Resource Committee — fisheries and aquaculture — 20 May 2015

2015-05-20

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PDF Version

May 20,

RESOURCE

COMMITTEE

The

Committee met at 5:33 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Cross):

Good evening everyone.

We are

about ready to start. I would just

like to lay a couple of ground rules and then we will move into introductions

from the Committee side.

Estimates Committees are governed by Standing Order 65 to 77.

When we start with proceedings, we offer fifteen minutes to the minister

to start, if he needs that time.

Then the first speaker for the Official Opposition gets fifteen minutes and we

alternate ten minutes after that, between the Opposition and the Third Party.

We will call the line item at the start.

Housekeeping; we need a motion to adopt the minutes of the previous meeting.

MR. MCGRATH:

So moved.

CHAIR:

Moved by Mr. McGrath;

seconded by Ms Perry.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

I would ask now the members

of the Resource Committee, starting with Mr. Slade, to introduce themselves, but

you need to wait for the light.

MR. SLADE:

I am MHA Sam Slade, the

Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MS PLOUGHMAN:

Hello, Kim Ploughman with the Liberal Opposition.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Christopher Mitchelmore,

MHA, The Straits White Bay North.

MS MICHAEL:

Lorraine Michael, MHA,

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP

caucus.

MR. HUNTER:

Ray Hunter, MHA, Grand

Falls-Windsor Green Bay South.

MS PERRY:

Tracey Perry, MHA, Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune.

MR. MCGRATH:

Nick McGrath, MHA, Labrador

West.

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. GRANTER:

Vaughn Granter, Minister and

MHA for Humber West.

MR. LEWIS:

David Lewis, Deputy

Minister.

MR. MEANEY:

Brian Meaney, Assistant

Deputy Minister.

MS QUINLAN:

Krista Quinlan, Assistant

Deputy Minister

MS LUNDRIGAN:

Kate Lundrigan, Fisheries

Financial Planning Supervisor.

MR. IVIMEY:

Philip Ivimey, Departmental

Controller.

MS WISEMAN:

Wanda Wiseman, Director of

Planning Services.

MR. STEAD:

Rob Stead, Executive

Assistant to Minister Granter.

MR. SCAPLEN:

Roger Scaplen, Director of

Communications.

CHAIR:

Okay, just a reminder that

all questions are directed to the minister and he will deflect.

If you are into a supplemental question, you can go to the person, but

the minister would, at his discretion, call back to question him.

Mr.

Granter, do you want to start?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes, thank you.

Good

evening everyone.

CHAIR:

Should we call the number

first?

CLERK (Ms Barnes):

You are supposed to.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MR. GRANTER:

Sorry?

CHAIR:

Call the first

CLERK:

We have to call the subhead.

Subhead

1.1.01.

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. GRANTER:

I am not going to give a

preamble, but I welcome everyone this evening.

I will turn it over to get into the line-by-line questions that the panel

may have.

CHAIR:

Okay.

We will be using the clock.

Mr.

Slade.

MR. SLADE:

I also waive that right.

I would like to get into the lines.

CHAIR:

Just go right to it.

You can start.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Minister, 1.1.01,

Employee Benefits that were not spent, can we get an explanation for that?

MR. GRANTER:

Sorry?

MR. SLADE:

Employee Benefits.

MR. GRANTER:

So you are under Salaries,

01?

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

It was budgeted $254,900 and

the actual spent was $233,300?

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

That is a variance due to

salary savings as a result of a vacancy in an executive assistant position in

the Minister's Office. That was for

a short period of time throughout last year.

There was an executive assistant position that was not filled for a short

period of time.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Transportation went up by $10,000.

Why would that be? Is it all

ministerial travel in this section, or does the minister tap other monies in the

department for travel? Can the

minister table a list of his travels, including destinations and cost?

MR. GRANTER:

It was budgeted $48,600 and

the actual came in at $58,600. It

was all ministerial. The variance

was due to international travel requirements related to seafood development

activities, as well as slightly higher than anticipated travel cost associated

with some routine ministerial travel.

So, yes, it was all ministerial travel.

MR. SLADE:

Also, can you table a list

of that travel?

