October 6, 2020
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derek Bennett, MHA for Lewisporte - Twillingate,
substitutes for Carol Anne Haley, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, James Dinn, MHA for St. John's Centre,
substitutes for Jordan Brown, MHA for Labrador West.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits, substitutes for
Paul Dinn, MHA for Topsail - Paradise.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis,
substitutes for Chris Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
The Committee met at 6 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Mitchelmore):
I would like to welcome everyone to the Estimates for Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture, as Chair of the Committee, Christopher Mitchelmore, the MHA for St.
Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows.
We will start our meeting by asking the minister and his team to introduce
themselves, and please wait until the light comes on before speaking. Throughout
the Committee meeting, if the light is not coming on, you may have to wave for
Broadcast so that they can identify. We will do the best we can to make sure
that it's a very smooth process.
With that, I'll ask the minister to begin introductions.
MR. LOVELESS:
Okay.
It's Elvis Loveless, MHA for the beautiful District of Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune.
MS. KING:
Tracy King, Deputy Minister.
MR. IVIMEY:
Philip Ivimey, Departmental Controller.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Lorelei Roberts-Loder, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. BALSOM:
Steve Balsom, Assistant Deputy Minister, Forestry and Wildlife Branch.
MR. DEERING:
Keith Deering, Assistant Deputy Minister, Agriculture and Lands Branch.
MS. NORMAN:
Katie Norman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Enforcement and Resource Services
Branch.
MR. TOMPKINS:
John Tompkins, Director of Communications.
CHAIR:
Now we'll –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Kevin Parsons from the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. FORSEY:
Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits.
CHAIR:
Your light didn't come on there. We'll just wait for Mr. Forsey's light. He's
sitting in Mr. Brazil's –
MR. FORSEY:
Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits.
MS. WALSH:
Susan Walsh, Researcher.
MR. J. DINN:
Jim Dinn, from the even more beautiful District of St. John's Centre.
MR. LANE:
Paul Lane, MHA for the thriving metropolis of Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Pam Parsons, for the historic fishing and strong District of Harbour Grace -
Port de Grave.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.
MR. BENNETT:
Derek Bennett, MHA for the beautiful, scenic and historic District of Lewisporte
- Twillingate.
MR. TRIMPER:
Perry Trimper for all 100,000 square kilometres of Lake Melville.
CHAIR:
I think we also have a staff person with the Official Opposition, who would be
sitting in –
MS. BONIA:
Laurie Bonia, Researcher with the Official Opposition Office.
CHAIR:
With the NDP there's a staff person as well.
MR. FLEMING:
Scott Fleming, Researcher, Third Party.
CHAIR:
Great.
Now that we have done the introductions, I would just like to remind all
participants of the Committee meeting that if you're moving about the Chamber
for any purpose to ensure that you are wearing a mask, if you need to get up to
use the facilities, or take a phone call or step out for any reason. We will
have a break typically halfway through the Estimates for 10 minutes.
I'm going to now turn matters over to Minister Loveless and his officials, to
the Committee, to have an opportunity to give an overview or introduction for 15
minutes. I'll ask the Clerk to call the heading.
CLERK (Hammond):
1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive carry?
I'll ask the minister now to bring opening remarks.
MR. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For me, I've been in many Estimates meetings, but this is the first as minister.
It's a privilege and I'm proud to be here.
I just wanted to say this department is the same department, but with a
different name, and that's Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. Just to note
that we no longer are responsible for protected areas. That's the only change in
the department.
I know I only have a few behind me, but there's more to the department than what
is behind me – 621 people, actually. I just want to thank those that are with me
tonight. I don't think we can thank them enough. I wouldn't be able to function
or the department wouldn't be able to function without them. COVID-19, we all
know, has challenged all of us, and I guess it's no different in this
department. They faced that challenge, but I believe they have done a good job.
I thank them and I thank all of you for participating tonight.
Without further ado, I'll let the proceedings begin.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I will hand matters over to Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much and thank you, Minister.
First of all, Minister, I'm wondering if we can get a copy of your binder.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, you certainly can. I have it here. And any other information that you're
looking for, we will certainly get it for you at a further date.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.
Is the attrition plan still being followed in your department? If so, what
changes from last year to this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll ask my deputy.
MS. KING:
The attrition plan is still being followed for this year. For this year, that
represents $173,652.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I noticed, Minister, you said that there was 621 staff now in the department. As
I remember, I think that was a little bit higher last year. Can you give me a
breakdown of the permanent, seasonal, temporary and contractual employees in the
department?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, I certainly can.
Of the 621, we have 438 that are permanent, 113 are seasonal, 64 are temporary
and we have six contractual. In '19-'20 we have 15 retirements. I don't know if
there's any other number that (inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Were any of those retirements filled this year?
MS. KING:
Some of them (inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Some have, okay.
Were there any layoffs in the department since last year?
CHAIR:
Just asking, for the purpose of Hansard, to identify yourself.
MS. KING:
Oh yeah, sorry. I'll get back into the swing.
No, there were no layoffs this year other than the usual seasonal layoffs that
we would have.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
How about new hires, any new hires in the department?
MS. KING:
No new positions were created, but of course we have competitions always
ongoing.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Are there any vacancies now in the department and what is the department doing
to refill them?
MS. KING:
Yeah, there are 74 vacancies in the department right now and 39 active
competitions.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
As we know, we're going through COVID, so what has your department done and has
it impacted anything on your budget and your departmental spending?
MS. KING:
COVID has been a big change, I guess, within the department. It's changed a lot
of the operations front line, of course. Changing from front-line service
delivery to online or appointment by phone. But as well, the department has also
really stepped up and we're really proud of the work that we have been doing to
support the point-of-entry process. It's our fisheries field representatives and
some of our resource enforcement officers that have been attending to the points
of entry at Port aux Basques and Lab City, and as well in Southern Labrador when
that border point was active. So that's been certainly a change in our business.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What effect has that had on the service delivery and the impact it had on
programs in your department?
MS. KING:
We have done, I think, well overall, maintaining our service delivery and
certainly we've seen that by moving more to on the phone. In fact, in some areas
– I'm thinking about domestic woodcutting permits and some of the Crown Lands
activities – we have actually found some efficiencies through that. Obviously,
dealing with COVID and making sure everyone is safe and doing their work safely
has been a challenge, but I think we've done really well overall.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Has your department received any monies from the COVID fund and for what
purposes?
MR. LOVELESS:
Just to reference the financial breakdown, I can provide this if you wish.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, yeah.
MR. LOVELESS:
That's for the economic recovery initiative in the department. The total
investment was $28.7 million.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
That's under, well, the agriculture, the aquaculture and the forestry.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Has your department received any money from the contingency fund?
MR. LOVELESS:
This is what I have in front of me here now.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Now, I have a couple of questions. Actually, last year I understand that the
deputy minister's office was located in Corner Brook. Is that …?
MS. KING:
The headquarters has always been in St. John's, but as deputy ministers we split
time between St. John's and Corner Brook.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Are we accommodating people that are going to Corner Brook? How is that handled
with the department?
MS. KING:
We have leased accommodations in Corner Brook for the deputy minister and the
assistant deputy minister of Enforcement and Resource Services. This year, given
the change in deputy and our personal circumstances, is a bit different.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Your Corner Brook office, it's a fairly new office that you have located over
there. Is there a need to do more renovations or is there a possibility that
that office could be moved?
MS. KING:
I will let the minister address the moving part, but I will just say the only
renovations that we've done are COVID related to ensure that plexiglass and
those types of things are there.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
We're not moving it to Torbay.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No.
MR. LOVELESS:
No, at this time, there has been no discussion – not with me – around any
relocation of any offices.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. No, I'm talking about a move in another office building, probably, in
Corner Brook. I hope you're not going to move it again. I don't want to see
that.
MR. LOVELESS:
No, again, I haven't been privy to any conversations on that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, no problem.
We're going to get into some of the line stuff now. If you turn to the first
page, Minister, it's your statement there of the department.
I just have a question on the Program Funding Summary. Under Fisheries and
Aquaculture, I see $5 million as capital. Can you explain what that is?
MR. LOVELESS:
Where are you?
MR. K. PARSONS:
On the very first page.
MS. KING:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LOVELESS:
Oh here, okay. The very first page. I skipped over, sorry.
That's the $5 million allocated for the Grieg.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, I thought that's what it was for.
MR. LOVELESS:
The Grieg project.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, let's get in to 1.1.01.
Under the Salaries, can you explain the variance?
MR. LOVELESS:
The actuals compared to the budget, you mean?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, and also there's an increase from budget to what we're going to have this
year, too. What was budgeted, the actuals. There's a variance there and I'm just
wondering what the variance is.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, the variance was for the minister's executive assistant, which was vacant
for a while.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
For I don't know how many months of the year, but it was vacant and that's why
the number is lower there. There's a salary adjustment required for '20-'21. We
have 27 pay periods this year, versus 26.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. All right.
Under Transportation and Communications, could you explain the variance there,
too, please?
MR. LOVELESS:
That was due to lower than anticipated travel expenditures during the year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Now, I do have a question and it's a question that maybe I'm going to ask three
or four times on Transportation and Communications. Under the circumstances we
find ourselves in now, we all know that there's going to be a lot of less
travel. I mean, there are no conferences; there's no nothing. Is there any
adjustment for what's happening to the departments?
I don't know if this was a question that was asked in other Estimates, but it
kind of struck me that under the circumstance we find ourselves in, there's
going to be a lot less travel and a lot less communications needed for different
conferences and whatnot. So I'm just wondering.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, to speak to that, I understand what you're saying, but for me as minister
and even the deputy or the ADMs, we do have a responsibility for the office in
Corner Brook and there will be travel there. But to tell you that there would be
a lot, lot less, I don't know. Based on the challenges with COVID, you would
think, yes, there will be less travel, because Zoom has become a reality of our
lives. If I can do it to be more efficient, then I certainly will as a minister.
There's no doubt about that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. All right.
I'm going to go to section 1.2.01. Again, the difference in the Salaries: Almost
$200,000 more spent than was budgeted last year and there's a reduction this
year. Can you explain it?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, the former deputy minister retired, so the severance and leave entitlements
were associated with that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Again, we go to Transportation and Communications here, and it's exactly how I
explained it the time before. It's a different variance, but there's a reduction
this year. Why is there a reduction?
MR. LOVELESS:
I guess I could repeat my answer before, in terms of lower than anticipated
travel expenditures during the year. But if the deputy wanted to add to that,
she certainly can.
MS. KING:
The reduction here really relates to your question at the beginning around
accommodations in Corner Brook. You see the reduction here related to travel and
then you'll see an increase in Purchased Services.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. That's my next question.
MS. KING:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What's included in that and why is there an increase in the Purchased Services?
MS. KING:
Yes, the increase in Purchased Services really relates to leased accommodations
in Corner Brook. That's not picked up in the travel line; that's picked up down
here to account properly for that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Last year's budget only showed $10,000. What's the reason for such an increase?
MS. KING:
The travel budget, it's the exact same total; it's just that the expenses are
allocated a bit differently. The circumstances of the previous deputy were that
she had private accommodations in Corner Brook, so that would be on the travel
line; whereas I don't, so some of that is picked up in Purchased Services
instead.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
What section are we going to next?
CHAIR:
You go as far as 1.2.02.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under this section here, it's a little bit interesting. This was a placeholder
the last couple of years and I think it was for the purchase of a boat. I don't
know if the funding that was announced this summer or is this related –
MR. LOVELESS:
Are you referring to 1.2.02?
MR. K. PARSONS:
1.2.02, yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes. I'll defer that to …
MS. KING:
This account, as you note, is a placeholder account. But, Minister, if you want
to take the opportunity, in the COVID funding there is funding for the vessel
for Aquaculture. I'm assuming that's what you're talking about.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, we'll have questions on that later, too.
MS. KING:
Yes. But that's just to (inaudible) so we'll see that this year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, that's it for that section.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Just some general questions, to start off. Overall, what initiatives are being
undertaken to combat invasive species that negatively affect our fisheries, in
particular green crab and surf clams?
MR. LOVELESS:
Are you referring directly to green crab?
MR. J. DINN:
Green crab, yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
I know DFO has initiatives in terms of fishermen, I guess, tackling, if that's
the word, the green crab species; but right now I don't have a plan that I can
say to you: This is what we're going to do tackle the problem. It certainly is a
problem that I've had discussions with to date. I'm still fairly new, August 20.
Even before becoming minister, I certainly chatted with the harvesters and the
concerned fishermen in my district as well.
I'll ask the ADM responsible if she wishes to add to that.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
DFO does have an active committee on aquatic invasive species, and green crab is
one of them. There are others. We do participate as a province on a
federal-provincial working group to discuss strategies to address green crab.
In terms of work that's ongoing in our province, we do fund some projects, or we
have funded some projects out of our Sustainable Fisheries and Oceans Policy
Division for green crab.
MR. J. DINN:
If I may follow up on that, I know, as a listener to The Broadcast, there was
some discussion – I think it was last year or the year before – about a
commercial fishery related to the green crab and there were some experimental or
sentinel – I don't know what you want to call it – project. Is there any attempt
to pursue some sort of a green-crab fishery with this? Apparently they are
edible. If I remember the comments from the fish harvesters, there didn't seem
to be a willingness at the government level to pursue this. Yet I know they're a
pretty invasive species; they're moving pretty quickly out of Placentia Bay. I'm
just wondering what the update is on that.
MR. LOVELESS:
To your question, again, I've had discussions around it. As the assistant deputy
minister alluded, there are concerns for it. Anyway, I'll ask the ADM to comment
further on it. She's more up to date on it than what I am.
MR. J. DINN:
Before, if I may, Chair, I'm just wondering is there a potential to turn this
into some sort of a commercial fish harvesting industry. That's where I'm going
with it. And kill two birds with one stone, more or less.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of a green-crab fishery, DFO is responsible for, of course, issuing
licences and they would determine whether or not there would be a green-crab
fishery going ahead. With regard to green crab, it is a very invasive species.
It's a possibility that it can travel in the water.
In terms of looking at it from a commercial standpoint, right now the direction
that DFO is giving is essentially that the crab is destroyed and it's destroyed
fully, because these species, apparently, can survive quite a bit and they can
do quite considerable damage to the ecosystem for a fishery, particularly where
the cod is spawning in the eelgrass and other things.
As of right now, DFO has not shown an interest in moving into green crab from
looking at issuing commercial licensing. It's more around the experimental so
that they can study the habitat and basically how we might be able to address
them from an aquatic invasive species.
MR. J. DINN:
Yes, I hear they're quite aggressive compared to others.
MS. KING:
They are indeed.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
With regard to, just an update on the sale of Quinlan Brothers to Royal
Greenland. I guess that's one of the things that have been brought to a number
of fish harvesters including representatives of the FFAW contact. Where are we
going with this? There's certainly a concern here that the monopolization of the
fishery by or the concentration hands of a few, can have detrimental impacts on
competition for fish harvesters and those who depend on the fishery.
MR. LOVELESS:
In terms of the transfer, I've signed off on it. There's no going back. I've
heard the concerns from the Member opposite and your concerns now. When the
decision was made, just to go to the process, I guess, there was a four- to
five-month process where the board welcomed objections from whomever. There were
no objections. That was what was presented to me in terms of the recommendation
from the board: There were no objections, other than one, referring to the St.
Anthony.
As I said in media, I believe this is a good transfer that will result in jobs
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I've recently met with officials of Royal
Greenland and I have to say I'm encouraged by that and I'm encouraged by what
they had to say in that meeting. I understand it in terms of foreign investment
concern, but I think I make a statement that: Where would we be without foreign
investment? The concerns as were asked, I guess, to me by Reg Anstey and the
board that moving forward the foreign investment should be part of a
conversation piece, maybe under the umbrella of a policy, and I said: Absolutely
it will be.
I don't know if that helps you.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
There's certainly a concern that you concentrate the processing in the hands of
a few, especially those who don't have real ties to the province – they're not
locally homegrown, I guess, for lack of a better description – that it puts the
fish harvesters and our plant workers at a bit of a disadvantage. I know we've
heard similar issues raised here and in the media, but that's where my concern
is.
Is there an opportunity to review this deal down the road, or is it done now for
all eternity?
MR. LOVELESS:
There is no going back in terms of a review.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
I'll probably have to come back to this, but this has to do with the merging of
conservation enforcement officers and Wildlife. I'm just wondering what's
driving that. You're merging the two divisions. You have your enforcement or
conservation officers and the forestry officers. What is driving this and what
will be the cost associated with it?
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, it's moving forward. The plan is certainly moving forward. We believe,
certainly always with conservation in mind, that this will enhance those that
are providing that service, and it certainly will enhance their duties and
responsibilities.
To give an update on where that is, I'll ask the ADM responsible for …
MS. NORMAN:
The rationale behind the restructuring is to provide greater scope to the
officers that are currently active in our backcountry. Prior to the merger,
which we are actively in the middle of right now, some officers had a
responsibility for forestry matters, while others had a responsibility for fish
and wildlife enforcement matters, to generally describe it.
With the merger, the same number of officers will be employed, but they will
have enhanced designations. When they're coming across issues of non-compliance
with our environmental regulations, they will be able to take action across a
variety of different mandates: everything from illegal occupation under Crown
Lands, animal health and protection, wildlife matters, inland fish matters under
the federal Fisheries Act and matters
related to ATV and snowmobile, just as a high-level example.
In terms of the cost, the operating budget you'll see here today reflects
current status and not the merger. The anticipation is that the funding
associated with the 44 conservation officers moving from Forestry Regional
Services will simply transfer into the division. There will be some upfront
training costs and uniform costs associated with that. The average cost of
outfitting a uniformed officer is about $12,000, but many of those officers are
already coming with duty belts and some of the more expensive personal flotation
devices, things of that nature, that they already have. We don't have a final
total on that now because it will depend on what those officers have and what
state of repair it's in. But certainly, once it's complete, we could release the
details of the cost.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn; your time has expired.
Mr. Parsons, do you have further questions?
MR. K. PARSONS:
I just have one question. I was going to ask it at the end.
The Royal Greenland topic was brought up. Minister, I'm wondering if you are
aware if there are any controlling agreements with the companies that are
involved.
MR. LOVELESS:
All I'm going to say to that is if there are any controlling agreements, bring
them to us.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Was there an investigation done or anything to check and see whether there are
controlling agreements there?
MR. LOVELESS:
That was my same response to FFAW as well, in terms of controlling agreements.
So that's all I'm going to say to that right now.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, all right. That's it for that section.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
I just want to follow up on the merger of conservation and forestry. How many
people are we talking about altogether? You may have mentioned that, I didn't
get it though. How many people are we talking about when we bring the two – the
total number of forestry officers and conservation officers?
MR. LOVELESS:
Are you referring to the numbers for the whole department or for the
reorganization?
MR. J. DINN:
Just the merger. I guess they're looking at the people who were out in the – I
think those who are out in the field, those who are responsible for enforcing
it. Actually, both divisions. The total number of people and also the number of
officers who are actually – who I'm going to meet out, I guess, on the river or
the backcountry or whatever.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah. Well, without not giving you the accurate number, I'll ask the ADM to give
us that number, please.
MS. NORMAN:
Currently we have 47 fish and wildlife enforcement officers and post
reorganization there will be 91, so there will be 44 additional. In terms of
headquarters positions, there would be, I believe, nine additional, but we could
confirm that. So just about 100 people will be in the division post
reorganization.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
I understand, too, then that one key difference, not in the training, is that
the conservation officers also – or enforcement officers carry side arms and I
understand forestry do not. Would that be correct?
MS. NORMAN:
Yes, that's accurate.
MR. J. DINN:
So we're looking at purchasing side arms for another, would that be correct, 44
people at least?
MS. NORMAN:
Yes, the department has within its custody additional side arms for those
employees, so that's not a cost that will have to be incurred this year.
MR. J. DINN:
And the training that goes with that?
MS. NORMAN:
That's correct, yes. All officers will be trained prior to being issued a side
arm.
