks ago
and we're just waiting for their feedback on that, where we go from here.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Just an update – there are a lot of updates because things come and go all of
the time in this place. We move on to new (inaudible). The helicopter service
issue with the St. John's Regional Fire Department. What is the status of that
now? Has that worked itself out because there hasn't been much about it since?
There was a lot about it last year, I guess.
J. BAKER:
The helicopter contract that we have here, that one is equipped with medical
supplies for medical services and we have another helicopter in Central and also
two in Labrador.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
New equipment – I know we talked about this in the amount, but are you cutting
back on the purchase of new equipment? The new equipment looks like you are
purchasing less this year. So is that moving over to renting equipment as
opposed to purchase of equipment, which the department always purchased
equipment? There was a drop in the line but I mean it is a separate question so
I left that for –
E. LOVELESS:
Again, it goes back to that conversation we had at the beginning in terms of the
challenges around what we have versus our needs versus what it costs and what
we, I guess, can't afford. And it is a big conversation. In terms of looking for
external resources to fill in our needs, it is always an ongoing discussion.
But, certainly, not looking at any reduction. Reduction is not on my mind with
regard to the need that we have in the province. If anything, going external,
whatever, we always have a cost-benefit analysis done in terms of is it better
to do that. As a minister, I wouldn't not do that, if it makes more sense. But
certainly no reductions at this point based on the need we have out there.
B. PETTEN:
Minister, I suppose, aside from the politics that me and you have been bantering
back and forth for quite some time, the long-term care facility in Gander, Grand
Falls, on a strictly serious note, is there any plan to review what – I know you
spoke yesterday to me in the House. If I am not mistaken, you weren't satisfied.
Is there any plan to do a review? I guess we don't want to see this happen,
obviously. Is that in the works? Is that something that is on your radar?
E. LOVELESS:
To be honest with you, I guess I challenge in what I should use. Should I use
the word “review” or
what should I do? Because we had a lengthy discussion on this and I don't mind
saying it, because I'm here with the staff, whatever, it's been frustrating –
beyond frustrating. I have staff that work very hard. I believe at this point –
and we all know the importance of what it is we're trying to get here; we're
trying to open up 120 beds for seniors in Central Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
process of getting there has been frustrating. So I've asked lots of questions,
to the point that I've even said that when this project is done, we need to sit
around the table to say, what went wrong here. I've stressed that. I've had a
good working relationship with the CEO of Central; her and I have had some
conversations that have been back and forth and stuff, trying to understand
what's going wrong here, because we have a contractor who's doing the service.
We're oversight; we're trying to connect the dots as well.
I mean,
you've got TI and you've got the contractor and you've got Central Health. The
deputy has said to me millions of times, you know, we had Corner Brook hospital
that was done, and it was done with not many problems at all. This one seems to
have more. So if we've had more, then we need to ask questions of why we have
more in this process. And the two deficiencies that were noted, they're being
worked on. Believe me, when I knew that they were not completed, blood pressure
goes up.
It's a
good question, I'm glad you asked it, because we had a conversation. When this
came to my desk over the last week or so, and I'm like, I'm definitely having a
– I don't know if review is the right word, but certainly questions are going to
be asked to those that were involved to see how we can do this better next time.
B. PETTEN:
Thanks.
CHAIR:
MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Just a quick question. Well,
more just general question on municipal infrastructure there. When going out for
grants or when municipalities apply for grants or anything like that, is any
consideration made into is the project going to meet any certain environmental
standards, or anything like that for longevity? Are we looking at reviewing on,
like, each project municipality is coming to – in a sense of is it going to meet
certain standards that we want or anything like that? Are we looking at that
from environmental standards, good stewardship, things like that? Are we looking
at anything like that when we go out for grants or anything like that? Or call
for grants, I should say.
E. LOVELESS:
In terms of an assessment
process?
J. BROWN:
Yes.
E. LOVELESS:
Is that where you are –?
J. BROWN:
Yes, for assessment, like
for project-wise.
E. LOVELESS:
I'm not sure if I am
following your question. If you meet targets, is that what you're saying?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, certain targets like
environmental targets or efficiency targets or if the project is going to meet
or exceed any kind of longevity targets for length or construction-wise or
anything like that. Are we trying to strive for anything like that for the
future?
E. LOVELESS:
I believe we always do.
Cory, I don't know if you want to add something to that or whomever.
C. GRANDY:
I might defer to Greg. Within ICIP there are certain substreams that have those
types of criteria that have to be met. It is not in all streams.
Greg,
can you elaborate on that? Just on the mitigation stream.
G. CLARKE:
So under the ICIP federal-provincial funding program, Mr. Brown, there are
substreams that have specific objectives that have to be met by the projects
that are funded under that substream. To take a portion of the green
infrastructure stream, the project might have to meet certain environmental
quality outcomes related to water and sewer, which is a project for which there
is a great deal of demand in the province.