MR. GRANTER:

I do not have it with me,

but I do not see it being a difficult problem to table any of the travel from

the Minister's Office.

MR. SLADE:

Okay, Sir.

MR. GRANTER:

Just to add to that, it had

to deal with travel to international shows as well as to Norway, China, and the

Boston Seafood Show to promote

MR. SLADE:

You are referring to seafood

shows?

MR. GRANTER:

Seafood shows, yes.

MR. SLADE:

Purchased Services was

underspent by $5,000. What was not

purchased there?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance was

expenditures for Purchased Services: rental and lease of office equipment,

meeting room facilities, printing services, advertising, and recycling and

shredding services as well. So it

was less than anticipated in last year's budget.

MR. SLADE:

Have there been any changes

in staff at the Minister's Office since the last Estimates?

MR. GRANTER:

Do you mean by numbers or by

names?

MR. SLADE:

No, not by names.

Have there been any changes like higher numbers or lower numbers?

MR. GRANTER:

No, there has not.

MR. SLADE:

There has been no change at

all?

MR. GRANTER:

In the Minister's Office?

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

No.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

I go

down to General Administration there now, 1.2.01, Executive Support.

MR. GRANTER:

Where is that?

CHAIR:

Subhead 1.2.01.

MR. GRANTER:

Subhead 1.2.01?

MR. SLADE:

Yes, that it what it is.

MR. GRANTER:

Subhead 1.2.01.

Okay, go ahead.

MR. SLADE:

Salaries went up by

$190,600. What positions were

filled and how many?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance from $684,200

to $874,800 is due to a salary continuance payment, a retirement that took place

in the department, and severance costs associated with an ADM position.

This position and associated funding were eliminated as part of the

Budget 2013-2014 process.

Dave,

do you want to add to that?

MR. LEWIS:

In the 2013-2014 Budget we reduced the number of ADMs from four to two,

actually. One of the ADMs took

their redundancy as a salary continuance.

So that carries on until that is expired.

Therefore, part of the payout was in the last fiscal year.

All the severance and everything are paid out now and the person is

retired, but that is why that number is higher.

MR. SLADE:

It is down again for 2015 by

$154,000? What positions were not

filled?

MR. GRANTER:

You are looking at the

amount for $720,200 that variance, as it is across most government departments

I suspect, is due to budgeted salary increases for 2015-2016 based on collective

agreements, as well as funding for any planned salary step increases within

those steps throughout government.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Under

Administrative Support, 1.2.02, $86,400 was unexpectedly spent for Professional

Services. Can we have an

explanation, or the nature of this?

MR. GRANTER:

The $86,400 is part of the

consulting and design fees required for the construction of aquaculture inflow

wharves on the South Coast. The

full capital budget for aquaculture inflow wharves originally budgeted is in

Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

I think that is standard across government as well prior to letting of

contracts. Funds are transferred to

Professional Services from Property, Furnishings and Equipment, as required,

once the contracts are let.

MR. SLADE:

Are you saying that this was

part and parcel of building a wharf for the aquaculture industry?

Where would that be located to?

MR. MEANEY:

Part of the design work is

we retain a consulting engineer to ensure that everything is built as per the

design, so part of that cost goes under Professional Services and that is why it

would be transferred out of the Property, Furnishings and Equipment account; but

that is a standard piece in any engineering requirement that you have a

consulting engineer on side.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

There

was over $2.5 million spent for Purchased Services.

Can I have an explanation and can you table a list of the property,

furnishings and equipment?

MR. GRANTER:

The $2,519,000, as I tried

to explain in the initial question, are expenditures that are actual

construction expenditures related to the aquaculture inflow wharves.

Full capital budget for aquaculture inflow wharves are originally

budgeted in Property, Furnishings and Equipment, which is standard across

government, for 2012-2013 and then funds, as contracts are let, are transferred

to Purchased Services from Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

So $2,519,000 is for the aquaculture inflow wharves.

MR. SLADE:

The $2.5 million was the

actual wharf. So the $86,400 was

for the design work and then the actual cost of the wharf was $2.5 million?

MR. MEANEY:

That would have been the

amount of work undertaken by the contractor during the last fiscal year and that

was the amount paid to the contractor for the construction.