MR. J. DINN:
And that training would be carried out by your department?
MS. NORMAN:
Yes, that's accurate. We have in-house trainers who will complete basic pistol
training.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
What I'm looking for, then, at the end is the total cost of doing this, when you
have those numbers, please. Because there are going to be, I guess, significant
costs in terms of letterhead, uniforms and so on and so forth. So when the final
cost is available, if that could be shared, please.
If I understand what you're saying, this is simply to increase the capacity of
the enforcement division so that officers will be able to do multiple – they
will be able to act on anything in terms of resource or forest management.
MS. NORMAN:
Yes. I mean, just to give a simple example: If officers are in the backcountry
and they come across somebody and they're checking whether or not they have a
big game licence, they may also have recently illegally cut some wood. At this
time, that would actually be two separate officers that would have to address
those illegal issues. Now it will be one officer who can deal with both illegal
woodcutting and also poaching.
MR. J. DINN:
Is there a plan, then, somewhere down the road, some sort of attrition – now
that you have the departments combined – to eventually reduce the number of
people employed in these divisions? Is this the first step towards actually
reducing the total number of people who are actually out in the field?
MR. LOVELESS:
No, that's not in the plan.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn, just for the purpose of the Committee and the flow of sections, I know
the minister has given a lot of latitude to your line of questioning, but they
could be dealt with the specific Estimates. Just for the flow of the Committee
and (inaudible) –
MR. J. DINN:
No, that's fair enough. That just means I won't be asking them at that time, as
well. I'll come back to that I'm assuming at some point, either at the end or
whatever, but I understand. I'm still looking at the cost. I'm just trying to
get an idea of the cost here.
CHAIR:
Absolutely. I'm just asking for the flow of the Committee if we could stick to
the line-by-line items of 1.1.01 to 1.2.02, which is the Minister's Office.
MR. J. DINN:
Well then I'll certainly come back to that, Chair. Thank you for your guidance.
Okay, on to 1.1, I think some of those questions then – that's the other reason,
Chair. My colleague to the left has asked most of the questions I wanted to ask.
But I'm looking at 1.1.01, Minister's Office, and I'm just wondering there with
regard to the travel, the question was asked: Will there be a lot less travel?
I'm wondering, too, certainly with the pandemic, but leading up to that, has
there been a greater reliance on technology for meetings? Zoom is what we all
know now, but I'm just thinking over the years and considering that you have an
office out in Corner Brook, is there a greater reliance on technology for
meetings, or is it still basically travel based?
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, since I've been –
MR. J. DINN:
I know you're new to this.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
I've done very little travel. It's been all Zoom and telephone calls in terms of
meetings and whatnot. I think it speaks to the reality of COVID. We've all come
to realize that you can do it by Zoom as well as travelling to that point. But,
again, back to the necessity for the deputy ministers and staff, going to Corner
Brook is a necessity. So there will be travel, although we're faced by COVID or
the challenge of COVID, I should say.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
One last question here in this section. You said protected areas are not part of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. Where would that have been accounted for
then in this part of the line by line? Would it have been in the Executive
Support or somewhere else?
MS. KING:
It comes under Agriculture and Lands for this year and then in the next budget
it will move to Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, I'll come to that at that time. Thank you.
I think, Chair, that's it right now for that section.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Dinn.
Members who aren't part of the Committee or official substitutes can attend a
meeting but can only ask questions if they are given leave. Mr. Lane has
attended meetings and has asked questions. I don't know, Mr. Lane, if you have
questions. If you would like to ask questions, we would have to ask for leave by
Members here of the Committee.
MR. LANE:
Yes, I wouldn't have line-by-line questions and so on, so everyone can go ahead.
But at the end of each section, with the leave of my colleagues, I might have a
question or two. That's what I've been doing.
CHAIR:
Is leave okay for Mr. Lane?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Leave has been granted.
Mr. Lane, do you have any questions at the end of this section.
MR. LANE:
The only question I have in this particular section – and it's kind of been
covered by my colleagues about the COVID. But in addition to travel, I think in
one of the answers we talked about woodcutting permits and different things,
doing it over the phone and all this kind of thing. I've been at every Estimates
and I ask it at every one of them. I think that these are things that we need to
be doing permanently if it can be done and can still be done efficiently to save
money, which we desperately need to do.
I don't know if there's any commentary as to the types of services and the types
of expenditures that have been curtailed as a result of COVID, whether it be the
use of Zoom for meetings, travel. I understand, Minister, you and the deputy
minister have to do some travel. But I'm talking about across-the-board
utilization of Zoom, utilization of online, telephone, other things and maybe
people working from home to save office space. Things that can be done to save
money overall, beyond COVID-19.
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, I've been to a couple of Estimates and you've asked the same question.
It's a good question. There's no doubt it.
Efficiency is a very nice word and all departments are certainly looking at it.
Again, Zoom is a reality and COVID-19 has brought about a lot of realities for
departments. So this department is no different in terms of looking at that and
if efficiencies can be had and we can do it. It's certainly a part of our
conversations in this department.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you.
I have a couple of questions around the fishery, but I think that will be in the
next section. So that's it for me for now.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Lane.
Any further questions from Committee Members?
I'll ask the Clerk.
CLERK:
1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.02 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.02 carried.
CLERK:
2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
I'm going to go to the line by line first. There's a difference there in the
variance in the Salaries, can you give us an explanation of that?
MR. LOVELESS:
That variance is due to vacancies that will happen during the year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
We're going to go to Transportation and Communications and, again, it's similar
to what we talked about earlier. I would like to have an explanation, too,
please, on that.
MR. LOVELESS:
I can't give you really any different answer.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, no, okay. I have to have it because I don't like the way it's going because
I understand we're going to be in the same situation for the rest of this year
and why we're budgeting more money than what's actually going to be used,
because we only used $54,000 and we're budgeting close to what was budgeted last
year. It's different when we're talking the Minister's Office where the deputy
minister and the minister has to move back and forth, but it's a bit of a
difference.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah. I'm hoping I can add a little bit to it for you. It was lower than
anticipated travel expenditures, but to move forward with the budget I guess
it's – I don't know what it will be this year, but based on the budget from last
year it is lower for '20-'21.
I don't know if anyone behind me wants to add to that.
MS. KING:
Just to add a little bit, particularly to last year's travel. I think last year
was a bit of a different year, from an FPT point of view, just because there was
a federal election and we had our own in the last fiscal year, so those caused
unanticipated delays as well. In here would be some of our funding for staff to
attend some of the trade shows and things that we would have seen late in the
year, late in the last quarter as some things start to come down. So that would
be explained here.
Frankly, as we head into the current year, it was really difficult for us to
plan or know exactly what would be a safe amount or how quickly, when we were
making some of these decisions, we might come out of where we were. So I think
as we head into '21-'22 it will be a bit of a different conversation now that we
have a bit more under our belt.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
On the next line, Supplies, there's a reduction. Can you explain the actual
spending that's getting done on this line?
MR. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible) Supplies?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Under Supplies, we only spent $9,000 and we budgeted $24,000, but it's gone back
to $24,000. What was the reduction in Supplies?
MR. LOVELESS:
That was for subscription costs for some of the seafood information and news
services, so they were lower than we anticipated.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under Professional Services, what's included and explain the increase in
spending last year and the reduction this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
To explain the $147,000, it was due to slightly higher than anticipated
Professional Services expenditures for research and market intelligence.
If there is anyone who wants to add to that, by all means.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the cost for that particular category, the market services or the
intelligence that's provided, it's provided to the Fish Price-Setting Panel.
Because of COVID and because of the unknowns in the fishery for this year, there
was an added cost because we required more frequent intelligence information to
be able to provide to the Fish Price-Setting Panel, as is our obligation.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
On the next line, Purchased Services, again, what's included and an explanation
of the variance, please?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance, again, was due to lower than anticipated expenditures associated
with trade shows and booth fees.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Then under Grants and Subsidies: Can you give us an explanation of what the
funding section is here and what they're for?
MR. LOVELESS:
They're for the Seafood Development Program, and I can ask the ADM responsible
to expand on that if you wish.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The Seafood Development Program supports the fisheries and aquaculture industry
for marketing and industry development. It's a program that allows us to address
projects, for example, that wouldn't be captured under the Atlantic Fisheries
Fund or other pots of funding that we would have. That particular amount is
fully subscribed, it was fully subscribed in this past year and it is a
provincial program.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
In this section, under the Fisheries section, this includes agriculture also.
How is that broken down? Because you have the fisheries and you have agriculture
in the one.
MR. LOVELESS:
How's it broken down in terms of aquaculture?
MR. K. PARSONS:
In terms of expenditures, basically. Was it a percentage or …? We're talking
marketing.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
We actually have one marketing and development officer that's responsible for
agriculture under this particular division. The expenses would be for whatever
work and supplies and things that are being carried out in the agriculture field
as well.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Can you give us an update on what the Fisheries Advisory board is doing and what
they have done?
MR. LOVELESS:
The Fisheries Advisory board right now is, I guess from my perspective, very
important and one that's certainly in my mandate letter. Right now the chair of
the advisory is going through, I guess, the Independent Appointments Commission
process. So we're anxious for that to be filled and certainly look forward to
when those meetings will begin and participating with them.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Okay. Did they meet last year? No?
MR. LOVELESS:
When you say last year?
MR. K. PARSONS:
In the last budget year, has the Fisheries Advisory board met?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The last meeting of the Fisheries Advisory Council was on March 29, 2019, and
the chair resigned on June 28, 2019, and it wasn't filled since that point. So
it's going through the Independent Appointments.
MR. K. PARSONS:
How much money has been spent on the Fisheries Advisory board in the last budget
year?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the money that was spent, there really hasn't been any amount of
money spent. There was $100,000 that was allotted for the Fisheries Advisory
Council, and you will note that that's no longer in our budget this year because
the time (inaudible) ended for that amount. But it can be covered under our
regular costs.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Minister.
MR. LOVELESS:
Just to add to that, the funding for the council before was a three-year
commitment of $100,000 per fiscal year. That ended on March 31. The support for
the council will continue under departmental existing funds.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Can you give me an update on what's happened with that cod revitalization plan,
the strategic plan that's happened for the cod revitalization?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm going to defer that one to Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The cod revitalization plan would be part of the work that's under the Fisheries
Advisory Council. That would be included in the work as we're ongoing this
coming year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'm going to go to section 2.1.02. Again, there's a big increase in this year's
amount for Salaries. Are there new staff hired here?
MR. LOVELESS:
That variance is due to additional aquaculture inspectors and additional
fisheries field reps budgeted for '20-'21. So there are new positions.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
You're lucky this time; I'm not going to ask you the Transportation and
Communications question.
Professional Services: What's included and can you explain the increase from
last year? That actually happened?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, that was due to a higher number of meetings by the Fish Processing
Licensing Board during the year, due to increased applications being received.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Did that have to do with where they had to go back to renegotiate the price
again? Is that the reason with the crab?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
No, that's a separate function. That's the Fish Price-Setting Panel. This is the
Fish Processing Licensing Board. It's for processing licences.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, okay.
Purchased Services: What's included here and explain the decrease in the budget
line here? You only spent $9,000, but you actually budgeted for $19,000.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah. Well, the variance is due to lower than anticipated Purchased Services
requirements during the fiscal year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Your time has expired, but I'm sure we can come back to you, Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Oh, we'll be back again.
CHAIR:
We will now move to Mr. Dinn for his questioning in this section.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Just a few things here. Under 2.1.01, Professional Services, and I know you said
such as research and market intelligence. I guess I'm looking for some more
specific details as to what exactly that involves. Is there a company that we
hire? Is there a service that we use? I'm just trying to get an idea. Do we send
someone down to get the information? I'm just trying to get an idea of what
exactly is involved. I guess it's a such as question.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, you're asking for more research and market intelligence, correct?
MR. J. DINN:
Yeah, I'm just asking what exactly are we talking about in Professional Services
when you were talking about research and market intelligence? Where do we get
that from?
MR. LOVELESS:
Right, I'll ask Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
We get that from multiple sources. There are a number of trade subscriptions
that we have that provide us updates on market sources, as well as depending on
the species that we would have to provide the intelligence on. Some of it is
consultants that are experts in those particular fields. Unfortunately, I don't
have a list with me, but it's a variety of different sources, it's not just one
source. Again, it's in some cases species dependent.
MR. J. DINN:
Would it be possible to have a list of the consultants, at least, or the sources
that are used here?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
We can certainly get that for you.
MR. J. DINN:
Perfect.
That would be the same thing with the Purchased Services. I think my colleague
asked a question along those lines. Again, there's a drop of $60,000, I think.
But the Purchased Services, would that be along the same lines, or would they be
something different under 2.1.01?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Under Purchased Services?
MR. J. DINN:
Yeah.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Under Purchased Services, in terms of what that category is for, that is not for
market intelligence. Basically the variance was there, it was due to lower than
anticipated expenditures due to trade shows and booth fees. In particular, COVID
struck us right when Boston and Brussels trade shows were happening in terms of
costs associated with those.
MR. J. DINN:
I guess that's where I'm going, Chair. That's basically what the Purchased
Services would be for, for trade shows and marketing opportunities like that.
Under 2.1.02, Transportation and Communications: Whereas my colleague wasn't
going to ask you, I will ask just as to what exactly is involved when it comes
to – is that for people involved with the licensing or is it for departmental
travel? I notice there it's dropped. It's $87,000; it dropped significantly this
year. I'm assuming that's COVID-related. We're budgeting $84,500 for it.
I'm just wondering, when we talk about transportation, what are we talking about
there?
MR. LOVELESS:
Again, the answer is similar to what I said before: lower than anticipated
travel. Staff meetings were held via video conferences and whatnot. That's due
to the reduction. The budgeted amount for this year, well, I guess it's
uncertain what's going to happen in the coming year.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Minister.
That's what I'm asking. That's staff travel, then, mostly. That's what that
would be for, correct?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. Thank you.
That's it for 2.1.02. May I go on, Chair?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
2.1.03. I think in – I'm not sure if it was in the Budget Speech, it talks about
how the fund will be used to foster growth and assist processers, aquaculture
specialists and aquaculture operators to expand their product lines.
I'm just wondering how will that fund be used to do that, the Atlantic Fisheries
Fund.
MR. LOVELESS:
Sorry, say that again, if you don't mind repeating.
MR. J. DINN:
I might have it here, actually. In the Budget Speech on page 14, it talks about:
The fund will be more or less used to foster growth and assist processors and
aquaculture operators to expand their product lines. I'm wondering how this fund
will be used for those purposes.
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm going to refer that to Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of your question, the Atlantic Fisheries Fund actually has two parts to
it. One piece funds innovative projects and partnerships, research and
development, marketing science and infrastructure for harvesters, processors and
the aquaculture industry.
There's a secondary process as part of it and it's called the Canadian Fish and
Seafood Opportunities Fund. It's a part of the AFF, the Atlantic Fisheries Fund.
That supports pan-Canadian seafood marketing projects. It does both. It actually
supports the growth and development of the industry.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
Furthermore, why was $7 million of a projected $9.7 million awarded in Grants
and Subsidies last year? I also note that $3.7 million was left on the table
here in the 2018-2019 actuals. I'm just looking here; there seem to be a
decrease.
MR. LOVELESS:
Just to speak to the AFF process, applications come in and the money goes out,
but there's a lengthy process to that. Jim, in terms of your question, I don't
know. Are you asking for a list of the AFF projects?
MR. J. DINN:
That would be useful as well, yes, please.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah. Do you want me to get into that or do you want us to provide you a list?
MR. J. DINN:
If it's too lengthy to get in now, providing a list would be useful.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, we'll do that, if you don't mind. We'll certainly provide that.
MR. J. DINN:
Perfect.
Again, though, looking here, certainly there's a drop in Grants and Subsidies. I
would assume then that's just reflective of the fact that there haven't been as
many applications or many awarded. I notice that it dropped significantly in the
actuals for 2019-20. It's up a bit from the actuals but it's still down from the
$9.7 million.
I'm assuming that's like she said, money in, money out; it's just fewer awards
or fewer people applying for grants and subsidies?
MR. LOVELESS:
It's a process. I'm not going to be slow with it because I know how important it
is to harvesters and others in the fishing industry, but there is a process to
it.
I don't know if, Lorelei, you want to add?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
With reference to your question, I think the piece that would be helpful for you
is to know that this, the Atlantic Fisheries Fund, is a seven-year program; it
spans from 2017 to 2024. The total amount that the province is committed is
$41.8 million.
Essentially, the way that it works is that it's application-driven. As
applications come in, the money goes out as they're approved. There's a whole
technical review process that happens by both the province and DFO. DFO is
actually the administrative lead for this particular program.
In terms of the way that the funding goes in and out, overall for the whole
seven years we have that commitment of $41.8 million. At any given year we could
spend – so we budget a certain amount for each year. We may go under that but
that's just basically how it s budgeted. You would just carry that over to the
following year.
MR. J. DINN:
Then, if I may, one last quick question. Basically, you're looking at this in
the long run. In the end, the total amount will be spent but it will vary from
year to year.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
MR. LOVELESS:
Just a point: Any unspent funds are carried over to the next year.
MR. J. DINN:
Right. So it doesn't go on the debt, it's still in play somewhere.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
I mean, like any process, not every application gets approved. It has to be
within the scope of the program.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn.
I move to Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, I want to get back to what Mr. Dinn was saying there with the Grants and
Subsidies. Every year it seems like it's a little bit less than what's always
allocated there, budgeted for that year.
I know it's application-driven and stuff like that. Were there not enough
applications this year? I'm just wondering about the application process. Were
there lots of applications in? How many got turned down?
MR. LOVELESS:
You're still on AFF, right?
MR. K. PARSONS:
What's that?
MR. LOVELESS:
You're on 2.1.03?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, 2.1.03, Atlantic Fisheries Fund, Grants and Subsidies.
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll defer that to …
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of AFF, the amount of the project could vary. Not every project that
comes in is the same cost. In actual fact we have a number of harvesters, for
example, that would be funded, but if they're coming in as individuals, it's
probably a lower amount. In terms of the amount, it's not necessarily the number
of projects; it's the amount of money that the projects total.
In terms of expenditure, to date in the province we've spent, as I said, $15
million in terms of our provincial contribution, with $35 million as the federal
contribution because it's a 30-70 split, so $50 million has been spent in total
AFF contribution in the duration of the project since 2017. At this particular
point in time, our province actually is leading in terms of the amount of
projects that we are funding and the amount of money that we've funded.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
You said the provincial money spent this year was how much?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The total, not this year. The total since the beginning of the program.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
It was how much, $21 million?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
We've spent $15 million in provincial contribution and $35 million is the
federal contribution, for $50 million in total of AFF contribution.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Minister, I would also like a list and a breakdown, too, of what the projects
were.
MR. LOVELESS:
No problem.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
When we deal with applications to the province, like the criteria, has that
changed over the years? Are people receiving – I'm interested in where the money
is getting spent in the program itself. Can you give us a little breakdown on
how the processing or do the harvesters – what money is in there?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
I can't give you the actual breakdowns per category, but I can say to you from a
harvester's standpoint, we are funding a lot of automatic jiggers and fish tubs
because they help with the fish quality. In terms of processing plants, we've
invested in new technology that improves the yield for the cutting of the fish
and improves the quality of the fish. In terms of aquaculture, we've had a
number of innovative projects that have been funded.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'm going to go to section 2.1.04. Again, I would like an explanation of the
variance on the Salaries.
MR. LOVELESS:
Again, that's due to vacancies within the division during the year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
When we go to Purchased Services, there's a small amount, but what's included
here?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance is due to lower than anticipated Purchased Services expenditures
during the year, but I don't know if the deputy wants to refer to what the
actual amount represents.
MS. KING:
This is just funding for printing, any meeting space and those types of things
that might be required. Obviously, there was very little of that last year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under the Grants and Subsidies, we've been told that in the past this money was
for science, cod recovery initiatives. Is this still the case? What projects are
included this year or the past year?