By the
same token, in our provincial only municipal infrastructure funding, we would
prioritize projects that meet the condition of getting a community off
boil-water advisory, for example. Which is, I think, going partway to answering
your question you asked about how we review the proposal that is given from the
community to determine whether it meets environmental objectives and so on. I
think I have explained partially how we do that.
Our
division is made up of a variety of different engineering professionals who do
review the application with an eye to determining both the viability from an
engineering and environmental perspective because we engage Environment and
Climate Change and Municipal Affairs from different perspectives to make sure
that the efficiency, financial viability and environmental objectives of the
program are met at a high level.
We
don't necessarily vet the projects to an excruciating detail but they do have to
meet the federal-provincial program criteria, provincial program criteria and
our team assesses individual applications from a variety of internal
engineering, financial and environmental perspectives.
J. BROWN:
Just a follow-up to that –
myself and the minister discussed about impact with more extreme weather
patterns and stuff. When we go to municipal roadwork and everything like that,
are we also asking them to kind of check their damages done by weather, things
like that? If they rebuild something, rebuild it at more of a standard that
would probably hold up to more extreme weather? Are we asking the municipalities
to do that too in their project applications?
G. CLARKE:
By all means, yes.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
That's
my last question for this section.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, a couple of questions.
I'll just go to Grants and Subsidies. I don't know if that was asked. I don't
think it was. I was having trouble with my earpiece. Under 3.5.01, it's $12
million less this year. I guess what's included there for such a fluctuation
there.
E. LOVELESS:
Hopefully I can answer. The
2022-23 budget, less the 2021-22 budget, is a little over $11 million, and
that's a decrease. That's anticipated spending on MCW and multi-year capital
works programs and small-scale community projects.
That's
that piece. There was a decrease from the 2021-22 revised, less the 2021-22
budget, and that's cash flow savings on MCW and multi-year capital works and
small-scale community projects. The $4.4 million increase reflects cash flow
requirements for municipal infrastructure projects for the upcoming season.
B. PETTEN:
Why were there savings on
those – what was the reason for that?
E. LOVELESS:
It's cash flow savings and
all relative to productivity levels.
B. PETTEN:
Under 3.5.02, Grants and
Subsidies once again, $90 million budgeted and $75 million spent.
E. LOVELESS:
Sorry, which one are you
asking?
B. PETTEN:
Grants and Subsidies,
3.5.02.
E. LOVELESS:
3.5.02. I don't have any
Grants and Subsidies.
B. PETTEN:
No?
E. LOVELESS:
No, I was thinking – I'm
trying to follow my notes. Grants and Subsidies was on the back like everything
else, but here it's –
B. PETTEN:
No problem.
E. LOVELESS:
So you referenced the
decreases or the increase?
B. PETTEN:
Well, it's $90 million down
to $75 million and now it's back to $82 million, so again, it's a fluctuation.
E. LOVELESS:
Again, I am trying to give
you a good explanation. The $15 million decrease, that was lower than
anticipated spending on infrastructure projects due to COVID-19 pandemic in
'21-'22. Including the provincial territory infrastructure committee projects,
you've got rural and northern projects, public transit and green infrastructure.
This is cash flow savings that is carried forward to future years. That's the
$15 million.
We see
there's an increase to $82 million; that's a little over $7 million. That's
lower than anticipated spending on infrastructure projects due to pandemic in
'21-'22, including the rural and northern projects, public transit, green
infrastructure, and again cash flow savings that is carried forward to future
years.
B. PETTEN:
Okay. I'm going to do a few
questions now before we're finishing this section, I guess.
E. LOVELESS:
Yes.
B. PETTEN:
The long-term care
conversation is an important conversation when you finished off – I've called
for this publicly, so I mean it's not a secret: project management. Because I
think one of the media outlets asked me, and I said, well if you're building a
house, you don't wait until gyprock and fixtures are on the wall to check the
studs. I guess that's a really simplistic term. That's the question people are
asking. When you look at it, people have asked that question: Why wasn't it
picked up here when you moved on to, literally, the ready-to-open facility?
What
I'm asking, is the project management team in place – government obviously is
ultimately the payer. So do we have staff that are overseeing the contractor?
For want of a better word, what kind of oversight is out there is what I'm
asking?
E. LOVELESS:
I mean, we do but, in
essence, the contractor is doing the work at certain stages. And that's part of
the questions; I'd like to be able to appreciate even more of the oversight and
the project management versus where we are, in stages. Because when I tried the
answer in the Question Period the other day about the clinical orientation
process, that had to happen in terms of transitioning into the home.