MR. SLADE:

Can we ask who the

contractor was?

MR. MEANEY:

I do not have that with me

right now, but I can certainly get that information for you.

MR. SLADE:

On the other one, the

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, they actually only spent $63,100 of a $3.9

million allocation. Why was that?

MR. IVIMEY:

The way that budget is

worked; you will see the 2014-2015 budget was $3.9 million, that is the full

budget that was budgeted for the aquaculture wharves.

It is budgeted in that one line object which is Property, Furnishings and

Equipment, so that is where it is budgeted.

Now,

that may not be indicative of where the funds are actually spent throughout the

year because part of that infrastructure project will consist of design work

which will be Professional Services; the actual construction itself which would

be considered Purchased Services; and then any forms of equipment or materials

itself would then we considered Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

What

you see underneath the revised is the actual way the expenditures were spent

during the year. So the $86,000

would be indicative of the Professional Services and the engineering work which

Brian just spoke of; the $2.5 million would be indicative of the actual physical

construction itself, which would have been contracted out; and then the $63,000

in Property, Furnishings and Equipment would relate to any kind of equipment,

construction material that was purchased related to the project.

The

total of those three subheads, you will see, is $2.6 million.

We spent $2.6 million of the $3.9 million that was budgeted; it was just

spent in different areas within the same subhead.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

In the

section 1.2.02 and the total into that there, would that mean that

all this money went into aquaculture?

Am I correct to assume that?

MR. IVIMEY:

Yes, that would be correct.

This was budgeted for aquaculture wharves.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Policy

and Planning Services, 1.3.01, there was $40,600 less spent for Salaries and I

would just like to know what positions this affected.

MR. GRANTER:

That was a variance due to

various staffing vacancies in the department during the year or part of the

year, or various periods of time through the last fiscal year.

Did you just ask for the positions?

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

The positions would have

been a WPEO II position, Economist II position, an Information Analyst I

position, and a Senior Information Management Analyst position.

That would be a WPEO II, Economist II, Information Analyst I, and a

Senior Information Management Analyst.

MR. SLADE:

There was $15,500

unexpectedly spent for Professional Services.

Can we get an explanation for that?

MR. GRANTER:

That $15,500 that is under

Professional Services, that variance was for a professional services contract

that was required for a review of the records management system in the

department.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Why did

the Purchased Services go under budget?

What was purchased?

MR. GRANTER:

Purchased Services, to

$15,500 from $50,000 less spent on rental, lease of office equipment,

photocopiers as an example; printing services was less than budgeted; onsite

recycling and shredding services during the year came in under budget.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Could

you please table a list of grants and subsidies and recipients?

Could I get that?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. SLADE:

Revenue, $21,400 more than

expected

MR. GRANTER:

I am sorry, what line are

you at again?

MR. SLADE:

It is under Planning and

Administration.

MR. GRANTER:

Oh, yes, revenue under

provincial, I got it.

MR. SLADE:

Yes, it is $21,400 more than

expected and I am just trying to find out what source that came from.

MR. GRANTER:

I will speak to that but if

not, someone else can speak to it.

The

variance is due to higher than anticipated revenue as a result of reimbursements

of any overpayments on prior year invoices in grants and other miscellaneous

revenue, so it is reimbursement of overpayments.

MR. SLADE:

It is money that was put out

but it came back to you?

MR. GRANTER:

That is correct.

MR. SLADE:

Does aquaculture planning

take place under this division, or is it just a wild fisheries component?

MR. LEWIS:

The planning and admin division is the planning division for the entire

department, so it would include Aquaculture as well.

MR. SLADE:

Aquaculture included.

MR. LEWIS:

Although there is an Aquaculture Development Division.

Obviously there would be policy people in that division as well.

The overall planning for the department, the reporting, the transparency

requirements and so on for all departmental requirements are all covered in this

particular division.

MR. SLADE:

Okay. What new policy programs have

been initiated, say, for the past two years under this?

MR. LEWIS:

In terms of new projects, we have engaged in a review of aquaculture

socio-economic impacts on the Province.

A report was released in January.

The Annual Report of the department and the departmental Strategic Plan

are all done through this division.