MR. LOVELESS:
I can confirm that it is for fishery science and resource and cod recovery, but
I can ask the ADM to respond to the actual question.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of where this money has been spent, $500,000 of it is earmarked for a
MUN scholarship each year, in terms of fishery science, resource management. The
other amount of funding or funding projects that we've looked at this year, as
I've mentioned earlier, we've done some things on green crab. We've funded a
project on there. Most of the funding is going to projects under Marine
Institute and Memorial University for research around fishery science and cod
recovery.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'm going to go to section 2.1.05.
In this section, Grants and Subsidies, this is for the fish plant workers
employment program, so I gather there was no actual shutdown or any plants that
needed to be subsidized this year.
MR. LOVELESS:
You're right in terms of the scope of the program, what the money is for. The
answer to the question – yeah, there have been no permanent closures and
hopefully there won't be.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Are you aware of any plants that are possibly deemed to be permanently closed in
the next year or so?
MR. LOVELESS:
Not right now. Again, hopefully there won't be any.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Can you give me how many crab plants are currently operating in the province?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Just give me one sec.
Right now we have 24 plants that process snow crab.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
How many shrimp plants are in the province?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Eight.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Eight. Okay.
Section 2.1.06. Now, I understand that this was an inventory loan. This means
that there was just $27,000 paid on this loan this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
Say that again. Sorry, I was flipping the pages and my hearing went.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I understand that this was an inventory loan. It seems that there was over
$27,000 paid on this, repaid. Is that what this is –?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, the revenue was received related to seal inventory financing from – I'm
going to pronounce it – Phocalux for a 2019-20 repayment of loan.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I'm going to go to section 2.2.01. Can you explain the variance in the Salaries
this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
Again, that's for vacancies within the division during the year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
The difference, again, here in Transportation and Communications, I know you
explained it, but it's a good bit of money that's been allocated. What happens
to that money if it doesn't get spent? What do you do with it in the department?
MS. KING:
If funding isn't spent in the department and it's not used to fund a variance
somewhere else, then it goes to a positive impact to the province's bottom line,
any savings that we have.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Purchased Services: What's included here?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's primarily (inaudible) to snow clearing and wharf repairs.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
One time there was a program offered for wharf repairs. Is that program still in
place?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm told no.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Why would you have wharf repairs if there was a program, no money there?
You're saying it's for wharf repairs, but yet there's no program you can apply
for.
MS. KING:
The department owns a number of wharves, four of them in this case, that are
aquaculture related. So while the program that would have funded community
wharves and those things has ended, this funding is for wharves that the
department actually owns and maintains.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment: What's included here and why is there
such less spent than last year?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance is due to less requirement to replace equipment during the year.
For instance, boat and scientific equipment for monitoring. The equipment was
repaired instead of replaced.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I guess I'm finished now on that one.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Parsons.
I now recognize Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I just have to find my place again. I think I left off, yes, at 2.1.03. I'll
just go back there; I have one or two questions on that.
The minister was tasked with using the Canadian Fish and Seafood Opportunities
Fund to advance marketing initiatives, target new markets and leverage benefits
arising from new free trade deals with Europe and Asia. Would it be possible to
have an update on this fund? How much money has this fund leveraged?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll defer that question over to Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the Canadian Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund, as I had mentioned
it's for pan-Canadian seafood marketing projects. Essentially, there was
$800,000 spent to date towards projects.
Unfortunately, those projects have not been formally announced yet because we do
have a contractual agreement with the federal government, so there has to be a
formal announcement, first release, to release the information. As of right now
we've participated in seven projects for that amount of money.
MR. J. DINN:
Seven projects? Thank you.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Again, those would be projects in a pan-Canadian light that would have an impact
on the province, so they would benefit.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Would it be possible to have an update on the Seafood Innovation and Transition
Program? What type of innovation is being encouraged and what new technologies,
if any?
MR. LOVELESS:
Do you want to repeat that, Sir?
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn, I think you need to repeat the question, please.
MR. J. DINN:
Repeat that? No problem.
Would it be possible to have an update on the Seafood Innovation and Transition
Program? What type of innovation is being encouraged and what new technologies?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Are you referring to under AFF or under a different …?
MR. J. DINN:
I'm just looking here in seafood innovation. I guess it would be under AFF as
well.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
AFF, in terms of the funding there are different pillars. Essentially, it's
research development, innovative technology, marketing science and
infrastructure.
Any applications that come in, they would fall under a pillar and that's how
they're funded. Is that what you're asking?
MR. J. DINN:
I'm just wondering if there is any particular type of innovation that is being
encouraged.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Any type of innovation that increases, for example, yield in terms of fish, or
allows harvesters the ability to eliminate bycatch, those types of things;
anything that increases the quality of the fish. As I had mentioned earlier, for
example, a lot of harvesters have invested in automatic jiggers and they've
invested in fish tubs. That would increase the quality of the fish because
you're not using gillnets, for example.
MR. J. DINN:
Right.
Would any money of that go towards innovation in aquaculture, for example?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Yes, it would.
MR. J. DINN:
What technologies would it support?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
For example, in oyster farming we've had technology called an optic eye funded
out of this pot. There has been a number of other aquaculture funding that has
been funded under the innovation pillar. Unfortunately, I can't remember them
off the top of my head right now but, certainly, the minister has agreed to
provide a list and they would be included in that list.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. Thank you very much.
If I may go just back to 2.1.01 for a second. I just asked a question with
regard to Purchased Services and I think you said it was related to travel and
trade shows. I know it dropped a little bit.
I'm just wondering: Who would normally go to that? Would that fund department
representatives? Would it fund industry representatives as well? Who would be
the people attending the trade shows or would be covered by those services?
MR. LOVELESS:
It depends on the actual trade show itself. For me, I haven't attended one yet,
so I can't refer and give you an example of the one that I attended. The goal of
any trade show is to showcase the province.
To your question, it would be just for staff, not industry.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Then industry would take care of paying their own way, more or less, if they
were going to it.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
I did attend the Boston seafood show when I was with the former premier and
stuff. I don't know, Kevin, if you've ever been to one of those shows.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Always wanted to go.
MR. LOVELESS:
Always wants to go. Well, I might take you if you're nice to me, if I ever get a
chance.
MR. J. DINN:
Keep the Third Party in mind, too.
MR. LOVELESS:
Industry is certainly involved. It's a good show for government and for
industry, no doubt, in terms of showcase.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. Thank you.
Just a few other questions there now. I'm just keeping track of my notes.
On to 2.1.05. I think you'll notice that there's due to vacancies – no, that's
fair enough. I think you have that. What were the vacancies, by the way? I think
that there was a decline of $43,700. What position – I guess it is one position
– was vacant?
MR. LOVELESS:
You referenced? Sorry.
MR. J. DINN:
Sorry, that's in 2.1.04. My mistake. My apologies.
MR. LOVELESS:
I have to ask you to repeat, Jim.
MR. J. DINN:
No problem. Gladly.
Under 2.1.04, the Salaries – and I think, Minister, you said that the decrease
in that was due to vacancies. What was the vacancy or vacancies?
MR. LOVELESS:
Vacancy, I'm told.
MR. J. DINN:
Yeah.
MR. LOVELESS:
Policy analyst, to confirm that vacancy.
MR. J. DINN:
Is that a position that will replaced then? It will be.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
On to 2.1.05. Just out of curiosity – and I know Mr. Parsons asked the question
about crab plants – with regard to supporting communities and individuals
affected by plant closures, has the government explored a means of keeping
plants open, such as allowing plants to produce and process more species of
fish? Is that always a possibility?
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, it's certainly a hopeful prospect, I guess. Like any fish plant and any
processor in this province, they have to have the resource to put through the
plant in order for it to operate. That resource, the allocation, they're given
to harvesters. Harvesters sell to processors and therefore plants operate. I
don't know if that answers your question or confuses you any more.
MR. J. DINN:
That could be a mixture of both, Minister. That, I can only assure you.
I'm just curious, certainly in terms of the – we heard a lot of talk about
redfish and I've spoken to a few people. There's a hope there that the redfish
will solve a lot of those problems – or help solve a lot of those problems as
well.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
Redfish – the most recent conversation I had around that it kind of excited me,
because as a young fellow, redfish provided a lot of employment out on the South
Coast, especially for my own brothers. To realize that there's a healthy quota
there that can be hopefully used in this province to create employment is very
positive.
I'm glad you mentioned that in terms of redfish. I think Kevin mentioned it
today in his notes, as well, around redfish. I think we're all on the same page
in terms of hopefully that quota will be available for the province so we can
put people to work.
MR. J. DINN:
One quick question before my time runs out.
With regard to the Seal Product Inventory Financing, I'm just wondering and I
think you partially answered mine, any loans in particular that are being repaid
here and why was the projected repayment amount lower than anticipated? Just
fewer people paying it back or …?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll defer that to the deputy.
MS. KING:
This is a single loan for Phocalux. Last year –
MR. J. DINN:
I'm sorry, would you spell that?
MS. KING:
Sure, P-H-O-C-A-L-U-X.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
MS. KING:
That was their repayment amount for last year, which was lower, and so this year
we're hopeful that they will be able to make further payment on the loan.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn.
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you.
I'm going to go to section 2.2.01. Again, there's a variance there in the
Salaries. We didn't spend as much and we're spending a bit more this year. Can
you give us …?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's 2.2.01, right?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
Salaries?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
That was due to vacancies within the division during the year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So, obviously, you're planning on hiring somebody this year, is that the case?
MR. LOVELESS:
Oh yeah, and the extra pay period, too, Kevin. Twenty-seven pay periods this
year versus 26, so that's the salary adjustment required for '20-'21.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
I don't know if you were asking that or not.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What's that?
MR. LOVELESS:
I don't know if you were asking that or not.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, no, that's okay, because my next question was (inaudible).
MR. LOVELESS:
Okay.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under Purchased Services: Can you tell us what's included here?
MR. LOVELESS:
I think you asked that question before.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Did I ask that question before?
MR. LOVELESS:
You did. That was the snow clearing and the wharf repairs.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Oh, okay. Yes, okay. I have a note made of that.
But my question is, obviously you repaired last year, so what are you doing with
the wharves this year? Are you replacing wharves?
MR. LOVELESS:
I haven't been a part of any conversation about replacing any wharves, but I'll
ask the deputy.
MS. KING:
Thank you.
It's really about if there is kind of a capital, a larger repair that's
required. That's what would fall under Property, Furnishings and Equipment,
whereas minor maintenance would fall under Purchased Services.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I have some questions here now under that section. Can you provide an update on
the status of the Grieg aquaculture project?
MR. LOVELESS:
The Grieg project?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
Give me a minute.
I'm sure you're familiar with the ACEP, which is the Aquaculture Capital Equity
Program. That was established by government to assist with the increasing
production of commercial aquaculture operations in the province, and one being
Grieg. Under that program, $2 million was budgeted to be advanced to Grieg in
2019-20 and $3 million in '20-'21, for a total of $5 million. They will be paid
based on their – and some of it being construction milestones. Once they reach
their milestone, they will be paid.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Actually, I had the opportunity to visit their project probably about a
month or so ago. It was pretty impressive, to tell you the truth.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, I haven't had the chance yet, Kevin, but certainly looking forward to it.
Because I know you've visited the South Coast, too, and know how much the
aquaculture is certainly a pillar for employment in those areas.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Definitely.
Can you give me an update on the Canada-Newfoundland MOU on aquaculture?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm going to defer that one to Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the Canada-Newfoundland aquaculture MOU, we're currently still in
discussions with the federal government on that. We have had a number of
meetings, but there is nothing solidified yet in terms of an agreement.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Can you give me an update on anything in regard to the new federal government
aquaculture act?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The federal government aquaculture act, they're currently in consultations on
that right now. We are involved in a working group with the federal government
on the development of that particular act. Right now, as I had mentioned, the
federal government has done consultations and they're doing another round of
consultations. Actually, during this period they're preparing for that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Is the federal government giving you any timelines on when they're …?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
They have not, in terms of when they think they will have everything ready.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
In July, the former minister announced $725,000 funding for the aquaculture
industry for a new 32-foot boat and upgrades to the lab facilities in St.
Alban's and support for the development of the Bays West and Bay d'Espoir. Has
this money been spent and if so, on what?
MR. LOVELESS:
You're correct. For the Bays West salmonid aquaculture development it was
$720,000 and also for aquaculture there was a fish and seafood live holding and
cold-storage study. But in terms of to date progress I'll give that to Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of to date, that money was under the COVID. There's $500,000 that's
allotted for the vessel and we've gone through first round with the vessel to
develop the specs. So we're working with the provincial purchasing agency now to
identify the best way to go about looking for the builder for that boat to do
the specs.
The other piece is for the lab in St. Alban's. The contract has been awarded to
do some renovations, so it was to remove the live holding tanks up in the second
floor that were causing some leakage issues. That has been removed. Now the
second piece of that will be occurring to actually put offices and do the
renovations to that space.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. I noticed in the –
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
I believe Air-Tite was the …
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
The budget referenced the $5-million repayable assistance loan to Grieg and it
also mentioned that it's going to generate over 800 jobs. Can you provide some
detail on that?
MR. LOVELESS:
On the up-to-date employment numbers?
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's a $5-million repayable – we talked about it in the very first question, I
think, I asked you about. You said it was $5 million for a loan to the project.
MR. LOVELESS:
Right.
MR. K. PARSONS:
In the budget it also said that this would generate over 800 jobs. I'd like you
to provide the detail on that.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, and you're right. There was a budget line of $5 million in repayable
assistance for Grieg. So I'll ask Lorelei if you want to (inaudible).
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the particular positions, it's approximately 850 jobs. That includes
construction, supply and service and it also includes those who would be in
operations. The $5 million was for the construction and operation of the
hatchery and the nursery piece that's contributing and that's the milestone for
that. But it is $5 million from a $30-million commitment over the next seven
years. The total number of jobs for the entire project is approximately 850
jobs.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What stage are they at with the project? I know that they had the first stage
done where they had the fish there. Where are we now on the project?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of where they are now, they're just finalizing their final pieces of
the milestone for the hatchery and the nursery. They will have met the
milestones for that, we believe, in the coming weeks, the next number of weeks.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
The seafood marketing and innovation fund: In July the former minister announced
a one-time $400,000 seafood marketing and innovation fund to support marketing
for seafood products.
How much of this has been spent and on what? How is this different from the
existing fund in the department?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the seafood marketing and innovation fund, this is a pot that was
put in place specifically to address some issues that had been caused in the
seafood industry with regard to COVID in terms of marketing and developing new
product lines. Restaurants were closed so they had to move their product from
restaurant packaging, for example, to being able to provide it in retail.
In terms of what has been spent to date, we have two projects that we're in the
process of approving. We have a number of other applications in the queue that
we have been adding in. Now, we have no idea if all of these will actually meet
the criteria for the actual program.
There's only $400,000 for this program so it will be kind of first-come,
first-served in terms of the application process. We're looking at probably
about $100,000 of that in the first two projects.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Mr. Parsons, your time has expired.
As I said at the beginning of the Estimates, midway through we would take a
break. I'm suggesting that we reconvene at 7:42, take a 10-minute break to give
anybody an opportunity if they need to use the washroom or make a telephone
call.
We'll reconvene Estimates at 7:42. Thank you.
Recess
CHAIR:
All right, we'll get back to our Committee business here.
I look down to the MHA for St. John's Centre, Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
If I might go to 2.2.01, I just want to go back to Purchased Services and just
to verify what I've heard. Mostly that $50,000, if understood it, had to do with
wharf repair and snow clearing of wharves and facilities. Would that be correct?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Those wharves would be primarily used by the aquaculture?
MR. LOVELESS:
Correct.
MR. J. DINN:
Would that be open to the public as such? Could anyone tie up there?
MR. LOVELESS:
No. I can stand to be corrected, but these are clean wharves and they're used
for the aquaculture industry. So it's not for you or I to use.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
That's money that we're paying to take care of the maintenance of those wharves
for the aquaculture industry.
MR. LOVELESS:
Correct.
MR. J. DINN:
That's in addition to the aquaculture investment below. Are they sharing in the
maintenance or the clearing at all of that? Or is that our share? Is that the
total amount that we budget to do that?
MR. LOVELESS:
It's not just for snow clearing and –
MR. J. DINN:
No, no, I understand that. But in terms of anything to do with wharf maintenance
for those wharves, are the aquaculture industry or companies that are using it,
are they paying anything for those services or is that entirely something that
the province is paying for?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll ask Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
They do lease those wharves. The actual amount that they pay doesn't come in to
the aquaculture development budget; it goes into another budget in the
department. So it's not reflected here but each one of those companies lease the
wharves.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
If I may then, they lease them from us so that's what the province is paying to
maintain them, let's say. That covers a (inaudible). The lease amount, what
would they be paying in lease? Would the leases that they're paying, would that
cover the cost of this or less or would we be making a profit on it? I'm just
curious, I mean it's –
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Unfortunately, I can't answer that. I would have to get that information for
you.
MR. J. DINN:
I would love to have that information, please, that would be great.
If I may, in 2.2.02, and I think you touched on this, but I wasn't sure if I was
hearing it for the right section. The money then, this is part of a $30-million
commitment to Grieg?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
They were looking at 850 jobs. Why the increase then? It was $2 million up to $5
million from last year, is that to be expected?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's the budgeted amount and payable to them based on their milestone, which I
think Lorelei had mentioned before about the construction milestones, so around
the hatchery and stuff.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
If I may then, just a general question on this section here before I go to
further questions on 2.2.02. The percentage of fish – I'm just looking at –
there's the hatchery stage, there's the sea pen aspect of it and then there's
the processing. What is the percentage of fish processed within the province?
How much of it is processed and how much of it is shipped out head-on, gutted?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll just say a few words to that. That depends on the fish plant itself. In my
district I have Cooke Aquaculture and I have Mowi, which is operated in Harbour
Breton by Barry, and a lot of it is market driven. Head-on, gut is what the
market – that's what the company has been saying. But obviously, as an MHA, I
fight for more jobs in Harbour Breton and more hours. We've had this
conversation as well. But the companies say it's all market driven.
It can vary. I can't say what's good for one company is good for the other in
terms of the actual fish plant. In terms of numbers, I don't know if you can add
anything to that, Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LOVELESS:
No. So I don't know if that answers your question.
MR. J. DINN:
I think, Minister, you know where I stand on aquaculture and the whole need. If
we're going to do it, let's do it sustainably and preferably without damaging
our wild Atlantic salmon stocks. I'm just looking at it, if we're going to be
doing this and they're getting a pretty good deal here – let's face it, the
companies are in the pristine waters that we have – I would hope that we are
getting a bigger bang for the buck in terms of the processing, so that's where
the jobs are.
As I understand it, Grieg, for example, is there a still a requirement that 75
per cent of the fish must be processed to the fresh fillet stage for them to
operate? Is it 25 per cent for head-on, gutted? Would you know that?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm going to say yes to that and I think I'm correct in saying, yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
But that wouldn't be the requirement then, as you pointed out, for Mowi and
Cooke Aquaculture and the others? They may be under a different regime?
MR. LOVELESS:
Correct. But I guess in all fairness, those conversations that I had with them,
because what happened last year and this year with COVID-19, we face all these
challenges. So markets can change, no doubt about it.
Just to go back to your comment about doing it right. I value your concern, no
doubt about it. But, Jim, if you want to sometime come to my district, I'd be
happy to take you to – and I say this out of much sincerity because I've visited
the new sites, and my ADM has done it as well. I've voiced those concerns about
growing fish in our pristine waters and what we expect of those companies.
Mowi itself, I visited the actual sites when they had the new depth cages. They
talked about how many fish they would like to grow. I'm telling you, it's
meaning that a possibility that the plant in Harbour Breton would be operating
12 months out of the year. That's encouraging overall.
But I do encourage you. I would arrange to have you on the site, no doubt, and I
say that with much sincerity. You too, Kevin.
MR. J. DINN:
Minister, many years ago I visited one. My only regret is that I didn't bring my
salmon rod with me at the time, nevertheless.