Then
you had – I believe that I'm saying it right – operational readiness. That's
another stage, and that was when the floors of 27 of the 120 washrooms were
identified, as
the wheels on some of the – I don't know the clinical names or whatever, but I
saw a picture where one of the wheels was that much off the floor. You have a
drain in the centre of the floor and there is no perfection with that. So my
first question was well, maybe the design stage should be challenged. In a
long-term care facility, do you need a drain in the centre of the floor or
should it be down on the end with a gradual slope? It is just me thinking
because I have built the houses myself. So I have some common knowledge. And we
had that conversation and that would be a part of the challenges like – should
it be in long-term care homes?
And then the water issue. The water issue, really, was not a new deficiency. It
was an ongoing deficiency where warm water was in the pipes that – he made an
analogy to me that it is like the hose on your lawn and it is sitting there and
when we would turn it on it is warm and then it turns cold – operational piece.
But we are working with the contractor and, certainly, for me as minister,
pressing on the staff as well and Greg has been doing a tremendous job with some
other officials to get the answers. We need them and because we understand the
urgency but there is a process. Two weeks elapsed with regard to the water
issue, and it was a requirement of the process. But two weeks can be a long time
when you want to move into these facilities.
I was driving when I had a conversation with somebody about this and not knowing
all of the details, it was like why is this happening? It happens on big
projects and stuff but that is part of the process of, at the end, do we do a
review and ask these important questions so we can eliminate this happening in
the future no matter what contractor it is or who is in a department.
B. PETTEN:
Absolutely.
Minister, the new mental health and addictions facility, right now is that
anticipated to be on time, on budget or any perceived, any known issues,
deficiencies or what have you?
E. LOVELESS:
Again, I am reluctant to say it and it not happen, but all indications that we
are on time and we are on budget. Who knows what can happen a year down the
road? I don't know for sure but, right now, we were over there the other day and
certainly went through the mock-up. That process is a fabulous process as far as
I am concerned. The lady was telling us that 80-something people went through
with 17 pages of recommendations and that includes families going through that
mock-up to say when
patients go into that building here is how it can be better for the patient.
We can
talk about – I always say this – the building all we want, but it's that person
that's mentally challenged, the difficulty walking in that building. They're not
worried about what windows are in it, but they're worried about the service
they're going to receive. To know even different floors are colour-coded because
of the mind is just amazing.
I
encourage anybody to go over there just to walk through and see what they're
doing. That's a process that is going to lead to a lot less concerns and
deficiencies, if you want to refer to it as that.
B. PETTEN:
The Auditor General
recommended a centralized road maintenance repair program. Is there any progress
with that?
E. LOVELESS:
Say that again.
B. PETTEN:
The Auditor General's report
that recommended a centralized road maintenance repair program.
E. LOVELESS:
Centralized maintenance.
Well, we had a conversation with the AG not long after when – because I felt it
was important to have a discussion with the AG and another staff member at the
time. We went through rankings of roads and I did ask him at the time what kind
of system would you suggest? They didn't have an answer in terms of what type of
system it could be for ranking roads or whatever. If we're going to have a
Cadillac – I can't tell you really what a Cadillac system would look like, nor
did the AG at the time, recognizing about how do we rank roads.
From
the work that I spent with staff in the department, I believe we have a good
system in terms of our people that work, the engineers and everyone else. We can
do better and every year I think you learn how we can do better. In terms of the
ranking system, I've seen staff during our preparation of reviewing for the
roads plan, which we spent hours and hours and hours at. I believe they're doing
great work and I believe there's a real good process there in terms of
determining what roads should be done in the province.
I don't
know if that answers your question.
B. PETTEN:
Well, a conversation more
than anything; just getting an idea of where we're to. Yeah, I appreciate it.
I ran
out of time.
CHAIR:
Yeah, I know. Do you have
more?
B. PETTEN:
I just have a couple more
questions. I'm good for the next section; I am done for this section.
CHAIR:
You're done for this
section?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
Clerk,
can you recall the grouping, please?
CLERK:
For the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Infrastructure, 3.1.01
to 3.5.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.5.02
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.5.02 carried.
CHAIR:
Now, I have to ask you, do
you want a 5-minute break?
B. PETTEN:
I'm sure they probably do.
CHAIR:
I think I should. No?
E. LOVELESS:
Yes, may I?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, I have no problem. The
minister wants one. I have no problem.
CHAIR:
Five minutes.
E. LOVELESS:
Five minutes it is.
Recess
CHAIR:
Okay, we are going to go back at it again and, hopefully, we won't be much
longer.
We have got to include Mr. Trimper this time when everybody else is done.
CLERK:
For the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Air and Marine
Services, 4.1.01 to 4.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Mr. Petten.
B. PETTEN:
I should be done in another couple of hours. You got to have a bit of levity
every now and then. No, I promise I won't be that long.