The annual Seafood Year in Review report, which comes out in the wintertime, is

produced through this division.

As the

minister pointed out, the Professional Services that were here are related to

information management. Information

management also falls under this division.

So the project that was done was to look at a new records classification

system for a records management system.

Planning Services provides the overall planning services function for the

department. Also, information

management and ATIPP responses and coordination are all done through this

particular division.

CHAIR:

Okay, so Mr. Slade's time

has expired. We will go to Ms

Michael.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Minister, could we go back to 1.2.02, please?

I just have a couple of questions.

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MS MICHAEL:

Under Property, Furnishings

and Equipment, $975,000 has been estimated for this year.

What is that estimated for?

MR. GRANTER:

The $975,000 would be to

complete the Milltown aquaculture inflow wharf.

The wharf, because of the seasons, was not complete in the last fiscal

year. That money will be carried

over to complete the wharf this coming year.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

So the wharf that was talked about earlier is the Milltown wharf, is that

it?

MR. GRANTER:

That is correct.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

That was my second question, where is that wharf?

MR. GRANTER:

Okay.

Thank you.

MS MICHAEL:

So that is all the same

wharf. Okay, thank you.

Turning

to 1.3.02, first of all coming down to 10, Grants and Subsidies, there seems to

be a slight increase in that line for next year.

What is the reason for an increase?

MR. GRANTER:

You are right, there is an

increase in the Grants and Subsidies from $2.8 million in 2014-2015 the

revised was $2.8 million up to $3,050,000.

The breakdown is the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research, CFER.

They went from $2,350,000 to a $2,600,000 budget.

Coastal

and ocean management stays at $150,000.

Fisheries science and cod recovery is at $300,000.

That has been consistent for the last two years.

The difference is the increase for the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems

Research, CFER.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

Could

we have just a little chat about the cod recovery, what the strategy is, and

where things are going?

MR. LEWIS:

There are a number of

elements to cod recovery. One

element of it is science. The

department has been providing funding to the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems

Research for the past five years.

That includes a number of projects, some of which are related to Northern cod.

The most prominent within the public eye would be the

Celtic Explorer charter and the

annual survey on the North East Coast, which is currently underway for this year

now with the team of research scientists led by Dr. George Rose.

That is

the science side of the cod recovery.

As the minister alluded, there is $300,000 of additional funding that

goes into assisting in scientific projects. Some

of it is done through CFER. Some of

it is done in conjunction with the FFAW.

There are probably fifteen science projects just to pull a number out,

somewhere in that order done on an annual basis.

It could be on crab and a number of other areas under that $300,000.

On the

science side, we are supporting science to get a much better handle on what is

going on with the cod resource, and what recovery prospects are in the interest

of having a much better understanding of how the industry is going to change

over the coming years. The other

side, of course, is utilization of the resource.

The

minister has spoken in the House and publicly in the last few days around the

3Ps cod resource and the fact that a significant amount of that cod is currently

staying in the water. It is not

being processed. It is not being

harvested. Prices are poor.

So there are some real challenges for the industry getting back into the

cod business.

We have

one major cod producer and that is in Arnold's Cove.

We have a number of well-established smaller operators in the cod

business who have been at it for a number of years.

A good example would be Codroy Seafoods over in the Codroy Valley that is

in the cod business.

A lot

of processors are recognizing that shrimp is on the decline, crab may be on a

decline, and they have to go back into the groundfish business.

They have to ease their way back into that.

They have been out of the market for more than twenty years so there has

to be some assistance in that area that can be done through the Fisheries

Technology and New Opportunities Program and others.

In the last year, we have provided a

number of exemptions under the MPR program to allow industry to test other

markets for cod; the objective being to provide new opportunities for product,

to try and increase the amount of landings over the course of the year, and also

to increase the value.

2014, we saw on St. Pierre Bank an increase in the amount of landings in the

inshore by 31 per cent. The prices

went from fifty cents in 2013 to an average of around seventy-two cents in 2014.

It is trying to utilize the resource, it is trying to improve marketing

the resource, and it is also having a much better understanding on the science

of where the resource is actually headed.

MS MICHAEL:

Right.