Sustainability is going to be the key word here.
MR. LOVELESS:
Oh, absolutely.
MR. J. DINN:
Also, if we're going to be doing this, then I think we really need to be making
sure that there's the maximum bang for the buck for the people who work in the
region. Instead of just shipping it out, head on, gutted, I think that it's a
better deal with Grieg. At least that's a start but I think we need to look at
how we process more and really ramp up the production for our own people here,
if we're going to invest in it.
MR. LOVELESS:
No, totally and I agree with you. Even the fish plant in Hermitage, they have a
robot there. Everybody always asked the question: Does machinery take away jobs
from ordinary individuals? For that robot alone they will need four positions to
maintain it because it's quite technical. It eliminates, really, two jobs but
we're gaining – two, actually, because there are four jobs replacing two.
MR. J. DINN:
But we're also getting more skilled labour as well, which is a good thing.
MR. LOVELESS:
We are. The robot eliminates, too, the older folks who are on the fish plant,
the lifting. It looks after their health and safety as well. It's, as you said,
good bang for the buck.
MR. J. DINN:
Perfect. Let me see …
The money for the program – just to make sure, I think I know what the answer
is. The capital investment equity is coming from what agency, from the
department itself or as part of the province's –?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll ask Tracy.
Yeah, from the department. Correct.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Perfect, on to 2.3.01 – I'm just about done – very quickly. The Purchased
Services, again, that's for the maintenance of the wharves? Is that what I heard
you say to Mr. Parsons? Did I hear that correctly?
MR. LOVELESS:
For Purchased Services?
MR. J. DINN:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance was due to major work conducted on reportable disease and mortality
events with aquatic animals in Newfoundland and Labrador due to the events of
last year.
MR. J. DINN:
I'll leave it now but I would like to finish out one or two questions on that
section.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Dinn, if you want to finish up a couple of questions, you can go ahead.
MR. J. DINN:
I'm just going to the Professional Services. I'm looking here in terms of the
cleaner fish. Where are we with cleaner fish? Especially in dealing with the
problems – the use of cleaner fish, such as RAS and lumpfish, present
themselves. Where are we with that? Now I think that was part of the mandate of
Marbase in Marystown.
MR. LOVELESS:
Right. I'm not going to answer it as such. I'll leave it to Lorelei to try to
answer that if she could. She's visited a lot of the sites, which is certainly
good in terms of seeing what the operations are.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
I have visited the sites but, obviously, Marbase wouldn't be one of them because
I believe they're just going through or just been released from an environmental
process. In terms of where cleaner fish are in terms of the development piece, I
know primarily right now there is lots of work going on at the Marine Institute
around cleaner fish. I do believe Marbase is working with them as well.
A lot of the companies are getting their cleaner fish from other locations; I
mean they're natural cleaner fish out of the ocean. In terms of Marbase, I
really can't tell you what the status of that company is at this particular
point in time, but they obviously aren't –
MR. J. DINN:
I was more interested not necessarily about Marbase, just about the whole
progress on cleaner fish, whether they are as effective or not and the use of
therapeutants as well. I don't know how far down that line we're proceeding with
use of cleaner fish to try to control the sea lice infestations.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the use of cleaner fish, yes, it is certainly something that is
being used by the industry. They are having good success with it, yes, those who
do have a good supply. For example, there are a number of companies that do have
a good supply of cleaner fish and they're having good success rates.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, Mr. Parsons, do you have any questions because I have a few more on this.
I'll come back to them. I don't want to take up your time too much.
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) on this section, too.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, thank you.
I just want to go back to Mr. Dinn's question on the packaging and the
processing of the fish coming out of our aquaculture industry. I know, being
down there and looked at the walls on Cooke and talked to Mowi about the amount
of spinoffs that are in Central Newfoundland, when you look at their map on the
wall down there – and I'm sure you've seen it.
We're asking Grieg to do 75 per cent. Is there a percentage that we're asking?
Is there any percentage that we know how much is coming out? I know each year
it's always said that's it's always based on the markets, time of year and stuff
like that but, in actual fact, when you look at processing, most times it's sent
to New Brunswick. It's just packaged; the date, package, gives them a couple of
extra days on the fish when it goes to the market. Why aren't we demanding that
more market-ready fish is not done in the area?
MR. LOVELESS:
There are two answers, I guess, in terms of the two companies. It's a question
that I have asked even before I became minister, when I was elected, with Mowi
company. Bill Barry operates the plant but they supply the fish. I had concern
about that, and I don't mind admitting it here, in terms of more work being done
at the plant. That's in Harbour Breton. Their answer to me at the time was
around what the market was calling for at that time.
Cooke Aquaculture hasn't stopped work. There's only been a delay of a couple of
weeks. They focus more on filleting. My question is, let's do that in Harbour
Breton as well. In terms of your demand to them – say 75 per cent versus Grieg –
it's a point well taken. I'm going to be demanding it of the companies because
we need the employment in Harbour Breton.
MR. K. PARSONS:
There are companies in Grand Falls and the Bishop's Falls area that do a lot of
packaging and shipping of the product. I'm sure there are other companies there
that I spoke to that would love to see a little bit more. The capability of
doing it is definitely there but it's the company itself.
It's something, Minister, I'd really think on. I know you will because it's your
area, but any time we can do the secondary processing, it's something that we
really have to emphasize to the government.
MR. LOVELESS:
Absolutely. The cage building is happening in Harbour Breton as well. Right now,
Mr. Manning has about north of 70 people employed. That's a big operation in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not just about – those cages have to be
built, but supplies. There are a lot of spinoffs.
I hear you. It's around secondary processing because we know that provides more
benefits and more employment for the people, whether it be Harbour Breton or
some other community in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I just want to go back to the seafood marketing and innovation fund. I know you
said there were two projects. I'm just wondering what those two projects are.
The seafood marketing and innovation fund, you mentioned two projects. I think
you said there was $100,000 spent on them so far.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
I can tell you that there is one for an aquaculture company and, off the top of
my head, I can't remember the second one.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
When it started back in, I'd say, June the minister had made some announcements.
There were announcements made about cold-storage units. I believe there was one
that was marked for Gander and another one for Port aux Basques. Is that a part
of this fund and if not, where did the money come for that?
MR. LOVELESS:
I believe you're referring to – that's under the economic recovery initiatives,
right?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm thinking you're referring to the post-pandemic seafood marketing.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
There was $400,000 that was announced, but I don't know what the status is of
it, Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
If I may, there's actually two different streams: one is the seafood marketing
and, as I said, that's to change the packaging, to adapt to the changes that
COVID has caused; and the other piece is to do a study of cold-storage live
holding, seafood live holding.
Essentially what's happening to that is there is a working group that has been
struck that is made up of the processor groups – Association of Seafood
Producers, SPONL and NAIA, representing the aquaculture industry – that are
working with the province. There has been a call for requests for proposals to
look at a consultant to do the study because that information needs to be
identified as to where best – Gander has been identified, but we need to make
sure that it's close proximity and that it does support Gander as the location
for a live holding or cold storage because there may be other areas that there
could be benefits. It's open to wherever it would best fit. So that is a process
that's actively under way.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Minister, I would like to ask you a question now, it's something that I've asked
every minister since we've been doing this, about capelin. What are your
thoughts on the capelin fishery?
MR. LOVELESS:
It's a necessary fishery and, to be honest with you, right now I don't have an
answer for you in terms of what my plans would be for the capelin fishery. But I
know it's certainly valuable in this province. Again, I guess I'm allowed to
say: I don't have an answer for that right now.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
But I know you had offered to have a conversation with me and I certainly
welcome that conversation piece.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just speaking to harvesters in the province, and a lot of harvesters,
particularly in my area, they're noticing the capelin is a lot smaller than it
was in previous years. It's later coming and most harvesters feel that it has an
impact on what's happening with our cod stocks. So I think it's something that
the department – and if you want to have a discussion, I could definitely have a
discussion with you.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, no. Listen, I certainly welcome. I don't sit here and put up my arm and
say: Listen, I have answers to everything.
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, and I appreciate that, but this is a discussion that should be had.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, absolutely.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I also would like to just have your opinion on this year's reduction. In some
areas there was a reduction in crab, and some more areas there was a small
increase. I think 3K had a small increase and 3L was a reduction. I don't know
what analysis is done by the department on these quotas. I know it goes to the
side with different people coming and giving answers, but what analysis is done
by the department to determine the amount of quota? I know it goes to DFO, but
is the department doing anything in these two particular fisheries to look at
what the quotas are?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, well –
MR. K. PARSONS:
And I do understand DFO does the final …
MR. LOVELESS:
Right. I'll ask my ADM to speak to the analysis piece.
In terms of the numbers around the shellfish, I mean it is concerning because
there have been reductions, whether that be shrimp or crab. We know this year
price was down, that's another mechanism of it. I think overall, you agree, that
even though the price was a challenge this year and fishermen in the hope that
they get more, but overall it was still a good year. I have and you have friends
that are crab fishermen.
The analysis piece, I'll defer that to Lorelei.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of answering your question, you're quite right, DFO, they do issue the
quotas and they are responsible for fishery science. Essentially the province is
a stakeholder in fisheries and we do participate with DFO and with other
stakeholders in the fishery as part of the science briefings and updates on what
is happening in the fishery.
In terms of the impact or the amount of say that we would have over the quota,
we can indicate if there's something out of whack with what we're hearing or
seeing. But, fundamentally, the department generally looks at what the science
says and what the science bears in terms of where we would stand on quotas.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
The federal government announced, I'd say, about four years ago about all of the
new science that they were going to do when it came to the different stocks and
stuff like that. Have we seen any additional research or science that has been
done in any of this? I don't believe we have. I know there was a major
announcement about a couple of hundred people being hired to do it, but I don't
know what the status is there.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of what we've seen, this year is obviously a very different year than
any other year. Because of COVID a lot of the science work was restricted. In
terms of when the actual science work that would be undertaken, it obviously
doesn't happen during the winter, it happens when the fishery is active and that
was when COVID came on. We've seen quite a pullback from science, but we've
noticed that later on in the season that they have been active with science
activity. So there were a number of commitments to do a number of surveys and
things like that on the fishery but, as I said, this year has been a bit of an
odd year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
These next few questions, basically, most parts centre on 2.3.01. I think that's
it then of what I have to ask.
Under 2.3.01, Professional Services and Purchased Services. I just want to make
sure, Purchased Services, the increase in the actuals, would that be related to
the die-off that occurred? I notice it jumps in budgeted 2019-2020 from $301,000
to $538,000.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, that was due to the work conducted on reportable disease and mortality
events with aquatic animals in Newfoundland and Labrador due to the events of
'19-'20.
MR. J. DINN:
Of 19 …?
MR. LOVELESS:
Year 2019-20.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, sorry. Wow, that's going back quite a ways. Good memory. Okay.
I would assume, then, the Professional Services and the Purchased Services
probably involve something along the lines of veterinarian services and so on
and so forth, correct? Here's my question, because this is basically coming out
of the budget of the province: Did we recoup that from the aquaculture industry
or the companies themselves responsible for it? If we provided that veterinarian
service, is that a service that they pay for?
Also, with regard to the actual budget, that's significant; not quite but almost
double the amount. I'm just wondering is that something we absorb or are they
responsible for paying that money back to us. I'm just wondering what happens to
it.
MR. LOVELESS:
In terms of the company itself, they do make payments to the province in terms
of employment. I know that doesn't directly answer your question. I'll ask
Lorelei if she wishes to comment on it.
In terms of return to the province, there is a return to the province in terms
of what the companies do for workers. I don't need to get into – they pay taxes
and all that.
MR. J. DINN:
No, but if I'm responsible for an oil spill on my property, let's say, it's not
going to be the province. If the province or the municipality ends up cleaning
it up, they're going to bill me for that. It's going to come out of my pocket
sooner or later. That's where I'm going with it.
If it's coming out of the province – and I understand all things being equal –
are they not responsible then for reimbursing the province for that extra
expense?
MR. LOVELESS:
If you're referring to cleanup and whatnot, it is in the public interest. The
companies did the cleanup and they paid for the cleanup, especially when we had
the die-off. There was money that was spent by government but it was certainly
done in the public interest.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Are we going to be getting any of that money back from the companies themselves
then, for that, the extra money we had to spend?
MR. LOVELESS:
We're not getting it back from the companies, no. It's an investment in the
public interest.
MR. J. DINN:
I know we'll differ on this, Minister, but I think in that way if a company is
responsible for it, then they, I think – it's being good stewards and good
citizens – should be held accountable for it. Certainly if it's a cost to the
taxpayer, in addition to everything else, I think at that level they should be
responsible for reimbursing the province.
I understand investment in a wharf and all these things. That makes sense. But
for a mistake by a company, I think really they need to – whether it's a mistake
or a natural die-off or whatever else – reimburse the province for that. We just
don't have the money to cover that off.
MR. LOVELESS:
Point taken.
MR. J. DINN:
I just want to talk about Grieg. Before Grieg begins operation, if I understood
correctly, it's supposed to have a baseline assessment of the salmon populations
and the ecosystem. Has that been done? Have they carried out any of those
assessments to find out what the salmon populations are? Only because, if an
escape or if the wild Atlantic salmon stocks are affected, we will never know by
how much if we don't have that baseline assessment done first.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
MHA Dinn, that's a question that would be part of the environmental assessment.
I would think that the Department of Environment, Climate Change and
Municipalities could better answer that in terms of the information that they
have on hand as part of the environmental assessment. Those were some of the
conditions that were set out and the information that they were asked to
provide.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, so they should have that. Fair enough.
I understand it here that Grieg will be still using triploid salmon. Will they
be required to clip the adipose fin of farmed salmon so that should they escape
they're easily identified?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Grieg actually has, as part of its environmental assessment release, a
requirement to look at tracking. Some of the things that they're looking at
doing are from a genetic standpoint. Not necessarily a clipping of the fin
because a clipping of the fin could be harmful to the fish, but in terms of
genetic makeup. This is why triploid fish would be used, because they're
certainly a different genetic makeup
MR. J. DINN:
No, I agree. They can't breed, but they could also compete for food or muscle
out other fish as well.
I'm looking at this from a recapture point of view. I know down in Bay d'Espoir
many years ago you could catch all the rainbow trout you'd want. It was an open
season on them, easily enough identified for that reason. If I'm an angler and
I'm catching a fish and it comes in with a clipped adipose fin, great. Maybe it
doesn't count towards the quota that you have, but I'm taking an invasive
species, for all intents and purposes, out of the natural ecosystem. That's
where I'm going with that.
I would assume also that these fish would be treated with some sort of
antibiotics before they're put into the cages as well, somewhere along the line,
correct? At that time, I was thinking maybe that's where the clipping of the
adipose fin could be part of that.
Do you know what recapture program they have? If you have a mass escape, have
they come up with a protocol for that?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Yes, there is protocol for that. There's actually a joint management process,
it's called the Code of Containment. That governs, or I should say it manages,
escapes; it's a joint federal-provincial. Essentially, the federal government is
responsible for the escape piece in terms of issuing the licences and what
happens after. There's a whole management process that requires all companies,
not just Grieg, to look at having a process in place, to identify why the escape
occurred and to have measures in place to capture the fish should they escape.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
That's within a certain period of time, hopefully. If days pass, these fish
could be anywhere really. It would be harder to recapture them I would think.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of a fish escape, it's to be reported immediately and it's to be acted
on immediately. One of the changes, as part of the new policy and procedures
manual, was to actually look at having the recapture licences issued as part of
the aquaculture licence at the same time, because there used to be a delay
sometime ago in terms of DFO issuing the recapture licence. That's no longer the
fact, so it can happen immediately.
MR. J. DINN:
Good.
Two last questions and I'll throw them out; one has to do with hopefully a land
base. Are we doing any research at all or investigation of total land-based
aquaculture for finfish aquaculture? Secondly, I'm just wondering with regard to
the sea lice protocols, do we have protocols in place that would – for example,
if sea lice reach a certain threshold, that the fish are harvested. That
production stops and the fish are harvested because, as we know, sea lice
present the greatest threat certainly to salmon smolts, especially those leaving
the rivers.
They could be fatal. I'm just wondering what the protocols are around sea lice
management in those cases? It's just two questions and I'm done.
MR. LOVELESS:
In terms of land base, Jim, right now land base in terms of the industry is
around the hatchery. We're not moving towards land base, as what you're
referencing. Right now, we're continuing on in the industry as it is and that's
growing fish in the water, not on land.
In terms of the sea lice protocols, I'll ask Lorelei if you want to just touch
base on that.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of sea lice protocol, as of January 2021 there will be a sea lice
management plan. Each company will be required to have that in place. There will
be thresholds in place and they'll be responsible for reporting that publicly.
That is currently being developed as we speak and we'll be ready for January
2021. That was the commitment.
MR. J. DINN:
They'll be available I guess? They'll have that? Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you for your questions, Mr. Dinn.
The MHA for Cape St. Francis indicated that he concluded his questions in this
section, so with that I would give the floor the opportunity to – the MHA for
Mount Pearl - Southlands, Mr. Lane.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The first one I'm just looking for some clarification. The Atlantic Fisheries
Fund – so I'm 100 per cent clear – I think you said $51 million over five years,
or seven years or something like that? No? What did you say then?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
In terms of the Atlantic Fisheries Fund, provincially, what we spent to date are
the actual numbers that you're looking at. Just give me one second now.
MR. LANE:
$15 million you said.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Yeah, it was $15 million that we spent to date.
MR. LANE:
You said that was worth –
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
It's a total of $50 million, fed and provincial combined, that we've spent to
date.
MR. LANE:
Yeah, because $15 million is our one-third share.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The $15 million, yes, is our 30 per cent.
MR. LANE:
Or is 30 per cent, right?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Yeah.
MR. LANE:
Thirty per cent is $15 million, so we've spent $50 million?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Total AFF contribution has been $50 million.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
That's $50 million of how much, how much more is there?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Of the total amount for AFF?
MR. LANE:
Yeah, what I'm getting at is that –
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The provincial –
MR. LANE:
What I'm getting at is that at one point in time I can remember the former
administration had said – we remember the thing at The Rooms and there was going
to be a couple of hundred-million dollars, whatever it was. That was a
Newfoundland fund. Then, of course, the new administration came in and said, no,
it was changed to an Atlantic fund and we were going to get so many million
dollars. How much was that?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
The total over the seven-year period for the province's contribution is $41.8
million.
MR. LANE:
$41 million. That's our share, right?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
That is our share and then the difference would be –
MR. LANE:
This program is going to get about $135 million?
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Then it would be an additional – 70 per cent is the fed contribution.
MR. LANE:
Yeah, so about $135 million in total, roughly. We'd table about $40 million and
they'd put in the other $80 million or –
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Seventy per cent.
MR. LANE:
No, they'd put in $135 million.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
They put in 70 per cent.
MR. LANE:
Yeah. If we're putting in $41 million, then they must be putting in about $135
million, roughly.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Yeah.
MR. LANE:
Okay. That's about $200 million cost-shared altogether.
MS. ROBERTS-LODER:
Yes.
MR. LANE:
All right. Thank you for that.
I just want to touch on the Grieg aquaculture. Just for my clarification, you
said we're going to be putting in $30 million over a number of years – $5
million this year. The trade-off, of course, is 800 jobs and there are spinoffs
and everything else. I understand that.
But you said the 800 jobs included construction and everything else. Just forget
about the construction. Construction is good, but once it's done, it's over. How
many permanent sustainable jobs are there after the construction? How many
people will be actually working there year over year over year in that facility
roughly?
MR. LOVELESS:
I don't have that number. We can get that for you, Paul. I don't have that
direct number in front of me. We're thinking it might be 250, but we will
confirm that for you.
MR. LANE:
Roughly around 250?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
MR. LANE:
Year over year. Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
MR. LANE:
I'm just trying to put a perspective of the number of permanent jobs versus –
we're putting in $30 million and then, of course, we've invested in the wharfs.
Now, like my colleague said, we had the spill and we took care of that, so it
all adds up. I'm just trying to put it in perspective.