Under Ferry Operations, Salaries was an extra $354,000.
E. LOVELESS:
That was the overrun due to insufficient funding for backfilling costs and
unfunded severance payments.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Allowances and Assistance, it is not a big amount; it is only $25,000. What does
that include?
E. LOVELESS:
Allowances and Assistance.
B. PETTEN:
It is only $25,000. But just curious.
E. LOVELESS:
That is funding that provides for damage claims by customers using the vessels.
B. PETTEN:
Okay, interesting.
Purchased Services, an extra $1.6 million spent last year.
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased Services?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
The $1.6-million increase was overrun primarily due to increase repairs and
maintenance and insurance premiums. Also, we had two additional runs on the
North Coast service requested,
and that was due to inclement weather conditions and related delays during the
'21 season. Also, the receipt of three mini-homes on the last day of freight
acceptance that required transport to Natuashish this season, and other freight
that required us, as the department, to be transported to the coast.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
There
was increase in Supplies and now it's dropped back down in this budget to $9.6
million.
E. LOVELESS:
Where am I, in Supplies, in
that same section?
B. PETTEN:
Yes.
E. LOVELESS:
Okay, there was a decrease –
okay, I'm not sure which one, from the 2021 budget to the revised, or are you
asking about the Estimates?
B. PETTEN:
Well, you went from $10.8
million and then it jumped to $11.6 million. You actually went over by $800,000
and then you're gone back down this year, pretty well $2 million. So what was
the increase and now it's a decrease in this year's budget.
E. LOVELESS:
So the increase that you
reference, they are fuel costs as tied to usage rates and fluctuation in price,
and variance reflects a substantial increase in cost of fuel. Also, two
additional runs on the North Coast were required due to inclement weather
condition-related delays. The decrease reflected in '22-'23: Fuel and other
supplies requirement vary year-over-year depending on the number of runs
required and the price of diesel fuel.
B. PETTEN:
Minister, on that line,
you've got $9.6 million budgeted this year and a lot of that covers fuel –
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
Is that kind of being
optimistic, based on what we're seeing in the market now? We spent $11 million
last year, so do you expect to be (inaudible) unless we're going to see a major
adjustment, and we're not seeing it yet, $9.6 million might be a little under
budget.
E. LOVELESS:
It's a fair question. At
this point it's a what-if, knowing that oil prices, fuel prices are certainly
going to be a challenge affecting everybody, and certainly ferry users and his
department.
So it's
a good, valid question. I don't know, John, if you want to add anything to it in
terms of the $9.6 million that's being allocated for fuel.
J. BAKER:
Of course, if we can eliminate the two extra runs in the fall, that will
certainly help us with regard to fuel usage.
B. PETTEN:
What extra runs would they be?
J. BAKER:
Those are the two extra ones that we identified just a few minutes ago late in
the season when we had to make the two extra runs up North.
B. PETTEN:
Okay, fair enough.
Under 4.1.02, there was an extra $10 million last year that was spent under
Purchased Services.
E. LOVELESS:
That is the ferry vessel refits for the '21-'22 budget. It was allocated at $10
million. Also, to complete emergency repairs on
Beaumont
Hamel,
Gallipoli,
Flanders and
Legionnaire. These are unplanned
events but we have to deal with them and it required immediate action which cost
approximately $5.6 million. The department also had to complete mandatory
five-year refits for the Legionnaire,
Veteran,
Grace Sparkes and
Hazel
McIsaac which were mandated by
Transport Canada. So all of that parcelled together was $10 million.
B. PETTEN:
I missed one up there: 4.1.01. You are expecting less revenue this year –
provincial. We are hopefully away from COVID or we are going to have our first
summer and have a bit of normalcy and plus it is Come Home Year. So is that
figure probably a bit underestimated or is that reasonable to say that is what –
could that possibly be higher? I know it can be higher any year but this year in
particular we are promoting – those rural communities I would anticipate would
see, with Come Home Year events, usually they are the ones that people tend to
come back to those communities in bigger masses.
E. LOVELESS:
So you are talking 4.1.01, Revenue – correct?
B. PETTEN:
Yes.
E. LOVELESS:
Your point is taken. So the '22-'23 budget, less the '20-'21 revised, we see a
decrease there of $500,000. What I have here is the rightsizing of vessel
revenues and overall reduction in ferry ticket sales due to lower volume of
passengers during pandemic. But to your point, this coming year, we all hope
that that will be up significantly and
therefore that will change
the number.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Going
to go back a few more questions I just want to touch on. The Lewisporte wharf:
There was an assessment done to the Lewisporte wharf last year.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
B. PETTEN:
What is the status of that?