Thank

you. I appreciate that.

Of course, on the All-Party Committee we have an awareness of some of

that, but it is good to get a fuller picture.

Apart

from the research that is happening, what exactly is the role of the provincial

department in all of that? For a

lot of it, we know the federal is the key group.

In terms of influencing, in terms of I think we have gotten a sense on

the All-Party Committee of frustration in terms of influence.

MR. LEWIS:

I guess one thing is the federal government has to set the quotas, they allocate

the quotas to harvesting enterprises, and they license fishers and fishing

enterprises. That is their role.

MS MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. LEWIS:

Our role, as the provincial department, is to license processing.

We assist in marketing. So,

those two sort of fit together. On

the federal side, the government about five years recognized there were

deficiencies in science. All of the

work that was being done was being done by bottom trawl surveys.

A lot of other places in the world are also utilizing acoustic surveys.

So the

Celtic Explorer , which was chartered

and brought in, is a world-class vessel for acoustic surveys.

Through its sonars and it has electric

engines; you can turn off the diesels and you can have silence in order to

utilize the sounders it can pick up individual fish.

The information that has been collected by that survey is complementing

the information that DFO has, and it is also challenging the DFO scientists to

rethink some of the assumptions that they had made around cod.

For

example, CFER, through satellite tagging of cod this was the first instance of

satellite tags on cod in the world was done through CFER has demonstrated that

large cod are migrating inshore and they are staying for longer periods of time

during the year.

Whereas the

conventional wisdom was they went in and they went out in mid-fall, now they are

seeing large fish right in on the rocks, basically, until New Year's.

There

is some question as to whether or not the trawl surveys, which are being

conducted in the fall, are not missing some of those fish.

The information that is being provided through this initiative is

complementing and challenging some of the research that is being done on the

other side so that, overall, we have a much better understanding of what is

going on out there and you can make much better decisions as to what is the

state of the resource, how abundant is the resource, and how quickly can we

start the resume a more fishing effort back to a commercial fishery.

MS MICHAEL:

Good.

So we do have good co-operation going on?

MR. LEWIS:

Yes.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

With

regard to the current situation with the cod that has been allowed to be sent

offshore for processing, that is in the hands of the provincial government,

right?

MR. GRANTER:

What do you mean cod is

being sent offshore for processing?

MS MICHAEL:

The current situation that

we are dealing with

MR. GRANTER:

MPRs?

MS MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

In Fortune?

MS MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

The exemptions that we gave

MPRs last year, the report that came out with regard to the media, only a small

percentage of the fish that were exempted for MPRs are actually leaving the

Province. In actual fact, the

majority of the OCI exemption for cod fish last year was actually processed here

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS MICHAEL:

It was processed here?

MR. GRANTER:

It was processed here in

Newfoundland. So the exemptions for the MPRs, only 500,000 pounds were actually

shipped outside of the Province.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay, your time has expired

there, so I move back to the Opposition.

MR. SLADE:

Subhead 1.3.02, Sustainable

Fisheries Resources and Oceans Policy.

Why were the Salaries down by $60,500?

What positions were affected by that?

MR. GRANTER:

One staff member was on a

temporary assignment with another division and one staff member was on maternity

leave for part of last year, so the actual budget was down.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Why the increase this year?

Who is being hired? It has gone up

this year.

MR. GRANTER:

The increase is from

$400,000. You do not go from the

revised to the estimate; you go from budget 2014-2015 and you go from that to

2015-2016. The variance is due to

budgeted salary increases for the 2015-2016 as per the collective agreement

right across the department, as well as funding for any planned salary step

increases. It is an incremental

budget salary increase for the collective agreement clauses, which is $17,200

over and above the 2014 budgeted year.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

The

overall increase in the budget by $338,500, is this the reason?

MR. GRANTER:

What line are you at now?

MR. SLADE:

I am down on the overall

increases in the budget. You took

the budget and you increased the overall, so that is the figure.

MR. GRANTER:

Basically that increase,

which I answered a question a little earlier, the total budget for that

particular division is basically because of the increase for the funding to

CEFR, which is the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research.

Their budget was $2,350,000 and it went from $2,350,000 to $2,600,000.