MR. LOVELESS:
Sure.
MR. LANE:
I understand the benefit of the jobs and all that kind of stuff, but then you
have to kind of look at the other side of how much are we taxpayers putting in
to create that. At one point in time I know there was – and this might be taken
care of now – occupational health and safety in the fish plants. At one time I
know there was – not a committee, that's not the right word – an association or
whatever, to look after the fish harvesters and then there was supposed to be
another one for the fish processors.
There was some incentive money that was going to the fish processors, but then
they wouldn't take you up on the offer for whatever reason and it didn't happen.
Is that happening now? Do we have a health and safety association, or whatever,
for fish plants?
MR. LOVELESS:
I think the companies have their own, I'll say, organization around OHS, but I
think that falls under the Department of Digital Government and Service NL now
(inaudible) now.
MR. LANE:
Okay, well, I just thought you'd know, where this is Fisheries. All right, I'll
save that.
This is something that comes up sometimes: I'm just wondering about the plant
licences. I apologize if these questions – I mean, the fishery is not my forte,
obviously. Neither is it really – it is related to my district. It's related to
every district because we all benefit for it.
MR. LOVELESS:
Absolutely, that's right.
MR. LANE:
But as far as having fish plants and so on, Mount Pearl – let's face it, it is
what it is, right?
MR. LOVELESS:
What, you're not looking for a fish plant in Mount Pearl?
MR. LANE:
No. We have a wharf in Power's Pond. That's actually in Mount Pearl North.
I'm just wondering, just trying to put it in perspective. I can remember, for
example, when we talked about – I can remember I was doing an economics course
at MUN school of business. I had to do a project and it was about the
deregulation of Air Canada.
One of the things before it became deregulated, was that Air Canada, if you had
a number of flights, there were some areas that didn't make you money, but it
was kind of like you had to look at the whole pie. Overall, you're making money;
therefore, there are going to be a few areas that you're not going to make any
money off of. You're making money because you get to operate here and from the
global perspective, overall, you're making a profit.
I'm just taking that, sort of transferring that over to the idea of the fishery
to some degree. There are a limited number of players – there are big players
who have multiple plants and they got their hands into everything to some
degree. Then you hear scenarios where they're saying: Oh, well, the market
demands we have to send it away, just gut it. We've seen plants where there were
certain species – I forget which ones they were, maybe down your way – where
they were just taking the fish and sending it right off, raw product. Minister
King was the minister of Fisheries at the time –
MR. LOVELESS:
Minimum processing requirements.
MR. LANE:
There was minimum processing and all that. I'm saying to myself, do we look at
it from the perspective – because anybody can kind of cherry-pick and say in
order for this plant to be profitable, you need to give us this; in order for
this one to be profitable, you need to do this.
Does anyone look at it and say: Listen b'ys, from an overall point of view you
have a dozen plants and you're making a pile of money. So if you're not making
as much profit as you'd like here, you're still getting the benefit over here
and over here and over here. It doesn't get looked at that way, does it? It gets
done on a plant-by-plant basis.
You can cherry-pick every situation to make it look like we have to give
concessions in order for this particular operation versus this operation. Do you
know what I'm saying, about shutting plants and moving plants?
MR. LOVELESS:
I think I do, Paul.
I guess if you want to look under what you're saying – because it's very
generic, your idea. It comes back to if I'm a processer and he's a harvester, he
has a quota and I'm buying from him. But a processer is not going to process,
not keep the plant doors open if it's not profitable. It is a business venture;
they have to make money too, but with the goal of employing as many people as
possible in those communities. I don't know if I'm answering your question.
MR. LANE:
I understand they're a business but I'm looking at it from the perspective that
they're making a business off a resource that belongs to – it's our fish.
MR. LOVELESS:
Right.
MR. LANE:
The people of Newfoundland – well, technically it's Ottawa, but it's our fish as
far as I'm concerned. Anyway, that's another argument.
It's our resource and someone is making a profit off that resource. They're
getting all the fish in order to make profits for themselves, right? Hopefully
they employ people along the way.
MR. LOVELESS:
Right.
MR. LANE:
Given the fact they're using our resource and everything, it just would seem to
me sometimes – just from the outside looking in and being no expert in this, it
almost seems like you can make a case anywhere to say you have to give us
concessions here on processing and everything to make this one, give us
concessions over here, give us concessions over here and over here, but then you
might be making a pile of money over here, still off our resource.
I'm just wondering the thought process around looking at more as a whole to say,
overall, your company is making a ton of money off of a resource that belongs to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yeah, your profit margins might not be
as high here as you would like, but sort of the fact that we need to employ
people. You're using our resources to do it, so if your profit margin isn't
quite so high here, you're still making a pile over here and you need to keep it
all going to benefit the province as a whole.
MR. LOVELESS:
Again, from a general point of view, companies are going to do what they need to
do to keep their doors open, but for us, as politicians, I think we're all on
the same level in terms of maximizing the employment. That's where it lies.
Again, I have to say the harvesters get the resource, the allocation, and they
provide it to the processors in terms of processing in plants. I don't know. I'm
going to have to park it because I don't know if I'm answering your question, I
don't know how I can answer your question.
The bottom line is – and I don't know if you're moving towards that – one
company having too much over another. I don't know if that's where you're going.
The bottom line for me is all about the employment in those communities.
MR. LANE:
Minister, where I was going is that if I had multiple plants and access to
multiple species and everything else – all the people's resources – we want to
try to maximize as much employment as possible by having as many facilities open
as possible. You can always make the argument we need to shut this here because
it's not making enough; we need concessions over here. But then if you're making
a boodle over here, then maybe that needs to be part of the negotiation of the
overall picture of what you're making so that we can keep as many people
employed as possible. That's kind of where I was going.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Lane.
If the minister would like to make a further comment.
MR. LOVELESS:
No, I think I'll leave it there. The companies, I firmly believe, come into
these communities to do their best in terms of employing people. If not, it's
going to be a problem for all of us. I'll leave it at that.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I'll ask the Clerk to call the headings.
CLERK:
2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.01 carried.
CLERK:
3.1.01 to 3.3.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.3.02 carry?
I ask the MHA for Exploits, Mr. Forsey, to begin his questions.
MR. FORSEY:
First of all, Minister, thank you for your staff to be here. This is my first
year in this position, actually. They've been good to me over the past year and
I'd like to thank them for their responses. Lots of times, probably, I don't
like the answers sometimes; nevertheless, it's great to be talking so I can get
some answers. I'd just like to thank them for that. I'll just start off with
line by line first and then I have some general questions.
3.1.01, Salaries: Can you explain the steady decrease there in Salaries?
MR. LOVELESS:
For the actuals, the $2.5 million, that was a variance due to vacancies in the
division during the year. For the estimated 2020-21, that's variance due to
salary adjustments and attrition management there.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Then under Transportation and Communications, there's also a steady decrease in
this category. Can you explain that?
MR. LOVELESS:
That was due to less than anticipated flying time for helicopter services and
the efficiencies for helicopter time realized within the Forestry Division.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Supplies: What is included in that figure?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll just comment on the variance and I'll ask someone else to talk about what's
included in the Supplies. I believe we're going to bring another ADM into the
fold. That was due to less than anticipated supply expenditures, but I'll ask
Mr. Balsom.
CHAIR:
Mr. Balsom.
MR. BALSOM:
Thank you.
The Administration and Program Planning is our headquarter-based programs. We
have our Forest Inventory Program; we also have our strategic planning that does
our Wood Supply. These are supplies related to those programs, including fuel
for ATVs and various equipment related to those programs.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Purchased Services: What's included there?
MR. BALSOM:
Our Purchased Services are mainly related to our Xerox and various – I don't
know if we have a list of those?
MS. KING:
Purchased Services here would be advertising and promotion, some of our aerial
photography, environmental logging, evaluation of some of our plantations, some
of our graphic services, production of some educational materials and legal
documents. That kind of activity.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
The same for Property, Furnishings and Equipment. What's included there as well?
There's a big difference there.
MR. LOVELESS:
I can answer that. That was due to the purchase of computer towers, hard drives
and computer equipment that were required during the year.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Grants and Subsidies: What is included? What explains the variance there in
Grants and Subsidies?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance was due to higher than anticipated grant expenditures as a result
of support for industry diversification in response to downturn in markets.
I don't know, Steve, if you want to add in terms of what is within the Grants
and Subsidies?
MR. BALSOM:
Yes, included in our Grants and Subsidies we have forest management agreements
with the Labrador Innu Nation and the NunatuKavut Community Council. We also
have a grant for the Lumber Producers' Association. We are also a member of
FPInnovations, the national research body for forestry; our Canadian Council of
Forest Ministers membership; as well as various individual grants related to the
Atlantic Teachers' Tour, Envirothon and those type of grants.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, thank you.
3.1.02, Salaries: Can you explain the variance in the Salaries?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance was due to vacancies within the division during the year, and
there's a salary adjustment required for '20-'21, keeping in mind that there are
27 pay periods.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
In Supplies: Can you explain why so much more was spent in the revised?
MR. LOVELESS:
Sorry, can you repeat that?
MR. FORSEY:
Why was so much more spent in the revised in Supplies?
MR. LOVELESS:
Oh, in Supplies.
MR. FORSEY:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
That was the purchase of additional safety supplies during the year, mainly
flotation suits.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Purchased Services: Can you explain why so much more was spent in the revised as
well?
MR. LOVELESS:
There were higher than anticipated expenditures during the year and there were
items such as moose disposal fees and maintenance of ATV and snowmobiles.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
3.1.03, I'll go through the forestry part and then I'll ask some questions
after.
Anyway, 3.1.03, under Transportation and Communications: Can you explain why so
much less was spent last year?
MR. LOVELESS:
I have to ask you again. Three point what?
MR. FORSEY:
3.1.03.
MR. LOVELESS:
3.1.03?
MR. FORSEY:
Yes. Transportation and Communications: Why so much was spent less last year?
MR. LOVELESS:
Less.
MR. FORSEY:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
Due to less flying time for helicopters and those efficiencies were realized
across the department, throughout the department.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Supplies: What's included in those Supplies?
MR. LOVELESS:
Again, there was less there than anticipated in terms of supply requirements.
But for a breakdown of that, I'll have to move that over to Mr. Balsom.
MR. BALSOM:
This is related to our silviculture program, our tree planting and our site
preparation work. These supplies are main ribbons to just general field supplies
and notebooks.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Purchased Services: What is included? Can you explain the increase in the
actuals from last year?
MR. LOVELESS:
The increase was due to silviculture contracts coming in slightly higher than
anticipated.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
We'll go to 3.2.01, Salaries: Can you explain the variance in Salaries?
MR. LOVELESS:
The actuals, it's lower than anticipated salary that was associated with the
Insect Control Program delivery during the year. The Estimates for 2020-21,
that's a salary adjustment that's required.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
In Supplies, there's a big variance there in Supplies, can you explain?
MR. LOVELESS:
That was due to less than anticipated supply requirements for program delivery,
such as material, tools and et cetera.
MR. FORSEY:
Is this related to the spruce budworm spraying?
MR. LOVELESS:
I will defer that to Mr. Balsom.
MR. BALSOM:
Last year, for 2019-2020, we did not have a control program. We only were doing
our monitoring work. This year, as you can see under Supplies, we budgeted for a
spray program and a control program.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay. All right.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Forsey, your first allocation of time has elapsed.
I'll move on to Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
If I may go to 3.1.01. In the mandate letter the minister was tasked with
continuing to implement the Forestry Sector Work Plan to assist in diversifying
the forest industry and creating new job opportunities. Does funding for this
plan fall under here or elsewhere?
MR. LOVELESS:
I have to get you to repeat that, sorry.
MR. J. DINN:
No problem. Glad to do that because –
MR. LOVELESS:
3.1.01, right?
MR. J. DINN:
Yeah. In your mandate letter, Minister, you were tasked with continuing to
implement the Forestry Sector Work Plan to assist and diversify the forest
industry and creating new job opportunities. Does funding for this plan fall
under here or is it elsewhere? I guess elsewhere, probably, is it?
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, it's throughout this section. I'm given good direction from the deputy
there.
MR. J. DINN:
It's good to have a good deputy to –
MR. LOVELESS:
It's important.
MR. J. DINN:
– direct you. So it's throughout, okay.
Also, in the minister's recent mandate letter, you were tasked with assisting in
the diversification of the forest industry, creating new business activities and
increasing job opportunities. How can this be achieved when there appears to be
cuts in the salaries in program administration and planning, totalling
approximately $400,000? I think you may have answered it. Why was there such a
decrease and how can you carry on with that plan if we see such a decrease?
MS. KING:
The decrease from budget to budget represents some of the attrition management
savings for this year. The other piece to address the question again, support
for the Forestry Sector Work Plan comes throughout all these forestry
activities. It's not just from the administration and program planning. So
within our total forestry resources we can absolutely meet the minister's
mandate letter.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
What were the positions that were eliminated, if I may, through the attrition?
MS. KING:
Yeah, there are two conservation officers here – this is where those two are?
Yeah. There are two conservation officers in here and I think there's – no, the
forester is not in here, right? No. Yeah, that's what's in here.
MR. J. DINN:
If I may, then, the conservation officers, are they the same conservation
officers I was asking questions about at the beginning?
MS. KING:
No.
MR. J. DINN:
So they're not part of the –?
MS. KING:
Those will be in regional operations under 3.1.02.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, they aren't a part of the amalgamation or the –?
MS. KING:
No, they're not.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I think we asked: Why is there an increase in actuals for the property and
furnishings? I think also with regard to Grants and Subsidies, I know my
colleague asked – I'm just wondering what specifically were these Grants and
Subsidies used for. I know you mentioned but there were no specifics around
that.
MR. LOVELESS:
Jim, I'm not sure if you asked a question or just made a statement on property
and –
MR. J. DINN:
No, I think that's pretty straightforward. I think that was already asked and
answered, but I'm just curious. You did answer the question on Grants and
Subsidies but I was looking for more specifics there.
MR. LOVELESS:
Right, on what actually is in the body of the Grants and Subsidies.
MR. J. DINN:
Exactly. If I'm reading it correctly, it jumped from $408,000 up to $500,000 and
then it's back down to $208,000 roughly. I'm just wondering what would they have
been used for, those Grants and Subsidies?
MR. LOVELESS:
Are you asking for a breakdown of the –
MR. J. DINN:
The breakdown, yeah.
MR. LOVELESS:
– new amount?
MR. J. DINN:
More or less what are we looking at specifically? I guess that might help me
understand as to why there's such a variation there.
MR. LOVELESS:
The actuals were due to higher than anticipated grant expenditures as a result
of support for industry diversification response to downturn in markets. To give
an example, I think Mr. Balsom made reference to some forest management
agreements and a grant for the Newfoundland and Labrador Lumber Producers'
Association. There's also Atlantic Teachers' Tour and Junior Forest Wardens.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay and it would be to industries and so on and so forth as well, companies and
businesses.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes. If you need a list of that, we can certainly provide it.
MR. J. DINN:
That would be great. I appreciate that.
Then under 3.1.02, I think also Mr. Forsey asked what accounts for the
significant cost overruns under Supplies and Purchased Services. You talked
about floatation suits and also moose disposal, ATVs and snowmobiles. Did I hear
that correctly?
MR. LOVELESS:
You did.
MR. J. DINN:
I'm just wondering, a breakdown of moose disposal, the ATVs and snowmobiles.
ATVs and snowmobiles: Would that be part of the regularly scheduled replacement
costs as well?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, you were right on items such as moose disposal fees and maintenance of ATVs
and snowmobiles.
MR. J. DINN:
How much of that then would have been used for moose disposal?
MR. BALSOM:
We dispose of roughly 300 moose a year and at a cost, roughly, of $30,000.
MR. J. DINN:
I thought I heard some discussion about reinstituting the use of roadkill and
that for charity. I know at one time certain organizations used the moose
roadkill for their moose stew suppers and things like that. I thought I heard
that there was some attempt or interest in bringing that back.
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, there's conversation around that, but it all goes down to the quality of
the meat as well and if it's fit for it.
Steve, I don't know if you want to add to that.
MR. BALSOM:
We do have a program for farm moose that are dispatched and are cleaned properly
for persons with disabilities, also hunters with disabilities and our hunters to
apply for. We do not use roadkill for that program. We are looking at options
for better disposal and natural disposal for those costs, but right now those
would not be used for that program.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Those 300 moose, would they be moose-vehicle accidents or would they be for a
variety of …?
MR. BALSOM:
Yes, the majority would be moose-vehicle collisions. There would be some
dispatched due to broken legs or injured animals that could not be
rehabilitated, as an example.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay but the injured animals would be ones that were probably in a moose-vehicle
accident.
MR. BALSOM:
Could be in the winter. Sometimes in the spring we do see moose with broken legs
due the hard crust of the snow in the spring, those type of …
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
One last quick question there before my time runs out on this section. With
regard to the Purchased Services, it has to do with silviculture contracts. To
whom would they be? Do we have several companies, one company? Who would be in
receipt of those contracts?
MR. BALSOM:
I think you're referring now to 3.1.03, the Silviculture Development.
MR. J. DINN:
Yes.
MR. BALSOM:
We do public tenders for the planting and site preparation contracts. We do have
multiple contractors here on the Island that perform tree planting and the site
preparation work.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
I have a quick question then in 3.1.03, in particular with Transportation and
Communications. I think the minister noted that there was a drop in
transportation due to flying times for helicopters, correct?
MR. LOVELESS:
Correct.
MR. J. DINN:
I asked this last year and I have to ask it again: What companies would have
these contracts? Secondly, has there been any further consideration to the use
of drones? I'm not talking about your out-of-the-box drones, but a good quality
drone to replace the use of helicopters.
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, I'd love to answer that, but I think Mr. Balsom would love to answer it,
so I'm going to leave it with him.
MR. BALSOM:
There is a lot of interest in drones and drone technology. We've been looking at
it in a few areas, mostly for very localized work because the regulations right
now related to beyond the line of sight are very restrictive.
We are looking at a program for some aerial seeding to use a drone for that
purpose. We also have used our own, like you said, smaller drone to assess some
of our site preparation areas and to assess our cutovers. That can be done from
a road.
Most of the limitations with the use of helicopter for us is it is the movement
of staff members and equipment, which is limited, again, for a drone. In this
case, the less this helicopter time would've been used for a helicopter
planting, which did not get completed under this budget.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn.
Before I recognize Mr. Forsey – recognizing that once his time starts we would
be over our 9 o'clock allocation – it's my recommendation as Chair that we
continue our meeting until the Estimates are complete this evening, given that
the minister has had staff that have had to travel from the West Coast of this
province. So just be cognizant of that and everybody's time here today.
We'll continue with the line-by-line Estimates until they are complete.
Mr. Forsey.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you.
Okay, we'll continue the line by line on 3.2.02, Fire Suppression, Salaries. Can
you explain the variance? Are there more hires this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's 3.3.02, correct?
MR. FORSEY:
3.2.02.
MR. LOVELESS:
Oh. I had 3.3.02.
I think I'm in the right – 3.3.02, correct?
MR. FORSEY:
3.2.02.
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll get there.
MR. FORSEY:
Yes, you will.
MR. LOVELESS:
All right, 3.2.02, there we go.
MR. FORSEY:
Under Salaries, can you explain the variance? Are there more hires this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance for the actuals for '19-'20 was due to less than anticipated salary
expenditures. That's due to a lower than anticipated fire season, so fewer
hectares that were burnt.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Transportation and Communications: Can you explain the decrease in the amount
spent last year compared to what was budgeted?
MR. LOVELESS:
And we're back to the helicopter topic. That's due to less than anticipated
helicopter travel, as a result of a lower fire season, which is a good point
here tonight: lower fire season.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Property, Furnishings and Equipment: Can you explain the decrease in the
actuals?
MR. LOVELESS:
Just less than anticipated requirements for equipment during the year.
MR. FORSEY:
What type of equipment?
MR. LOVELESS:
Mr. Balsom, do you want to comment on that, please?