What was …?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, we're currently
working with the Town of Lewisporte. We had a meeting with them – what, three
months ago maybe – early in the year to talk about what we feel is an offer to
them because of the conversation around the oil industry and what their wharf or
what they can do in their town. Obviously, they're interested in what they will
be able to do moving forward, but we all know the challenges – not challenges so
much, but where the oil industry is right now and what it is they want to do in
that town.
We're
currently working with them looking at economic development opportunities and,
certainly, with the wharf in mind of what they can use it for. We've had
presentations around the wharf itself. There are a lot of challenges around
there but, right now, we're still working with the town in where we're moving
forward with that piece of infrastructure.
B. PETTEN:
I got my final one to wrap
up my time.
Recurring breakdown issues: The ferries and Bell Island in particular. We hear
it often. Is it mechanical or are there issues that the public don't know about?
It seems to be a common recurring theme.
Any
comment on that? We don't have to talk about Romania, I know. We talked about
that yesterday.
E. LOVELESS:
No, and I wasn't going
there. So you said it, I didn't.
B. PETTEN:
That's fair enough.
E. LOVELESS:
We could probably attribute
the word to it as “frustration,” because the breakdown of the ferries. I really
don't have a really good answer for it, other than these ferries are in salt
water and they're put to the test all the time. They're not running just once a
day; they're in the water quite a bit. You have doors that are up and down, up
and down and we know the challenges around that.
But I
don't know. John, if you want to speak to it in terms of the challenges around
that and where we are?
J. BAKER:
Yes, the minister was correct. We have vessels there – especially the larger one
– with ramps and bow visors on them with hundreds of tons of steel and those are
operated every 15 minutes. It's a lot of wear and tear, especially the Bell
Island service. I would say it's the most challenging service that we have with
regard to undertow and winds. So when you're coming in trying to dock, trying to
keep the service intact and keep the service going, the crews are doing the best
they can.
But,
again, when you're doing that every 15 minutes, it brings some challenges to it.
Also, the challenge on the equipment itself; the thrusters are going all the
time, every few minutes. Like I said, several hundreds of tons of equipment,
steel, is up and down, up and down all the time. The rams on it are wearing;
they have to be replaced quite often.
When we
go to a dockyard we only have a certain amount of time because we have to get
the vessel in and get it out. We go there and we don't have a – a whole lot of
the dockyard is filled. We have vessels in there now and trying to get them out,
they have resource problems as well.
So it's
a real challenge, especially when you're trying to keep the service going. With
so many runs and every 15 minutes it's pretty challenging. This is why we don't
have the similar issues in other areas because the runs are not so frequent and
you have time to work your equipment. Like I said, the tides and the undertow
are not the same.
CHAIR:
MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
Just
general questions there first. With the Ferry Operations, can we get totals of
how much was the North Coast run budgeted for and cost, and the Strait of Belle
Isle run costing? The contracts, what it cost this year?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah. You want us to provide
it to you?
J. BROWN:
Yeah, if you can just
provide it to my office, it would be sufficient.
E. LOVELESS:
We can just provide it to
him, instead of reading it out.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Another
general question there. This past year there was no alternate port available for
the Strait of Belle Isle ferry in Corner Brook. I'm sure because of their
activity and no pre-ask to the Port of Corner Brook. I was wondering if this
coming year will there be a consideration for an alternate port for the Strait
of Belle Isle ferry in case of ice pressures.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, I'll let staff speak
to it, but I think that all depends on – if I'm correct in saying that, it's due
to availability as well.
John,
do you want to just add to it?
J. BAKER:
Yes, Corner Brook, when we could get there, was very convenient. But to look at
alternate docks within close proximity of the St. Barbe area, when you're coming
across, the freeboard on the vessel is such that they would have to do another
makeshift ramp on top of what's there now, similar to what we have in St. Barbe.
Fortunately enough, the dock in Corner Brook is able to be compatible with the
vessel. This year, I think we did fairly well because we were able to maintain
the icebreaker to such a point where I think we did about 67 per cent of the
runs that we were scheduled to do. Of course, by going to Corner Brook, at the
best of times it's around a 12-hour run. So that reduces the number of runs as
well.
Sometimes not very convenient to the passengers going across, because a lot of
them, especially for medical services, have appointments in St. Anthony. So then
they have to travel from Corner Brook to St. Anthony and back to Corner Brook
again. We try our best to maintain the service to St. Barbe. Yeah, it's a great
time to look at it, but putting that secondary ramp on the docks at the other
ports, sometimes it's convenient, sometimes it would make it very difficult for
any other vessels coming in there.
J. BROWN:
Yeah. So just out of
curiosity though, you're not looking at, say, Port Saunders, Port au Choix or
anything like that? At this current time, you're not looking at any additional
ramp there at this current place and time?
J. BAKER:
We looked at several ports on the Northern Peninsula.
J. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
You
just mentioned the two extra runs on the North Coast. So in this coming year you
won't be doing any extra runs going to the North Coast, or you'll just likely
consider going on extra runs to the North Coast this coming year?
J. BAKER:
At this point, right now, it would be just kind of hypothetical because we do it
more or less on demand. It is like, as the minister stated earlier, we had those
mini homes come in on the last day of accepting freight and they were anxious to
get those because they wanted to try to get them set up for the families before
the real winter set in. Since we had to move those, then of course we took other
food items along as well.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
Going
through that there now – government aircraft. The damaged water bomber, is that
still an asset of the government or has that been sold off or parted out?
E. LOVELESS:
It hasn't been sold off but
we are in the process of looking at selling it. So it is still in that stage of
assessment.
J. BROWN:
At this current time, are
you looking at any replacement aircraft for that water bomber or are you just
going to keep status quo?
E. LOVELESS:
We have four. I think in
terms of from a service perspective the four has certainly met our needs. So
right now there is no consideration based on the results we are getting from the
four to warrant us discussing adding a fifth one.
J. BROWN:
I know in the past that the
previous minister that sat in your chair in 2019 mentioned the bird dog aircraft
as another option, too. Is that any consideration now to complement your water
bombers?
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, so the minister of
2019 – Cory, do you want to answer that one?
C. GRANDY:
There is no current consideration for that. You are correct; that is something
that was considered but right now that is not something that is under any active
(inaudible).
J. BROWN:
The two King Air air
ambulances, I know we have our issues with the lack of service sometimes, and we
have thought about that. Is there any consideration of the third King Air
aircraft that was recommended in the 2017 report?
E. LOVELESS:
No, and your comment is fair
and certainly your concern is fair with regard to your district that you
represent. But I know since coming into the department the whole piece of
discussion, Minister Haggie and I certainly have recognized, and from concerns,
that we need to have a good, wholesome conversation about the air ambulance.
Because we know how valuable it is certainly to the patients in the province.
That's ongoing and I look forward to further discussions.
J. BROWN:
Okay, as long as you're
talking about it. At least it's being talked about. That's the (inaudible).
E. LOVELESS:
No, absolutely.
J. BROWN:
I'm glad that you're having
some conversations around that. Other than that right now I am – oh, no, there's
one more.
Your
comments about the Lewisporte dock – just out of curiosity, you said that the
piece of what they were looking at didn't match up. Is there any reason why it's
not suited for what Lewisporte was hoping it would suit to? Is there any reason
why it's not lining up?
E. LOVELESS:
What's not lining up?
J. BROWN:
You said they were
interested in some kind of oil and gas service work and it didn't fit the mould.
Is there any reason why it doesn't fit or it's more of a structural or
integrated thing?
E. LOVELESS:
I guess the easiest way I
can probably answer that question is where the oil industry was five years ago
compared to where it is now – and that's not to take away from the importance of
the oil industry. It is very important to the province and we've seen some
recent development and it's beyond important. But that's all my reference was,
in terms of –
J. BROWN:
Okay, just more of an idle
curiosity, that's all.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
J. BROWN:
But anyway, appreciate it.
Just a
quick note. So at this current time, the province is looking at disposing of
that asset, still, the wharf, but just for another piece completely, or are you
just looking at revitalization of some sort?
E. LOVELESS:
Well, I think all of that.
Again, we're having a conversation because there is the wharf there and there's
also adjacent land, so that's all within one partial, I think. But in terms of
the town, obviously they have a plan and we're trying to work with them to see
if in actual fact the plan is – I'm not going to say realistic to diminish the
significance of it, because it's important to them and important to us.
So
we're working with them, and certainly with the MHA. This file is very important
to him and important to us. Again, it's just working on the file and hoping we
can come to some positive resolve.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Minister.
CHAIR:
MHA Petten.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4.2.01,
there was an extra $2 million spent in Purchased Services.
E. LOVELESS:
That $2 million represents –
well, Air Services faced several demands, demand-driven financial pressures
during the year, including assisting Ontario during the forest fire season,
conducting a search and rescue mission in Labrador, and two overhauls on the air
ambulance in St. John's that came in at much higher than anticipated.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
Revenue
- Provincial increased from $850,000 to $1.395 million. Where did that revenue
come from? An extra half a million dollars more in the provincial revenue.
E. LOVELESS:
So you're asking what –?
B. PETTEN:
Where the increase came
from.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, so 4.2.01, the revenue
piece right?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
So we had a million budgeted
in 1.5; that was increased revenue from water bomber services provided to
Ontario.
B. PETTEN:
Okay, that's the deal, they
compensate for the services.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah. And I think my opening
remarks I –
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, you mentioned
something about that
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, I referenced and it
was, just quickly, the government received $1.235 million in revenues, which is
$785,000 additional revenues for the province.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
Three-quarters of a million.