So that is $250,000 there in one lump sum.

MR. SLADE:

That is for CFER?

MR. GRANTER:

CFER, yes.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

The

Member of the Third Party asked a question about the cod recovery.

I would suggest the programs that we are into with CFER kind of bothers

me a little bit. Not because of the

science, because the science part of it is very, very important, what bothers me

so much about it is the duplication.

Out of

this here, how much does the feds actually give you towards that program or is

this all provincial money?

MR. GRANTER:

That is all provincial

money.

MR. SLADE:

That is all provincial

money. The concern that I do have

is we are kind of letting the feds of the hook.

In 1949 when we joined the Union, it was the responsibility of the

federal government to provide science to that Province.

Right now, by us doing the work, we are kind of letting them off the hook

a bit. That is just observations.

I figured I would make a comment on that.

course right now what we have David just said it there what we actually do

have is we have conflicting information from the CFER side of things, which is

the provincial government, and opposite we say from the federal government.

It is kind of conflicting.

I would

say to you by the way just to give you a little bit of information I did

spend some time at survey work with the federal government from 1996 to 2013.

I actually did the sentinel survey.

So I know what that part of it is about.

It is kind of concerning. I

am not sure that the provincial government should not be getting something out

of the federal government to go towards this because we are doing their work.

That kind of concerns me a little.

MR. GRANTER:

Can I just make a comment on

that?

MR. SLADE:

Sure.

MR. GRANTER:

I really appreciate the

comment and concern because I share the same concern.

When we look across the federal government and in the media reports,

recently, in the last few days, with regard to the overall science research that

has been done by the federal government, and it is across all departments, it is

concerning for me as minister; but, at the same time, I firmly believe,

personally, that it is important for us as a province as well to doing research

across departments and included in my department as well.

In the

absence of the federal government doing the kind of research, which I think you

and I would agree, that the federal government should be involved in research

and science, and research and development, but I do not think that should tie

our hands in the Province from allocating and spending funds across departments

with regard to research and development or science.

I think we are on the same page there.

MR. SLADE:

Yes, I do believe that we go

should back to them and say we are kind of doing your work.

Like I

was saying, it is sort of conflicting the CFER work and also the federal work.

The federal part of the science is after coming out and saying fish is on

a really good rebound. It is

growing. It is increasing in size.

The population of the stock is increasing in size.

Our work here that we are doing as a Province is coming out and saying it

is very slow growth.

I can

say this with all certainty and I am not one of those people who go out and

think that we should go now willy-nilly and fish the stock back to where it was

in 1992, but I do believe the amount of fish is there.

It is great. I think we can

support somewhat of a fishery in it when you hear of fish rolling up on beaches

and that.

Mr.

Chair, I know this is probably a little bit outside of this here, but I would

just like to pass the comment along because I have seen it.

I have seen it myself and I have experienced it.

MR. GRANTER:

If I could just make a quick

comment. I just want to also say

the value that we are getting in the sense of our homegrown researchers at the

university, as well as the fisheries and Marine Institute I met a number of

times, and have seen those young minds who are doing all kinds of good research

here in the Province. So these are

the researchers and the scientists who will have an impact on the fishery of the

Province for generations to come.

I think

we are on the same page with regard to the responsibility of the federal

government. Some of the monies that

we are using through CFER and others, we are growing our own research minds here

in the Province as well, so that is only good.

That is only good for the future.

MR. SLADE:

Absolutely.

I totally agree with it, and the young science students and that.

I totally agree with you on that.

It is part and parcel, I guess, of what CFER does, but we need to be

careful.

We do

not need to be letting the feds off the hook all of the time.

That is just a straight point; we do not need to be doing it.

I think we should be going after them to pay for a portion of this work.

Is the

Coastal and Ocean Management Strategy and Policy Framework implemented under

here, under this?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. SLADE:

When can we expect a

progress report on this policy?

MR. LEWIS:

The Coastal and Ocean Framework is included in our strategic plan as an

initiative and it is reported in our annual report.

It has been in place now, I guess, for four or five years.

We have not actually considered when to do the evaluation yet, but as you

pointed out, it is probably timely to start planning around an evaluation.