MR. BALSOM:
The equipment included in this category would include our office equipment. It
would also include our firefighting equipment, such as pumps and hoses; our
radio communications equipment; and our weather stations.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Grants and Subsidies: What is included?
MR. LOVELESS:
Grants and Subsidies, just to give you a couple of examples, the Canadian
Interagency Forest Fire Centre and Partners in Protection, FireSmart Canada and
Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Commission, just to give you three examples.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Revenue: What is included there?
MR. LOVELESS:
The revenue is from various companies and other provinces for compensation for
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador forest fire protection services that
were provided during the year.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
That's the line by line; I have a couple of general questions in the Forestry
Department there.
Timberlands, AEG project, what is the current status on that project?
MR. LOVELESS:
Steve, do you want to …?
MR. BALSOM:
We continue to be in contact with Timberlands International Newfoundland, the
subsidiary of AEG, regarding their project for the Great Northern Peninsula.
What we did, we provided a five-year allocation to the company towards their
biomass project. What we have been relaying to the company is that under our
cutting allocation policy, they will have a review at the midway point, which,
depending on their activity, will result in an analysis, I guess, if the permit
will continue or if the permit will be altered and that midway point is May of
2021.
The company is aware of this and we have been making them aware of, I guess,
this pending point in the cutting permit policy where they will have a review.
MR. FORSEY:
They had 30 months to cut 40 per cent, we're almost 24 months in now. At that
point, after the 30 months – hopefully before then – will those licences be
revoked? Permits, sorry.
MR. BALSOM:
Under the cutting permit policy, if they fail to cut less than 25 per cent of
their permit they will lose their allocation.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, thank you.
Central Newfoundland harvest, Central Newfoundland has been known as the fibre
basket in Newfoundland and Labrador. Has the department been currently
revitalizing the forestry industry in Central, working with any industry?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm going to ask Steve to interject, but in terms of – I think the first thing
came to my mind was the planting of trees. We've planted over seven million
seedling this year and the conversation I had around the silviculture piece is
important, because if we're cutting them down, we need to plant for the future.
That's just, I guess, my kind of answer to that because it's important. I'll ask
Steve if he wishes to further –
MR. BALSOM:
We work very closely with our industry partners that operate in the Central
Newfoundland districts and I think you're referring to districts 10, 11 and 12,
primarily. We have two of our three largest sawmill operators that provide most
of their allocations from those districts and we also have an exchange agreement
with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in one of those areas to maximize the
utilization.
As you're probably aware, the main issue we deal with is small-diameter wood,
which, at the time, Abitibi could utilize in the district. We're trying to find
the bright-wood profile for our sawmill industry, which relies on larger saw
logs. We've been working with them on a wood supply and are currently working on
a new wood supply for 2021 that will support their continued sawing and try to
find opportunities within there for growth of the industry.
I'm happy to report that 2019 was another year that we did see an increase in
the total lumber production in Newfoundland and Labrador and we see the
companies in those areas continue to grow, expand and invest in their
diversification. We do recognize that's a very important district, so we're
working very closely to make sure that we can support them in their continued
success.
MR. FORSEY:
We know we have a couple of large sawmills and, of course, they're taking the
product from the Central Newfoundland area and shipping it out, being cut, being
produced.
Are there any manufacturing processes, any products to be manufactured or
anything in regard to industry directly in the Central Newfoundland area? I know
now we're looking at Corner Brook taking out pulp, we're looking at sawmills
taking out the logs for lumber.
Directly to the Central Newfoundland area, are there any consultations of
anything?
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, I visited Minister Bennett's district, Cottle's Island, right, their plant
there and that's around the biomass project. We're converting it over to six
campuses in Central Newfoundland, so that's in the Central area. I'm looking
forward to that project moving forward because I believe it's a part of
sustaining the industry and I believe there's potential for growth and there's
excitement around that. I look to see what the results of that will be, but
certainly excited about the potential of that project. That's in Central
Newfoundland and I know you're interested in it.
MR. FORSEY:
Sort of.
Anyway, can I get a breakdown of 10, 11 and 12 in regard to pulp, domestic
cutting, logging, that sort of thing? It doesn't have to be now, but you can get
me that later because –
CHAIR:
Mr. Forsey, your time is expired.
MR. FORSEY:
Not yet.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
I know you're on a roll.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to go back starting with 3.1.03. I want to ask a question then with
regard to Transportation and Communications. Would it be fair to say, if I were
to go through the Transportation and Communications line in each of the
subsequent or following sections, that a lot of that budget would be used for
helicopter?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm going to have to get you – because I was trying to get back to the section
you were referencing –
MR. J. DINN:
No, no. Minister, I'm looking at here that I think in a least two – when you
were responding to Mr. Forsey you said, and in a following section, I think, the
one on Fire Suppression and Communications, that Transportation and
Communications, a part of that was helicopter. So this will just cover a few
sections.
I'm wondering, in all of those sections with Transportation and Communications,
would helicopter use factor into those lines? I would assume that in this
department it would very much depend on aerial survey anyway.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, absolutely.
MR. J. DINN:
Would it be possible to have the total amount of money spent in the whole
department on helicopter time? Not just the line by line. I can probably go add
it. But I'm just trying to get an overall view of the total amount of helicopter
time used.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, I can provide that for you.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
Oh, we have it now if you want it.
MR. J. DINN:
Sure.
MS. KING:
The amount for 2019-20 was $1.7 million and it's just about $1.8 million for
'20-'21.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Here's where I'm going with this. As I understand it, I don't know if it was in
the cartography and that, they used drones I think to – and I wasn't a part of
that one but I found out from my colleague after that they actual do use drones
in that department sometimes for aerial mapping as well. I guess it's about
efficiencies as well. I understand the line-of-sight issue and also some of the
drones you still have a limited use of battery life. I think most of them have
around a 30-minute shelf life, but there are other drones out there, I'm sure.
I'm looking at it, is there any consideration to at least doing – well, let me
ask you this: Does the department have any drones at this point in time?
MR. BALSOM:
As you mentioned before, we do have, I guess you would call, the smaller
personal drone size, but we do not have a large commercial drone.
MR. J. DINN:
Would it be possible, Minister, then, in terms of looking for efficiencies and
like – if we're paying money for a helicopter contract, I'd rather see it
invested in the personnel in many ways. Would it be possible to look into some
sort of pilot project to get, not just a personal drone size, but something that
is a bit more robust to see just how we could use it? If it's feasible, just to
explore that. To me, that would be – I think some of the drones are $20,000,
depending on what you're looking at. I'm just thinking it might be a worthwhile
long-term investment as well. At least to explore it before we head down that
road. Just as a suggestion.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, no. It's a suggestion that I'm interested in because when I did have the
briefing with the department I did ask the question about drones because we know
where drone coverage is going, we know with things advancing. But, yes, I take
your idea seriously because if it does mean efficiencies then we can and the
division can do their job, then why wouldn't we do it.
MR. J. DINN:
Yeah, that's right.
I would assume in wildlife and that enforcement for poaching and so on and so
forth, they would be ideal in that case as well. Anyway, I'm just looking at the
river guardians even being able to scoot up and down the river using that. From
a very practical point of view, it does allow for them to do their job more
effectively. I think it's an idea worth exploring since it's so much a part of
the budget on all sections here.
Mr. Forsey seems to have done a good job of asking a lot of the questions I was
going to ask. So I will just make sure that I've got them – what I've covered
here.
In 3.3.01, there was a big drop in Supplies, and that was for, I think – I can't
remember if that one was asked or not. What was planned to be purchased with
this money?
MR. LOVELESS:
Those supplies, the variance was due to less than anticipated supply
expenditures during the year required for Wildlife Operations. If you need
further information, I guess –
MR. J. DINN:
Yeah, like when you say for wildlife, I wouldn't mind knowing what exactly we're
talking about there in less than expected Wildlife Operations.
CHAIR:
Steve Balsom.
MR. BALSOM:
The question is under Supplies, is that correct?
MR. J. DINN:
Yes.
MR. BALSOM:
Under this category we have several areas: we have supplies related to our
research program, sampling equipment, field gear, telemetry equipment, game
cameras, GPS units and laboratory supplies. We have recently opened up our new
lab in Pasadena.
We have conservation services, the hunter and trapper education supplies and
also supplies related to Salmonier Nature Park maintenance, everything from
tires to snowmobile oil and parts in there. We have some stewardship program
supplies, which include signage and educational material that supports the
Eastern Habitat Joint Venture and the habitat stewardship agreements we see
across the province. We have animal care supplies and rehabilitation supplies
related to the program at Salmonier Nature Park and we also include the caribou
and polar bear collars and monitoring equipment and sampling supplies related to
those survey programs.
MR. J. DINN:
Would animals that are rehabilitated be transported to the Salmonier Nature
Park? Is that where that rehabilitation would take place?
MR. BALSOM:
Yes, that's our facility for rehabilitation in the province.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
Still under 3.3.01, Wildlife Operations, Purchased Services, in the actuals they
were $135,000 over budget. Again, would account for that anomaly?
MR. LOVELESS:
I can just give some information. If you need further, Mr. Balsom can answer.
That's due to unanticipated legal settlement during the year, as well as higher
than anticipated expenditures associated with licensing, printing and postage.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Overall in that department, I think there's a decrease of almost half a million
dollars, I guess – well, $441,000. I'm just wondering: Should we be concerned
with that? Is that the number of the cuts? Is that also part of the amalgamation
– and I'm wondering here now with regard to Forestry and Wildlife enforcement
officers – to explain that decrease overall? I'm just trying to get an idea. The
Amount to be Voted seems to be – again, almost $442,000 less than last year.
MS. KING:
The difference budget to budget really relates to a couple of things. The
minister may want to expand after I go through it. You'll see one of the
decreases there is in Grants and Subsidies this year. A lot of times we would
use Grants and Subsidies for some outside research we may have done. This year
we've actually reprofiled that funding to absorb some of the cost of the spruce
budworm Insect Control Program, so that's some of the decrease that you see here
this year.
The other main driver here really is related to the sunsetting of the Moose
Management Plan this year. The five-year Moose Management Plan expires this
year, so that relates to the decrease that you see there. We will carry out that
work in a slightly different way until the new moose management plan comes out.
I'm not sure if there's anything else.
MR. J. DINN:
No, I'll stop there and turn it back to Mr. Forsey.
CHAIR:
Okay, Mr. Forsey.
MR. FORSEY:
Yes, Sir.
Just another couple of questions.
The minister mentioned a biomass project associated with Cottle's Island Lumber
producers. What exactly is the biomass project?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll get Steve to comment on it as well. We're converting it over to a wood
pellet source of heat for six campuses in Central. To give you an update on
that, the committee has been formed with TI and FFA officials to lead the
initiative. The RFP was closed on September 10 and that evaluation is ongoing.
I don't know if that answers – I can ask Mr. Balsom if he wants to refer to the
actual project itself.
MR. BALSOM:
We're looking at stimulating a program for the use of the small-diameter timber
and the wood chips that formerly were being utilized by Abitibi and the
newsprint industry, which we see a steep decline in. So, in support of the solid
wood industry, we need to find outlets for small-diameter wood and the residues
that sawmills produce.
This RFP, similar to other jurisdictions across Canada, is looking at the
heating of public buildings through the burning of the biomass in biomass
boilers and heat systems. In partnership with Transportation and Infrastructure
we released the request for proposals to heat six public buildings: the Wooddale
agriculture and forestry research centre, as well as six College of the North
Atlantic campuses in the Central Newfoundland area. Or six buildings in total –
sorry, that's correct. Five College of the North Atlantic buildings. As the
minister said, the request for proposals has closed and we are currently
evaluating the proposals.
MR. FORSEY:
So they're taking the forestry product from one area just to heat six
facilities?
MR. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible), I don't understand –
MR. FORSEY:
Like the Central Newfoundland area, they have permits in the Central
Newfoundland area –
MR. LOVELESS:
Right.
MR. FORSEY:
– to make pellets to service six facilities.
MR. LOVELESS:
Correct, yeah.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
How much more employment is that creating in the Cottle's Island Lumber? Is
there – go ahead.
MR. LOVELESS:
No, just to clarify, this hasn't been awarded yet. This is an ongoing process.
The RFP closed on the 10th of September, so it hasn't been awarded yet.
MR. FORSEY:
Wasn't this the same basic understanding as the AEG project to have a pellet
plant up there? Wasn't that the same …?
MR. LOVELESS:
Sorry, the what? The AG –
MR. FORSEY:
The Timberlands project. Wasn't that the same basis, so that they could have a
pellet plant up there?
MR. LOVELESS:
Are you referring to the Great Northern Peninsula?
MR. FORSEY:
Yeah, same one.
MR. LOVELESS:
I guess it's similar, and certainly before my time, but I can ask Steve to
elaborate on that.
MR. BALSOM:
It's similar in that the project on the Northern Peninsula was looking for –
again, we're looking for the opportunity to utilize the small-diameter timber.
We recognize here with the loss of two newsprint mills on the Island and the
reduction from four paper machines at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to two that
the outlet for small-diameter timber and sawmill residue is a part of the
bottleneck that we need to solve to grow the solid wood industry, the lumber
industry.
I think the AEG project was looking at a very large-scale project in the order
of 50,000 tons of pellets for the industrial setting. This program is geared
towards – it's smaller scale. We're looking at about 4,000 tons, more or less as
a pilot project, as a demonstration project to show that you can utilize
renewable resources in the heating of buildings and to look at the conversions
from oil to renewable resources, such as those produced by our local sawmills.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay. Which is a good project, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just that I
don't see no point of keeping the Timberlands permits open if you're looking at
giving them to Cottle's Island Lumber to do the same thing. I really don't, it
just seems like one is beating down the other here.
In that retrospect, I'm getting a lot of smaller contractors, commercial
cutters, in the Central area that are being denied commercial permits. Is there
a reason for that?
MR. LOVELESS:
If you wish, you and I can certainly have a conversation about that. I mean, any
concerns that you have around that for those small operations in Central, I
would be more than happy to have a conversation with you. You're more than
welcome to come over and sit down and have a conversation on those particular
ones that you're referencing.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, all right.
It is $9.6 million for a plan to develop the forest sector and create jobs. The
former announced this in June. How much of this has been spent to date? How many
jobs have been created out of the $9.6 million that was in the plan?
MR. LOVELESS:
I don't have that one in front of me. Steve, do you want to …?
MR. BALSOM:
Yes, I can speak generally. When we looked at the $9.6 million with regard to
industry development, we had a target based on our metrics that it would create
a hundred opportunities for additional work. We have been successful to date on
a number of fronts.
We're working towards building an additional 20 kilometres of forest access road
in support of the forest industry. The jobs there are related to contracts that
have been tendered and the work that goes out with those individual road
builders. As the minister alluded to, we have also tendered additional planting
contracts. Some of those have been extensions to current contracts that we have
and the ability to plant more trees, giving more weeks of work to our
silviculture workers; others are new areas to utilize our goal of planting two
million extra seedlings. These are additional jobs for the tree planters and
contractors in that area.
We've also partnered with the Newfoundland Forest Industry Association to do
operational-level planning for our sectors. This will create jobs for forestry
technicians that will be doing timber cruising and road layout work. We're also
looking at a secondary processing program to help producers look at alternative
products in support of the Newfoundland forest industry. These could be
secondary products such as finger-jointed lumber or cabinetry work, those type
of things that will promote the use of local timber.
I think the final one within that $9.6 million is related to our biomass
project. $3.5 million will be invested in the conversion of those oil-fired
boilers to biomass. As an example, the additional fibre there, from our general
terms, will create 10 jobs related to the biomass that would be needed for that
program. So far we've been fairly successful in keeping people working longer
and creating additional work during this economic downturn.
CHAIR:
I'll move to Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Cooperative Wildlife Projects, 3.3.02: There are significant increases in some
areas in this. If I remember correctly, I've been looking at my notes from last
year; a lot of this money was related to – the Salaries – the work with the
federal government related to the Mealy Mountain caribou herd. It was basically
a co-operation agreement.
I'm looking at that. That's what this section is for, correct?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
I noticed even in last year's budget, the 2018-2019 budget, it was budgeted for
$70,200 and the actual was $61,200. Then the budget for 2019-20 was up to
$61,000, yet the amount – I guess the actual – that was spent was only about
$6,000 more than what the actual was last year and we still have a budget this
year of $686,400. I'm trying to get a sense here of what's going on. It seems
like several years in a row we have a large budget; the actuals are much lower,
but we're still budgeting a lot more.
We're also taking in federal revenue of almost – last year it was almost $1.5
million and this year it's almost $1.6 million. I'm just trying to get an idea
of what's going on here with this. It seems to be a little bit all over the
place. Where are we going with it? Especially if it's actually a federal
government plan that we're working with them.
MR. BALSOM:
The Cooperative Wildlife Projects account centre is where we do receive our
federal revenue from a number of sources. We have a federal program with
National Defence in Labrador for doing caribou surveys. We also have federal
revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the federal firearms training
course.
We have the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture initiative where funds are provided to
develop habitat stewardship plans with municipalities. The biggest one that we
do see – and it's related to the larger numbers – is the recent signed
contribution agreement for the boreal caribou initiative.
The discrepancy that you do see is when working out the details on these federal
agreements it was mid-fiscal when we did sign our agreement. After it was signed
we also had to negotiate, ourselves, bilateral agreements with our Indigenous
partners in Labrador. We were successful in working through two and still
working on the third.
We found ourselves unable to spend the salary dollars which were associated with
three positions that were to be hired in Labrador last fiscal and nearly
$400,000 under our Indigenous partner agreements. This year we're on track to
get those positions in Labrador and we're on track to finalize our agreements
with our partners there.
MR. J. DINN:
Then next year we should see basically these funds being used, the budget amount
being used, maybe not as much variance in the amounts and a greater portion of
the federal revenue being used for this purpose. Would that be correct?
MR. BALSOM:
Yes, we are on track. As you can see under last year's budget, we did put a
push, as you can see, on Purchased Services, gearing up for our work in
Labrador. This would include helicopter usage and fuel cache, getting ready for
our surveys. We also purchased our collars and were able to deploy 50 caribou
collars. We are setting ourselves up for a more favourable survey program under
that contribution agreement this year.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
If I may just quickly go back to 3.3.01, I'm just wondering, last year part of
that was for actually – I think there was $182,000 budgeted or whatever for the
catch-and-release. Has that been completed? When we can we expect that report to
be released?
MR. BALSOM:
We continued again this summer with that program. The previous summer left us
with – we still had some radio-tracking tags available. Because of the
fluctuations in the salmon returns that we've seen the last few years 2019 was a
bit of a down year, but 2020 certainly we've seen great returns. We've decided
to continue with the hook-and-release program, deploy the rest of our tags and
continue the monitoring work now over the course of the fall and winter. We'll
be providing our report in 2021.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you very much.
On to 4.1.01–
CHAIR:
Sorry.
MR. J. DINN:
Sorry, I've jumped ahead.
CHAIR:
We have to vote on these sections before we can go to 4.1.
MR. J. DINN:
(Inaudible) question I had at the beginning. This has to do with the
amalgamation or the merging of the two departments.
One of the concerns I wanted to have addressed is, as I understand it, in the
enforcement, a lot of the employees there are probably younger; and in Forestry,
they tend to be a little bit older. I guess, in one division, they're probably a
little bit concerned with being bumped out of a job or, basically, if there's
any attrition, that they would be the low person on the totem pole.
How are we going to address those issues? Also, the younger ones are probably
the ones dealing with the enforcement aspect of it.
MR. LOVELESS:
The process is not complete yet, but your point is well taken.
It's a good thing that we have youth in those jobs. I guess from an HR
perspective, the department is working with individuals to do the best we can
for them, if there are challenges around retirement and what. We're doing our
best to work with each individual.
MR. J. DINN:
That's a concern. From what I gather it seems, certainly within – I don't know
if people on either side of it want to see this merger, but there is concern
about this, and certainly around the whole notion will this lead to a smaller,
leaner and more layoffs. That would be a concern. If anything else, we do need
people out in the field, on the rivers and so on and so forth. That would be one
recommendation that I think is very important.