B. PETTEN:
4.2.01, Purchased Services, that $5.5-million item. What does that entail?
(Inaudible) budget line.
E. LOVELESS:
Purchased Services?
B. PETTEN:
Yeah.
E. LOVELESS:
I think I already answered that one. That was the increase of $2 million?
B. PETTEN:
No, it says there it is $5.5 million. It stands alone. There were no previous
budget amounts.
E. LOVELESS:
No, that is Professional.
B. PETTEN:
Under Purchased Services, 4.2.02, Capital.
E. LOVELESS:
Oh, 2.02 – sorry. That is why.
So 005.5, and that is funding required for water bomber avionics upgrades.
B. PETTEN:
Okay.
And this $22 million provincial revenue, where does that come from?
E. LOVELESS:
And that is revenue projection for sale of the damaged water bomber.
B. PETTEN:
So you are projecting to get $22 million for that damaged water bomber? I am not
going to put a bid in on it. I am not going to bother with this tonight.
I am pretty well almost finalized there now. I just want to go back to when I
ran out of time last time, we were talking about the Bell Island situation. I
guess the AG reports zeroed in on the training and I guess maintenance – I think
one example was as grease wasn't being put on some piece or part, which seems
pretty basic in the big scheme of things to these big vessels.
I guess that is the question, and I know we look at the operational ramps going
up and down and the normal maintenance out in the salt water, but what has been
done to address those issues? Because that seems to be a huge problem and we
heard other antidotal stories. Myself and the minister had a sidebar yesterday
on a couple of stories we heard from others, even out on the Fogo service.
Where are we with that? Because that creates a big cost financially to the
department, obviously, and to the province if these things keep happening. It
keeps adding up. So I guess what is the latest with that? Is there a new
training program in place? Are there any more oversights, any more looking into
that because that is stuff that is preventable?
E. LOVELESS:
The training and oversights for what end result? I am just trying to connect.
B. PETTEN:
The AG report specified some of these breakdowns were preventable because it was
probably due to poor training. It was operation and maintenance of equipment. It
could have been basic maintenance was being missed. I am just extracting from
some of the comments in the AG report. I am wondering what the department, I
guess, is doing to address them because they will cost us money every day the
ferry is down. I don't have to tell you when she is down to the dockyard, it is
a headache and it is a cost.
E. LOVELESS: To
put it in perspective now, you're referring to training, keeping in
consideration it is the construction of new ferries, it is ongoing, and for
operational purposes when they're in operation.
B. PETTEN:
Sure.
E. LOVELESS:
John, I don't know if you
can touch on that.
J. BAKER:
I know the AG's report touched on training, but a lot of the training that she
was referring to was in the beginning when the vessels first arrived in
Newfoundland and went into service. But from what I understand, from just
reading up on the documents and the contract itself, is that the provider was
responsible for training the crew. I know I have documents where the crew signed
off on who was on there at the time. When it comes to the training those, the
builder and the provider of the vessel was supposed to have had professional
crew members on that ship and, as we would do now, they should not have signed
off on that crew if they felt they weren't adequately trained.
It is
no different than what we have right now. If a captain is off a vessel for at
least six months or more, he can't take that vessel without going through a
familiarization. The current captain on board has got to sign off on that and
put his own reputation on the line that he is capable of taking that vessel.
With
regard to the training on the vessel itself, we've put extra steps in place
whereby our marine superintendent of maintenance is doing a very due diligence
job on that to make sure and monitor those issues, especially when we do have a
service interruption. What was the root cause of it? And, yes, we have taken
people to task.
B. PETTEN:
Thanks for that. I guess I
go back to the point of ultimately whoever is to blame originally, the vessels
are ours, the staff are ours, these are our boats – whether we like it or not –
and if there is still training issues, it is our responsibility, not Damen or
anyone else, it comes back on the province. That is the nature of the beast when
you deal with these things.
So it
is fine to blame the manufacturer but right now, here and now, several years
later, if we still have a problem – I guess that's the root of my question: Are
we doing anything to address any issues; are we making sure training is up to
scratch? We have facilities around at the Marine Institute that can provide that
training. It's like any other – you're driving a bus, it should be ongoing
training and is part of almost quality control, quality assurance issue.
I guess
that was then, this is now. My question is here in the present. I think that
it's a valid question, because I do hear stories that there are still questions
on some of the operations. I mean, they're all good and they're all qualified,
I'm sure, but it's never bad to train people including – no matter what
profession you're in. That's my final remark on that one.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, and they're fair
questions and duly noted. But I think in terms of the training aspect is that no
matter what industry we're in, there will always be some element of human error.