As the

minister pointed out, we have $150,000 in grants in this program that we pay out

on an annual basis for support for various coastal and ocean initiatives,

everything from scholarships for students to dealing with aquatic invasive

species, and supporting local groups that are interested in beach cleanup and

reclamation of coastal areas.

MR. GRANTER:

I can just add a couple

there. For example, in the

Northeast Avalon, $7,000 for a coastal erosion project; the Newfoundland

Aquaculture Industry Association, mitigation of vase tunicate Phase 2, which was

an aquatic invasive species; the Fish, Food, and Allied Workers, mitigation and

control of green crab; the Humber Arm Environmental Association which is out on

the West Coast, coastal management area workshops.

There were a number of projects that would fall under that.

MR. SLADE:

Can we get a list of that

for this year? That is something

that is not online.

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Are the

aquaculture activities and licences vetted through this strategy?

If not, why not, since this government promised the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador a balanced approach in the use of our oceans, through

ongoing consultation and collaboration.

MR. MEANEY:

Aquaculture was considered.

It was under part of the strategy when it was developed.

The sustainability plan that we announced recently is an outcome of that

process, in terms of ensuring that aquaculture is managed in our ecosystem in a

sustainable manner. While it is not

directly covered under this particular division in the department, the work of

the Coastal and Ocean Strategy informed us in terms of development of our own

aquaculture strategy going forward.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Time is expired there now.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

I have to move to Ms

Michael.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could I

just make one request? Whenever a

request is made for a list, for example, under Grants and Subsidies, or

something like that, the information would come to everybody on the Committee.

Great,

thank you. I was going to ask the

same thing.

Subhead

1.4.01, Coordination and Support Services, under Salaries, 01, obviously there

is a real dip in the revised figure for last year.

Could we have an explanation please, Minister?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance was a result of

some staff vacancies for all or part of the year, in addition to delays in

staffing in relation to the Fisheries Investment Fund.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Coming

down to Professional Services, obviously something unexpected came in there

because you had $30,000 budgeted, but $151,500 spent.

MR. GRANTER:

The variance there was due

to a Request for Proposals, if you can recall, that was issued during the year

to support the work of the Fisheries Investment Fund under CETA.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. GRANTER:

That was the variance there.

MS MICHAEL:

Could we have an update on

what is happening with regard to that and the discussions with the federal

government? Is anything happening

at all right now?

MR. GRANTER:

My comment on that would be

we fully expect that the federal government would uphold to the agreement with

regard to the CETA fund, and provide the funds for the Province to move ahead

with regard to CETA.

MS MICHAEL:

So you are expecting it.

MR. GRANTER:

The expectation would be

that the federal government would live up to the agreement that was in place

between the federal government and the provincial government on CETA.

MS MICHAEL:

Are there any discussions

going on with them? When was the

last time this was discussed?

MR. GRANTER:

I cannot answer if anyone

had any conversation outside of me, but I had some conversations.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I will not push you any further.

Coming

down to line 10, Grants and Subsidies, could we have an idea of what those are

and why it was so low in the revised figure?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance there was

there was a decreased demand on the Workforce Adjustment Program during the

year. We budgeted $750,000 and

$376,600 was the actual revised.

Basically, it was because under the Workforce Adjustment Program, the money was

not needed. There was less take-up.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

where does the money go?

MR. GRANTER:

The Workforce Adjustment

Program for example, the short-term job creation: the Town of Hant's Harbour,

for example, $42,000-plus; Burin town council was $112,000; town council in Lawn

was $8,450; Jackson's Arm town council was $38,000; the temporary closure in

Harbour Breton was $170,000 that was transferred from MIGA.

So that is the Workforce Adjustment Program.

MS MICHAEL:

Could we get that list,

Minister, please?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MS MICHAEL:

Great, thank you very much.

I do

not have any more questions under that section.

Subhead 2.1.01, Purchased Services, there is a variance in the revised

number from the budgeted. Could you

explain that?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

For the $321,000 to $245,700, there was less vehicle repair and

maintenance required for our fleet, in addition to savings in fisheries

infrastructure demolition projects.