Not only for enforcement, but many of my encounters with river guardians, for
the most part, have always been positive. It's more or less, you know that the
people are there. They're the front line for your department in many ways.
They're the ones that are creating goodwill and, in some cases, an education.
You can have a chat with them. I think they're a very vital part of this. Just
their presence sometimes is enough to know that you have your finger on the
pulse and you're watching what's going on.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
I think that's about it, Mr. Chair, that I have to ask on that one.
CHAIR:
Mr. Forsey.
MR. FORSEY:
One quick question on this one before we end it.
Can we get an update on the caribou herd numbers in the province?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. FORSEY:
You did?
MR. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll ask Steve to talk about that, please.
MR. BALSOM:
Yes, I'll just give you a quick update. We have the Island portion divided into
three areas that we survey them once every two years. Some areas we are seeing
decreases, some areas we're seeing increases so I think the best thing for me to
do is to get you the actual census results for the past few years. If you don't
mind, we'll add that to the list.
MR. FORSEY:
Perfect and I'll take the moose as well.
MR. BALSOM:
No problem.
CHAIR:
Further questions, Mr. Forsey?
MR. FORSEY:
I'm good on that.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call the section.
CLERK:
3.1.01 to 3.3.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
3.1.01 to 3.3.02 inclusive.
Shall it carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.3.02 carried.
CLERK:
4.1.01 to 4.5.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.5.01 inclusive carry?
Mr. Forsey.
MR. FORSEY:
I'll start on the line by line items first.
4.1.01, Land Management, Salaries: Can you explain the variance?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance was due to savings as a result of some vacancies that were within
the division during the year.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Transportation and Communications: Can you explain the steady decrease here?
MR. LOVELESS:
That was due to less than anticipated travel expenditures.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Supplies: What is included here?
MR. LOVELESS:
Supplies, I don't have a breakdown of what's included but it's less than
anticipated supply expenditures during the year. Are you looking for …?
MR. FORSEY:
Well, just explain the variance that's all.
MR. LOVELESS:
It was just less than anticipated supply expenditures.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Professional Services, same thing, what's included in that one? Why is so much
less spent last year but back there again this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
It was less than anticipated, but the professional service requirements during
the year such as land surveys, appraisal services, et cetera.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Revenue: Can you explain what is included here?
MR. LOVELESS:
The Revenue is generated through Crown Lands and maps, like Mistaken Point fees.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
4.1.02, Purchased Services: What is included? Why was nothing spent last year?
MR. LOVELESS:
Variance due to no Purchased Services expenditures associated with surveys,
construction activity and electrical services during the year.
I don't know if that answers your question.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, all right.
Property, Furnishings and Equipment: What is included in that?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's slightly lower than anticipated due to cost associated with acquisition
of farmland during the year.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Under Lands, we're still getting calls with regard to two to five years for
approval on Crown land applications. Is there a process to rectify or speed that
up a bit?
MR. LOVELESS:
Well, I think everybody wishes for Crown Lands to – the processing application
procedure and time frame to be less, there's no doubt about it. But I wish I had
a magical answer to say to you tonight: Listen, this is what's going to happen
in the next three weeks and we're going to rectify it.
But just to move to explaining the amount of time, I'm going to ask the ADM
responsible to elaborate a little bit on it.
CHAIR:
Mr. Deering.
MR. DEERING:
I guess, this question appropriately belongs in 4.5.01, under the Crown Land
subhead, which is where all of the Crown lands applications that we receive are
processed. This particular subhead, 4.1.02, is our Land Consolidation Program,
which is really just a program whereby we buy privately owned lands, in most
cases, that were formally in agriculture production and we assign them as
agricultural leases with the view of putting them back into production and
protecting them.
I guess if we're prepared to jump forward to 4.5.01, Mr. Chair, would that be
appropriate for me to answer that question at this point?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. DEERING:
I guess, Mr. Forsey, the timelines that you had described would have included a
lot of the backlog applications that we had compiled, I suppose, prior to 2017.
Yes, there were examples of applications that have taken two to five years to
process. As of today's date, we can say that, for the most part, we have
concluded all of those backlog files with the exception of – what I'll call – a
handful of legacy files that we had, over the past decade, not been able to
completely finalize. Thankfully we managed to liquidate the backlog and we are
now attempting to prescribe a 90-day service standard on any new applications
that are received.
There are a number of processes that go into a Crown lands application, and I
should qualify that by saying a 90-day service standard on routine applications.
There are many applications that we cannot process within 90 days because there
are requirements from the applicant themselves for information, surveys, septic
designs and things like that that certainly can extend over a full year before
we can actually conclude the application. Section 36 applications are typically
quite complicated. Section 36 is a squatter's rights provision in the
legislation and it typically involves extensive field investigations and
corroborating evidence from affidavits and things like that in order to
completely process. I guess, a routine application might be a cottage lot in a
wilderness area that typically does not have any adjacent land interests that
might be competing with it. Typically we are committed to having responded to
the applicants within 90 business days on routine applications.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
You referred to going back to 2017 applications, that's already two years there.
MR. DEERING:
Yes.
MR. FORSEY:
Right.
Anyway, with all of the departments involved in the Crown lands applications,
how much timeline does each department have to submit to you fellows for an
approval?
MR. DEERING:
We have asked our referral agencies for a response within 21 working days. Most
departments are able to do that and we've tried to be tough with some
departments to say that if you haven't responded we will make a decision on your
behalf, which has tended to speed it up a little bit. However, some departments,
like regulatory agencies, Service NL, Transportation and Infrastructure, we
typically cannot proceed without an official referral back from those
departments. Sometimes they take a little bit longer than 21 days, but our
expectation with our referral agencies is that they respond back to us within 21
days of having received the referral.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
I've also gotten questions – I know you're saying 21 days; you're clearing it up
after the two-year backlog. I still have applications there that have eight to
10 years on it. People are being fined because they got tired of waiting for
their application to be approved from 25 feet into a road that they went ahead
and did their roadwork and they probably did some of the building work, and
that's say six, eight, 10 years. It's very frustrating. So, yeah, to see some
quicker application approvals would be nice.
MR. LOVELESS:
Just to speak to that. Listen, I know it's frustrating because I get calls from
my constituents, too. Lots of times, I'll tell you what's frustrating, when you
go back to the applicant and find out that the applicant hasn't supplied the
necessary information. I'm not saying that's the case with you, but sometimes
it's the applicant that really didn't provide what needs to be provided to the
department in order to move the application forward, too, and that's
frustrating. That's frustrating for the staff to try to move those applications
forward as well.
Land ownership in the province and these applications are, a lot of them – and I
feel that they need to be tiered in terms of the importance. There are
conversations ongoing in the department, and lengthy ones, around that. The
department officials do a good job. It's a lengthy one and it's frustrating for
them, too. So there's frustration on both sides, but we're trying to improve it.
Anybody who can give me a suggestion, a critical criticism, I'll open that door
and bring it on in.
If you have individual ones that you want to speak to me about, listen, come on
over and sit down and let's have a chat.
MR. FORSEY:
We'll have a chat.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, absolutely.
CHAIR:
Mr. Forsey, your time is winding down here now.
MR. FORSEY:
I'll leave it for that one.
CHAIR:
Given the hour of the evening and that it's been a while since we've had a
break, I'm going to ask the Clerk to set the timer for six minutes. We'll
reconvene at 9:50 and then we'll start with questioning from Mr. Dinn, because
there may be some of the minister's staff who haven't been able to get up and
move around, as well as some of the others who may need to use the washroom or
take some other break.
We'll just pause for six minutes.
Recess
CHAIR:
I turn things over now to the MHA for St. John's Centre, Mr. Dinn, for your
questions.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies if this one has already been asked under 4.1.01. There's a steep drop
in provincial revenue, even in the actual for 2019 and certainly down in the
revenue for this year. Why is this so? Is there an explanation for that? I think
you may have touched on it but I don't remember it, sorry.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah I gave a breakdown of where the revenue would come from for the Estimates.
Are you asking the difference in the budget and actuals of 2019-20?
MR. J. DINN:
I'm actually asking you: Why is there such a drop in that?
MR. LOVELESS:
That drop was less than anticipated revenue associated with cottage lot
developments during the year due to a slump in the real estate market.
MR. J. DINN:
Wow, that's significant. Okay, thank you.
Overall, in this department though, there's an overall drop. The amount to be
voted is about $519,000 less than what was voted on in the 2019-20 budget. In
just about all lines there is a significant drop in Purchased Services, Supplies
and so on and so forth.
Is there an explanation for that? I guess I'm just looking at the overall – when
I see a large drop like that in any section, are there cutbacks? What would the
explanation be for that?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, and it is through a total section.
Tracy, do you want to address that?
MS. KING:
MHA Dinn, I think you're asking for the department globally, is that …?
MR. J. DINN:
I'm just looking at that Land Management section there, globally, and that the
Amount to be Voted is significantly less. I'm just trying to get an idea.
Overall, that's a bit of a startling trend.
MS. KING:
There's no significant change in the core programs of the department. There are
some things like attrition management. Certainly, this revenue impact has an
impact on the overall budget.
I'm going to let the controller kind of talk us through some of the more
detailed specifics.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
MR. IVIMEY:
Yeah so if you're talking about the Land Management budget overall as a total
and what the amount is to be budgeted, the main difference that you're seeing
there is really the difference in the revenue. You're seeing a revenue line last
year of almost $14.2 million, which then goes down to $8.6 million for '20-'21.
Really, you're not seeing a decrease in budgeted expenditures; you're just
seeing a decrease in budgeted revenue.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
The budget revenue would also then tie to the – I noticed there's a $406,000
decrease in Purchased Services. They would all be tied together, correct?
MR. IVIMEY:
That is correct. The total Amount to be Voted there, you'll see last year was
$3.6 million and then this year is roughly $3.1 million. That's the $600,000
difference that you're seeing there. That's attributable to that Purchased
Services line item.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Yet the Salaries are – probably one of the ones that have taken leave. So there
hasn't been any layoff or attrition there at all, or much, in terms of salaries
or positions?
MR. IVIMEY:
No, there have been no layoffs.
MR. J. DINN:
Salaries would encompass all of those people in the field and in administration
as well, would that be correct?
MR. IVIMEY:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. Thank you.
I'll skip 4.1.02 and on to 4.2.01. Just some general questions here.
Minister, in your mandate letter it highlighted as a priority the need for a
novel means of helping local farmers to overcome barriers that constrain
vegetable production, extend their market season and expand operations. One
would think that more funds would be allocated here but, in fact, there's no
noticeable increase in the total budgeted investment. Is there an explanation
for that?
MR. LOVELESS:
We certainly have focused on the help for the agriculture sector, whether it be
cold storage availability or opening up land for other developments. Then you
can touch on the food self-sufficiency issue in this category as well.
I'll ask the ADM to give you some examples of that investment that we're doing
for farmers.
MR. DEERING:
We have been able to repurpose some things within our current budget to
modernize our services and things that we offer to farmers. As well, as the
minister said, there are a number of items which don't show up in our budget
lines. They would have shown up under the COVID expenditures through Finance
that have been game changers for us this year, like the cold storage investment,
the investment in red meat slaughter facilities and beef enhancement, investment
in road construction, as well as land development, which will significantly get
us over our target to achieve double our food self-sufficiency.
MR. J. DINN:
If I may follow up: Would the funding here also be used for things like orchard
start-ups? I know out on Roaches Line there's a person preparing the grounds for
an orchard. I know a friend of mine has started one down in – it will come to me
in a minute now – the Bonavista Placentia.
I'm just wondering: Would that be part of the production incentives that you'd
have here in this section?
MR. DEERING:
We do have orchards, as it turns out, that fall under this particular subhead
but they're for research purposes only. In fact, under 4.3.03 and 4.3.04 we have
invested significantly into fruit production in orchards through those programs.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay and I'll ask a question on that when I get to that then.
I think you've talked about the types of projects, but what are the sources of
provincial revenue here? Why are there fluctuations in the budget from year to
year between the budget and the actuals for 2019-2020?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's for the provincial revenue piece for 4.2.01?
MR. J. DINN:
Well, the federal, too. If you look at the federal budget for 2019-20 it was
$340,000, the actual is $76,000 but now the budget for this year, federally, is
$230,000. The provincial revenue, there's a slight variation of some $7,000 in
the actual.
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance for the federal piece is due to less than anticipated federal
revenue due to lower than anticipated expenditures associated with
federal-provincial clean technology project.
To touch on the, I guess, federal revenue piece and that's for
federal-provincial co-operative projects, the clean technology as I referenced
before. The provincial revenue piece would be from the sale of seed potatoes and
vegetable transplants.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
This one may have been asked already: Purchased Services was budgeted for in
2019-20 and this year is $70,000 yet the actuals was, basically, certainly well
over double. Any explanation for that?
MR. LOVELESS:
That was due to, I guess, the uncertainty of not knowing during the year around
vehicle repairs and maintenance during the year like to the backhoes, the
tractors, the delivery trucks, et cetera. It's due to maintenance and repairs.
MR. J. DINN:
So, Minister, would you anticipate, based on that experience, do you think you
would maybe budget a little bit more or basically would that maintenance cover
off all the major problems and maybe resolved a lot of the problems ahead of
time? You're not anticipating that any further?
MR. LOVELESS:
Well nobody knows for sure.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
But, I guess, we're comfortable in terms of budgeting that amount. Last year,
being a – hopefully that backhoe that was fixed last year, won't break down this
year.
MR. J. DINN:
Sounds good to me.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn and Minister.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Mr. Forsey.
MR. FORSEY:
Before we go into Agriculture, there was one more question under Wildlife that I
really didn't get to, concerning the outfitting lodges. This year, of course,
was a write off for those lodges because of COVID. Would the minister consider
increasing licenses next year to increase that business?
MR. LOVELESS:
I can't give you a yes or no answer but it's something that we're discussing at
this point.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Under Agriculture, budget documents laid out the level of employment and
production for the fishing and forestry sector. Can we have the statistics for
the agriculture sector in this province?
MR. DEERING:
If I understand your question correctly, the total value on employment for
agriculture?
MR. FORSEY:
Yes, the total one for agriculture.
MR. DEERING:
The total value of this sector is about $500 million, and the total employment
is 6,500, direct and indirect.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
The budget announcement was $12 million for agriculture programs. Is this the
same money the former minister announced in June with the $13 million in funding
to create jobs in the agriculture sector and assist farmers and producers?
MR. LOVELESS:
We don't have the answer to that question right now but we will certainly get
you the answer to it.
MR. FORSEY:
How come?
MR. LOVELESS:
It's late.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, no, that's fine, Minister. You can get back to me with the answer for
that.
MR. LOVELESS:
We certainly will.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, thank you.
We'll move to 4.2.02, Marketing Board.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. FORSEY:
What is included? Can you explain why only $7,610 was spent last year but
$37,500 is budgeted for this year?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's due to lower than anticipated per diem expenditures for Farm Industry
Review Board members during the year, associated with less appeals and
complaints filed under the farm practices act.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Your government said it plans to double food self-sufficiency by 2022. What
percentage of that is agriculture and what percentage is aquaculture?
MR. LOVELESS:
Keith, do you want to elaborate on that?
MR. DEERING:
Specifically, the commitment that was made was to double self-sufficiency in
non-supply managed agricultural commodities. We can't double our food
self-sufficiency in dairy, chicken and eggs because we're pretty much at 100 per
cent capacity, so the footprint that we're looking to double is in vegetable and
fruit production, as well as in beef and sheep and other livestock production in
the non-supply managed commodities.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
That would answer: What is your plan to address food security issues in the
province?
Do you think we will be impacted by Marine Atlantic's decision this week to end
priority boarding for food?
MR. LOVELESS:
In terms of the weather-related this week, you mean? Is that –?
MR. FORSEY:
No, in terms of Marine Atlantic to end boarding for food, the priority for food
on the Marine Atlantic.
MR. DEERING:
My interpretation of the news story that I heard was that they were going to
continue to ensure that food was a priority. I don't know if I misunderstood
something but –
The pre-COVID condition in terms of food shipments; food had a priority there as
well, particularly perishable goods.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
MR. DEERING:
That was a priority on the Marine Atlantic cargo crossings.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
4.3.02, Salaries: Can you explain the variance there in the Salaries?
MR. LOVELESS:
Again, that's due to vacancies within that division during the year. The
Estimates for 2020-21 was – we have salary adjustments that are required.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Grants and Subsidies: What is covered here in the Grants and Subsidies?
MR. LOVELESS:
The actual variance there is due to lower than anticipated grants due to lower
costs for government premiums in 2019 crop year.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Federal revenue: What's included in the federal revenue?
MR. LOVELESS:
It's due to revenue from the federal government due to lower administration
costs, i.e. staff vacancies and lower cost for government share of premiums.
MR. FORSEY:
4.3.03, Grants and Subsidies: What's covered in the Grants and Subsidies?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll ask Keith to comment on that, please.
MR. DEERING:
This particular subhead is our Provincial Agrifoods Assistance Program. The
Grants and Subsidies that we provide are all of the projects that farmers submit
under the provincial program for funding to our program. This year we would have
had 94 projects in 2019-20.
Our Community Garden Support Program was funded under this particular subhead as
well. We had 101 community gardens that we funded in '19-'20 and a 120 in this
current fiscal year, '20-'21.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay. Thank you.
4.3.04, Salaries: Can you explain the variance here?
MR. LOVELESS:
4.3.04?
MR. FORSEY:
Yeah.
MR. LOVELESS:
That's due to lower than anticipated salary requirements during the year,
primarily due to less overtime.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Purchased Services: There's a steady increase here. What's included in that?
MR. LOVELESS:
It's due to higher than anticipated Purchased Services expenditures required for
such things as food safety and Environmental Farm Planning projects during the
year, primarily vehicle rentals.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Can you explain what is included in the Grants and Subsidies?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance is due to higher than anticipated business risk management
requirements under the CAP multilateral framework agreement during the year.
Both business risk management programs, the AgriInvest and AgriStability, are
demand-driven and they fluctuate based on annual programs participation and
change in agricultural markets and farm income.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay and in the Revenue - Provincial, what is included in provincial and the
same for the federal?
MR. LOVELESS:
The federal: Higher than anticipated federal revenue due to revenue being
received in '20-'21 relating to 2019-20 expenditures due to timing delays in
revenue receipting. That's the federal piece.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
That's the variance. The federal piece for the Estimates is revenue adjustment
to reflect planned expenditures under the federal-provincial cost-shared
agreement for 2020-21.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
MR. LOVELESS:
I think you might have asked provincial?
MR. FORSEY:
I did, yeah.
MR. LOVELESS:
Okay, I'll ask Keith if he could
tell us about the provincial piece.
MR. DEERING:
The provincial revenue is anticipated recapturing of projects that don't get
completed during the year. In fact, last year we didn't have any and it's
entered as a line item every year just to keep it on the books.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
4.2.03 Limestone Sales: I understand there's a subsidization. Does this apply to
all forms of farming, including sod farmers? Or is it just for agricultural food
production?
MR. LOVELESS:
The target of the budget is for farmers in terms of food. If there are monies
leftover, then those sod farmers would be considered –
MR. J. DINN:
Perfect, thank you.
MR. LOVELESS: –
through an application process.
MR. J. DINN:
4.3.01: I'm curious to hear – and maybe this is the question to ask. I would
assume that this is where we would find the Grants and Subsidies to do with
apple orchards? Would this be the appropriate place to ask that question? I'll
ask it anyway.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, ask the question.
MR. J. DINN:
I'm just wondering and this is the question I was –I think Mr. Deering referred
me to, when I was asking this question earlier. I'm just curious; I find,
actually, the whole idea of having orchards in Newfoundland rather a remarkable
project. They seem to be doing well, the ones I've encountered.
I'm just wondering how many orchards have we funded or gotten off the ground? I
think that's also part of the doubling of food production as well, part of that.