And training is important, and I think there are checks and balances with ferry
operators. I know, travelling on the vessels myself, they say how they do
regular checks and maintenance on this and their overall performance.
But
what you're asking, is there a deficiency there in terms of what's going on. So
if there is, we need to address it, because it'll only help all of us at the end
of the day, and especially the ones that use the ferry system. So point taken.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
B. PETTEN:
I'm out of time again.
CHAIR:
MHA Brown, are you finished
or (inaudible)?
J. BROWN:
One question – more of a
curiosity than a question. Were there ever any talks internally in the
department of spinning off Marine Services as a provincial Crown corporation
outside the department?
E. LOVELESS:
I guess, in other words,
privatization is what you're asking?
J. BROWN:
No, Crown corporation, it's
not privatization.
E. LOVELESS:
Well, I mean, there's –
J. BROWN:
Like BC Ferries, that's
where my curiosity comes from, similar to BC Ferries.
E. LOVELESS:
There are all kinds of
discussions ongoing and I don't know maybe that'll be in the market sounding.
Maybe somebody will be suggesting that in the market sounding, I don't know.
Again, it goes back to efficiency. I mean if we can find ways whether that's to
maintain our ferries or operationally that makes sense for the government and
the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, then I'm open to that conversation.
J. BROWN:
Like I said if you look at the model BC uses, they're closest to us in the
amount of ferries operating intra-provincially. So I'm just wondering if we
looked at the BC ferry model, the Crown corporation model, in comparison to
directly department-run. That's just my curiosity, if it was a discussion or
anything. I guess that's more like in the market sounding kind of box right now.
E. LOVELESS:
No, that's fair. Duly noted.
J. BROWN:
All right, perfect. That's
all I have right now.
Thank
you, Minister.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Brown.
MHA
Petten, do you have anything else to add?
B. PETTEN:
No, I don't. I'll say I went
a half an hour longer than what I promised Loyola, but better late than never.
Anyway, I just want to say thank you to Minister Loveless. Good job, I
appreciate it. And Cory and the remainder of staff, I appreciate your time. I
always say this: I understand the work that goes into it behind the scenes
because I used to be on that side at one time. So I do want to thank you for
your time and your answers and good job, thanks a lot.
CHAIR:
MHA Trimper.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you.
If I
had another hour I bet I wouldn't have anything else to ask, because we've been
checking it off. So well done, everybody.
I do
have some items. I'm not even going to bring them up because Dan and I had a
little chat, Minister, just during the break. And there are a couple of items
for potential disposal. So I'll give it to him and copy you on that list.
E. LOVELESS:
Okay.
P. TRIMPER:
I'm not going to belabour
it. There are two women that I think you know them, your department knows them;
they've reached out to us for help. So I'm asking about the status of the
distracted driving kills signs. Sarah Pittman and Frankie Ralph.
E. LOVELESS:
In all fairness, it's
something that the Members have brought to me before. We've had discussions and
when I said to you earlier during the break that you and I need to chat, then
that'll be on the conversation list.
P. TRIMPER:
Okay, all right.
And I
just want to say to one of my – I think he's one of my favourite people I have
to say I've met since I've been in government, Mr. Baker. We still enjoy great
harmony at the Goose Bay dock after having shifted that fence. We almost had a
little mini battle breakout at that dock between stakeholders and a couple of
years ago the department came to the rescue with a very simple fix and pacified.
And we haven't had a peep out of that community since. So well done to the
department.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Trimper.
E. LOVELESS:
So I think that's it; the
curtains are going to roll down. I appreciate the input and I appreciate the
other Members that make this exist and thank Mr. Pike for chairing and Bobbi. We
have a Page over here that's sitting patiently with us, so we thank him. Again,
I echo the staff that is behind me that works very hard and Margot, who is my
executive assistant, I appreciate her very much and she does great work.
But I
am going to single out one of the employees over here and that is the deputy
minister that I have. He is well known by a lot of MHAs and he has been in the
system for a long time, and I see what he carries in terms of issues in the
department and stuff. It is a huge department and the responsibility is
enormous. I just want to say to him that I appreciate his guidance because he is
the deputy minister and I am the minister, but we work in collaboration and I
appreciate everything he does and certainly all the other staff as well. It is a
good crew and I appreciate them and just want to say thank you to them from the
bottom of my heart.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
Clerk,
can you recall the grouping, please.
CLERK:
For the Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure, Air and Marine Services, 4.1.01 to 4.2.02
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.2.02
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.2.02 carried.
CLERK:
Total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure carried without
amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
I would like to thank the
Committee Members and the officials for being here this evening and the next
meeting for the Services Committee – oh my god – tomorrow, May 6, at 1 o'clock
to consider Estimates of Digital Government and Service NL.
Have a
good evening, everyone.
On motion, the Committee adjourned.