It's fascinating, actually, just to watch it happen and a great idea too.
MR. LOVELESS:
It is fascinating to watch and I'll let Mr. Deering, with his passion, tell you
all about that.
MR. DEERING:
I'd have to go back to my database to
get you a complete list. Off the top of my head I'm thinking over the past
number of years we've probably funded in the range of a dozen apple orchards in
this province. We've also assisted with the establishment of three different
grape developments which, as well, has turned out to work remarkably well in
this province.
MR. LOVELESS:
If I can add to that, I was on the West Coast and I tasted one of the apples.
It's delicious. I should have brought a bag in here and delivered them to you.
MR. J. DINN:
Would it be predominantly apple orchards or would there be others, like pears or
anything like that? Would they be scattered evenly throughout the province? Like
I said, I know one on the Bonavista Peninsula and one on the Avalon. I'm just
wondering: Where would the distribution be and how well are they doing? Have any
of them reached the production level?
MR. DEERING:
Yes, I would suggest that most of the projects that we funded, actually, in
fruit production have been in Central Newfoundland. We do have individual
projects scattered on the periphery of that, a couple in Western as well. Our
largest grape trial is actually on the Bonavista Peninsula, as you indicated.
Most of our fruit production and, in particular, apple production, is in Central
Newfoundland in Wooddale.
MR. J. DINN:
Remarkable. Anyway, I think it's a good investment for sure. You never know. If
I don't last at this job I'll go into orchard production. Who knows?
MR. LOVELESS:
I look forward to Jim Dinn's apples.
MR. J. DINN:
That's right.
Under 4.3.02, Salaries: Even in last year's budget what they were budgeted for –
the actual was much lower than the budgeted amount. This year, over 40 per cent
of this money remained on the table.
The question is: Are we having trouble filling vacant positions? If so, which
ones? That's in 4.3.02.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, just to touch on the variance, it was due to vacancies within that
division, within the department. The Estimates for '20-'21 is salary adjustment.
In terms of the positions and all of the other stuff that you asked, I can ask
Keith to comment on it, please.
MR. DEERING:
Again, this is crop and livestock insurance. It depends on what type of a year
we have, in terms of a production year, whether or not we need crop insurance
folks in the field, as well as financial officers to process claims.
We have a number of positions that are on the books. If it's a good year, we
don't need to fill them. These are mostly seasonal positions. We have the
ability to recall them if we have a year that requires processing a lot of
insurance claims.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, so they're like contract or seasonal?
MR. DEERING:
Right.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Would that same rationale then be applied to the Grants and Subsidies?
MR. DEERING:
Yes, that's correct.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
MR. DEERING:
If it's a bad year and we get a lot of claims, we tend to pay out more in that
particular category.
MR. J. DINN:
The variance or the actual would increase if we had a good year?
MR. DEERING:
That's correct.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. That's 4.3.02.
Under 4.3.04, I think what I'm looking at here, the only question I would ask on
that, since my colleague to the left has asked most of them anyway, which is
good: In 4.3.04, we seem to anticipate a jump of about $700,000 in federal
revenue over '20-'21, any explanation for that?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll leave that for Keith to answer, please.
MR. DEERING:
This is, again, our federal-provincial Canadian Agricultural Partnership
program. We do have the ability – well, actually, we have the ability within the
multilateral framework agreement to carry forward federal funds year by year up
to 25 per cent; however, we have to, through this process, get authorities to
transfer provincial funds forward.
So, in fact, the significant increase that you see this year is an increase of
about $1.4 million to account for money that did not get spent in the first two
years of the program. We don't do it every year, but this year we did it for two
subsequent years.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
Under 4.4.01, we know that there's an increase of over $100,000 to Salaries. Is
this new money and what is this new money to be used for?
MR. LOVELESS:
Sorry, I've got to ask: What section –?
MR. J. DINN:
Sorry, 4.4.01.
There was an increase of over $100,000 to Salaries. This is a new position, I
would assume?
MR. LOVELESS:
For the Estimates for '20-'21?
MR. J. DINN:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yeah, that's for salary adjustment required for '20-'21.
MR. J. DINN:
It wouldn't be a new position or anything like that?
MR. LOVELESS:
No, it's the 27 pay periods.
MR. J. DINN:
Ah.
MR. LOVELESS:
Versus 26.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, excellent.
Would you have some examples of the projects being funded with Grants and
Subsidies?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, SPCA, the Chinook program, animal welfare, Canadian Animal Health
Laboratorians Network and another one, Taylor award.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
Finally in that section, 4.4.01, the source of federal revenue. It was actually
lower than expected but it seems to have gone entirely for this year. What
happened to that?
MR. LOVELESS:
The federal revenue piece?
MR. J. DINN:
Yes. It's no longer there.
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance is due to removal of one-time federal revenue related to a one
year, federal-provincial co-operative project. That was for the year of 2019-20.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
In 4.5.01, there seems to be an overspending on Salaries, yet the budget there
is still an increase of $133,700. Would this be again related to salary
adjustments and the 27 –?
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, perfect.
Chair, if you'll let me, I'll have my last question, Purchased Services was
underspent by approximately a quarter, why is that?
MR. LOVELESS:
The Purchased Services.
MR. J. DINN:
In last year, it was $104,200, it's still that but last year the Purchased
Services was at $80,000 roughly.
MR. LOVELESS:
Yes, it was due to lower than anticipated service expenditures such as printing
services, recycling and shredding services and contracting services during the
year.
MR. J. DINN:
Perfect, thank you.
That's it for me on that section.
CHAIR:
Mr. Forsey.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Just a couple of more questions, we'll go to 4.5.01. No, sorry, I'll backtrack
on that. Can we get an update on the potato farm, seed potato?
MR. DEERING:
We've undergone a bit of a transition over the last couple of years. I'm
assuming you're talking about the Glenwood Seed Potato Farm?
MR. FORSEY:
Yes.
MR. DEERING:
We've rolled up operations in terms of seed potato production at that facility
and moved all that to Wooddale. We are currently in the process of concluding an
environmental assessment, a phase one environmental assessment of the Glenwood
site to include it as part of our planned commercial potato production in
'20-'21.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
How's your new building working out in Corner Brook?
MR. LOVELESS:
The lights are on.
MR. FORSEY:
Any issues?
MR. LOVELESS:
Do you have any issues?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LOVELESS:
No, we don't have any issues that I can share.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
All positions filled?
MR. LOVELESS:
All the positions filled in what division? In terms of …
MR. FORSEY:
In Lands Division, Crown Lands.
MR. LOVELESS:
I know there's some recruitment on some positions. I'm anxious to get them
filled, no doubt, but that's an ongoing process.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, all right.
MR. LOVELESS:
We'll get there.
MR. FORSEY:
What is the status on the 64,000 hectares of Crown land identified for farmland?
MR. LOVELESS:
I'll defer to the ADM for that.
MR. DEERING:
If you bear me for just one second, I can give you some numbers.
Originally, we had 64,000 hectares; you're correct. Through a last-minute
negotiation with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, we wound up having to pare that
down to 59 areas of interest, comprising about 62,000 hectares; 54 of those are
on the Island portion of the province and five were in Labrador. To date, we
have received 57 applications in those 59 AOIs, but only for about 2,200
hectares. So far we have approved and have in production 21 new leases for a
total of 302 hectares.
Suffice it to say, the level of interest that we have seen from the public on
these areas of interest have even been a little underwhelming to us. Out of a
total of the 62,000 hectares that we advertised, we've only received
applications for 2,200.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
Public draws on Crown lands, they've been around for 25 years. Why would a
public draw be tied up for 25 years?
MR. DEERING:
I'm not sure if you can provide me with an example.
MR. FORSEY:
Actually, yes, I can. Hold on.
CHAIR:
Mr. Forsey, just for the benefit of the Committee and the meeting, maybe it
would be better to take that directly to the department, if it's an individual
issue, a constituency issue.
MR. FORSEY:
I did but I didn't get an answer. Anyway, I'll do it again.
No, we're good. Just two more quick questions: Can we have an update on the
Labrador Resource Enforcement Division? On 5.2.02.
MR. LOVELESS:
We're not there; we're not on that section.
CHAIR:
We're not in section five yet. We have to vote on section four.
MR. FORSEY:
I know we touched –
CHAIR:
If there are no questions, then we'll (inaudible).
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, no, we're done with that section.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call the section.
CLERK:
4.1.01 to 4.5.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.5.01 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.5.01 carried.
CLERK:
5.1.01 to 5.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 to 5.2.02 inclusive carry?
Mr. Forsey, your section on five – can now be asked those questions.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, sorry.
5.2.02: Can we have an update on the new Newfoundland and Labrador Resource
Enforcement Division?
MR. LOVELESS:
Okay, I'm going to turn it over to a new ADM now, Katie.
MS. NORMAN:
Thank you very much. I would be happy to provide that.
The Resource Enforcement Division is in the process of being established. We're
in phase one now, which involves the seniority-based offers to forestry officers
who will be entering the Resource Enforcement Division.
Earlier you mentioned Labrador in particular, so I'll speak to that. That was
the first region that we prioritized to make those offers and I'm pleased to say
that all of those offers have now been accepted. The officers will begin
training on October 19 and they're starting in their new positions on October
13. Similar timelines are in place for other regions and we're working sort of
west to east with those offers. Actively, we've been contacting officers over
the last number of days to make their offers.
Once that's concluded there's a phase-two process, which involves posting
positions that are vacant. These are currently vacant positions in what was the
Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division and those will use a merit- and
seniority-based Public Service Commission process to fill those.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay.
What are the impacts of restructuring that department?
MS. NORMAN:
From an impact perspective, if you're talking about employee impacts, there are
actually more positions than there are individuals currently assigned to these
positions. So we're not anticipating anybody losing their job as a result of
this.
However, some individuals may choose to not enter the Resource Enforcement
Division for a variety of reasons. We are actively working to find those
individuals temporary assignments, as close to their current headquarters as
possible, to accommodate them.
MR. FORSEY:
Okay, thank you.
That's it.
CHAIR:
You have no specific line by line there?
MR. FORSEY:
No.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
If I may, just a follow-up on that, a quick question about the combining. Is
this a common practice in other jurisdictions to combine the services in this
manner, combine wildlife and forestry?
MS. NORMAN:
Certainly it is. If you look across the country the scope of what a conservation
officer service – which is kind of a general title for what we're calling
resource enforcement – tends to be multi-streamed. There are often fish and
wildlife enforcement as well as potentially other types of conservation services
including forestry; Alberta includes sheriff officers' functions in there as
well. Certainly, the scope of this expansion would be bringing us in line with
national practices.
MR. J. DINN:
There will be an attempt to keep people close to their base of where they live.
MS. NORMAN:
I can't speak to individual impact, but what I can say, based on what I know, is
that if individuals are transferring positions at this time in phase one, it's
often because they've expressed an interest in doing so. We are working to
accommodate as many people as possible, as close to their current headquarters
as possible, but there may be some relocations that occur as result of this
process.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. I mean people who want to move is one thing but forcing someone to move
and uproot family, that would be, I think, a significant upheaval.
If I may then, with 5.1.01, I would assume in the Salaries that the Salaries
variation – would that again be related to the salary adjustment due to the
27-week pay period? There wouldn't be any payout of severance there, would it?
MR. LOVELESS:
No, the Estimates would be for salary adjustment. That's the 27 –
MR. J. DINN:
That could be the case then for the increase in salary in all of these areas
then?
MR. LOVELESS:
Correct.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Professional Services were underspent by half, if I'm looking at it correctly
there – maybe not – yet this budget item has not changed. Why?
MS. NORMAN:
Are you referring to 5.1.01 under Purchased Services?
MR. J. DINN:
Yes, Purchased Services.
MS. NORMAN:
Purchased Services for us includes the cost of any divestiture activities that
happen throughout the year such as – we typically grade the road in Belleoram
each year as part of work infrastructure that we have, so there's a cost there
for that. This also includes corporate services for the entire Petten Building,
so, photocopiers, shredders – any moves that may occur from that time.
There was some savings associated with a new shredding contract for government;
there were no major moves that needed to be absorbed, that kind of thing. It's
kind of a corporate account that the department dips into for moves and office
requirements.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
Under revenue it's budgeted for $12,000 but there's a significant jump in the
actuals for 2019-2020. What was the source of that windfall?
MS. NORMAN:
The revenue variance relates to loan repayments under the former Forest Industry
Diversification Program. There were two outstanding loans to two sawmilling
operations who made repayments which are captured under there.
The $12,000 amount deals with annual leases for marine service centres. We
talked a little bit aquaculture wharves earlier, the usage fees for that are
also paid in. That's the $12,000. The additional almost $500,000 is the Forest
Industry Diversification Program loan repayments.
MR. J. DINN:
That $12,000 then, when you say for aquaculture wharves, is that for all
aquaculture companies? Does that capture the lease arrangements?
MS. NORMAN:
No. We have three fisheries and aquaculture wharves on the South Coast in Pool's
Cove, Hermitage and Harbour Breton. Those are the usage fees for aquaculture
companies in that region for the use of those facilities.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Somewhere I'm going to go back to – not right now, Minister, but at another time
– the cleanup that we paid for as well. That's a conversation you and I can have
at another time.
MR. LOVELESS:
We certainly can.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
On 5.1.02, I would assume here Transportation and Communications – would any of
that be for helicopter service? It seems like a pretty small amount.
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance here was less than anticipated travel expenditure during the year
but helicopters are not in this one.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, I was just curious.
Would this division be using drones in part of its work? Do you know?
MS. NORMAN:
We do use drones for small-scale mapping projects. For the Aerial Photography
program the technology is not suitable for that scale but, yes, for small-scale
projects.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
In 5.1.02, Supplies, only a small amount of the money for Supplies was actually
spent. There is a big decrease from $65,000 for 2019-20 down to $16,900, yet the
actual for last year was $8,000. Why is this the case?
MR. LOVELESS:
That's due to cost for survey supplies required during the year. It's less than
we anticipated.
MR. J. DINN:
Is that because the surveys were curtailed or anything like that? That's a
significant drop. Are we cutting back services, I guess, is what I'm looking at.
MS. NORMAN:
This is a relatively new division established in 2017, so there's been some
fluctuation in the Supplies amount in getting the right technology and equipment
that staff need to operate. Certainly, there's been no reduction in services.
In part, these were fewer software costs that were actually able to be absorbed
by the OCIO rather than the department. There also was a purchase of a
survey-grade drone that actually had to be cancelled because it was unable to be
delivered before March 31. That's an expenditure we're looking at for this year.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. Thank you very much.
For Purchased Services, there seems to be a significant increase in the budget,
even though the variance for 2019, the actual, is actually much lower. What
additional expenses are expected for the current year?
MR. LOVELESS:
The variance was due to a lower than anticipated costs for the air photo program
during the year. I'll ask Katie if she wishes to elaborate on the increased
amount for '20-'21.
MS. NORMAN:
As Minister Loveless has noted, a large portion of this is the Aerial
Photography program. That budget fluctuates a little bit depending on which area
of the province we plan to fly each year.
The tip of the Northern Peninsula was flown last year, which was at a lower
cost. This current year we're focused on the Avalon Peninsula, which is $150,000
of that $173,000. The remaining amount has to do with maintenance costs. We have
some expensive copiers and scanners and things like this that require annual
maintenance.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Expenses for Property, Furnishings and Equipment was over three times the budget
for 2019. Was that related to that survey program, maybe where people were
located?
MS. NORMAN:
No. Earlier we spoke about Supplies being down. Part of that was some of the
costs that I think had been anticipated as being a Supplies amount were actually
incurred under Property, Furnishings and Equipment. There was a new survey;
computer printing equipment was purchased, including a number of high-end
computers for data analysis and mapping, a large-format printer and some
temporary digital storage for aerial photography for fieldwork and a digital
level for performing survey elevations.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much.
Finally, in that section there: What's the source of provincial revenue there?
Why is it significantly lower than expected last year? You can see it dropped
significantly.
MS. NORMAN:
The sale is for digital map and data projects, wall maps and air photos. Because
there is an online Land Use Atlas we are seeing a decrease in people purchasing
printed maps and photos. However, as I mentioned, the Avalon Peninsula is
planned to be flown, which will provide updated aerial imagery that we
anticipate being in greater demand than some other regions. So we anticipate
revenue being stable despite a drop the year prior.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn. Your time has expired.
Mr. Forsey has indicated that he has no further questions. If there are no
further questions without an intervening speaker you'd have to request leave,
Mr. Dinn, to ask further questions.
MR. J. DINN:
All right.
I request leave. I need about five minutes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Leave.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons.
Leave has been granted for five minutes.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
In Compliance, 5.2.01, spending on Salaries was under budget, yet we made an
increase here. Is there an explanation for that?
MS. NORMAN:
Yes, there were some temporary vacancies there that have been filled, but one of
the key pieces was the recruitment of a manager of occupational health and
safety for the department that now has been filled on a permanent basis. The
salary had been allocated but the position wasn't filled in '19-'20, but it is
now.
MR. J. DINN:
The higher than estimated for the costs of Supplies?
MS. NORMAN:
This variance was due to uniform supplies, primarily those related to officer
safety. So survival suits, personal flotation devices, some field gear, soft
body armour, those types of expenses.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you.
The last section, 5.2.02, Enforcement: I think you asked this when I was looking
at drones. I think that covers it.
Thank you very much, Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn.
No further questions from the Committee on this subhead?
I ask the Clerk to call the headings.
CLERK:
5.1.01 to 5.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 to 5.2.02 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 5.1.01 through 5.2.02 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 Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, total heads,
carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture 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 Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture
carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
I just want to take a moment to thank everybody for participating, the minister
and his staff, all the officials with the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture. There were significant questions asked here today by the Committee
Members, by the Opposition and the Third Party. I certainly thank everybody for
their co-operation and for working almost five hours now to get through these
particular Estimates.
I will allow the minister and the Opposition Members, if they would like, to
also say some closing remarks. Then we have to approve the minutes before we
make a motion to adjourn.
Minister Loveless.
MR. LOVELESS:
I did have a 10-page speech that I was going to give at the beginning. I didn't
give it, but I shall give it now.
No, all I want to say is I do have staff members that came across the Island to
be here. I just want to say thank you to them, and all the other staff members
as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LOVELESS:
And everybody else. I know it's late and, listen, thank you for what you do. You
all make this process go successful. And the fine lady that's at the Table as
well that's assisting us, it doesn't go unnoticed.
Anyway, thank you everybody. Sleep well tonight and have a good rest.
CHAIR:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I would just like to echo your comments. Thank you to everybody. Thank you for
all the answers we received tonight. Still, in Estimates, I always learn a lot
from them and I learned a little bit more this year.
Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIR:
And Mr. Forsey.
MR. FORSEY:
I said my piece earlier, but thanks again.
CHAIR:
Wonderful.
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Yes, I would like to express my thanks. It's interesting; the only part that
ever really gets covered is Question Period. It's when you do Estimates that you
realize just how much work goes on behind the scenes. To Mr. Parsons's comment:
I've learned an awful lot and I'll continue to learn each year.
Thank you very much for your time and your patience in asking questions, which
I'm sure are pretty straightforward to you but which are, at times, opaque to
us.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Dinn.
Earlier this evening the Clerk circulated the minutes when the Resource
Committee last met on October 5 where the Department of Industry, Energy and
Technology had met with the Members there. Everybody would have had an
opportunity to review those minutes, so I ask if we could have a mover.
MR. BENNETT:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Moved by the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.
On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
With that, I will also announce that the next meeting of the Resource Committee
is currently scheduled for Monday, October 19 at 6 p.m., that's the Department
of Immigration, Skills and Labour for Resource Committee Members. That's the
next time we're currently scheduled to meet, pending, there maybe changes. That
will be circulated as well.
With that, it's 10:46, I ask for a mover for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
MR. TRIMPER:
So moved.
CHAIR:
The Member for Lake Melville, Mr. Trimper.
On motion, the Committee adjourned.