We had some facilities around the Province that were inherited or fisheries

properties that we have. So it is

less cost in the demolition of those projects.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Subhead

2.2.01, Seafood Marketing and Support Services, Fisheries Programs, the line

item, Grants and Subsidies, a big variance there, $150,000 variance between the

budget and the revision.

MR. GRANTER:

We have had monies in the

budget 2014-2015 and previous, so the variance is really due to limited take-up

in the marketing initiative outlined in the fisheries MOU.

The only project funded last year, the $50,000, it was a one single

project and was a shrimp promotion project in marketing for the United Kingdom.

MS MICHAEL:

Minister, is much thought

going into the development of an aggressive strategy around marketing?

I mean, internally, is this discussion happening in the department?

Obviously, something is needed I think we might all agree that

marketing is important but if there is no take-up, even with the limited money

that is there

MR. GRANTER:

We have provided funding and

encouragement to industry for marketing for the last number of years, but I

guess the old saying it is one thing, you can lead a horse to water, but you

cannot make it drink. They are all

doing marketing individually and collectively, industry players.

We would like to see more take-up on it.

I will pass it over to the deputy.

MR. LEWIS:

Even though we only spent

$50,000 of the $200,000, it is actually progress in that a group of processors,

shrimp processors, decided to participate in an international marketing effort

in the United Kingdom. So not only

Newfoundland processors but also European companies who were in that market and

they agreed to participate in that project, so the department was able to assist

in funding that.

It is a

real challenge; as the minister said, we have had a lot of money in the budget

over the years and very, very little take-up.

I think it is partly because of the competitive nature of our industry

and they are always more concerned about trying to source raw material than they

are of collectively marketing. It

is not to say that they do not market their own products, but co-operating and

the whole marketing side, it is extremely challenging to get them there.

Through

our other marketing initiatives like the trade show promotions we do in China,

Brussels, and Boston we get good take-up.

They work closely with the department and they follow up on those

initiatives, but when you ask them to get together and to try to do something

collectively on marketing that is where you really run into challenges.

We have

made multiple attempts and we will continue to do so, but it is a struggle.

MS MICHAEL:

You do see progress

happening?

MR. LEWIS:

Well this is actually

progress, believe it or not, because in previous years it would have been zero.

MS MICHAEL:

Yes, I think I remember a

zero. Thank you.

Since I

am down a little bit, I am going to ask a question that is not related to that.

When we were talking about your ministerial travel, the question came to

me about the All-Party Committee and where the expense shows up in your budget

for the All-Party Committee. We had

a discussion around that today with Health and the All-Party Committee there, so

that is why I thought I would ask the question here.

OFFICIAL:

That is the planning division.

MR. GRANTER:

Officials tell me that

funding for the All-Party Committee travel Ottawa next year, in this year's

budget, would be from the planning division.

MS MICHAEL:

From?

MR. GRANTER:

Planning division.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay, very good.

Just getting an idea around that.

I only

have a few seconds left, so I will let it go back because they may have

questions on some of the area that I have covered.

They probably do, I think.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Mitchelmore.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Great, I do have lots of

questions. I will start with

2.2.01, Seafood Marketing and Support Services.

Under the Grants and Subsidies, after the questioning by $50,000, the

shrimp marketing promotion for the UK, who actually did that marketing

promotion, what company?

MR. LEWIS:

It was done through the

Association of Seafood Processors which covers most of the shrimp producers in

the Province.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

MR. LEWIS:

It was not an individual company.

That was the progress part of it when it was collectively a group of companies.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

How much did the Province

contribute to the overall marketing promotion?

MR. LEWIS:

That was our contribution, the $50,000.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What did they contribute?

What was the overall cost of the project?

MR. LEWIS:

We might have to get that.

MR. GRANTER:

We do not have it, but we

can get it for you.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Subhead

1.4.01, Coordination and Support Services, you had discussed the Comprehensive

Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA.

Would the minister be able to confirm that there is no allocation for the

proposed provincial portion of the fisheries fund, the $120 million in the

fisheries budget? We have asked in

other Estimates Committee meetings where this $120 million would be allocated

and we do not see it.

The

CETA agreement would have been a $400 million fund, up to $280 million for the

federal government, which would mean up to $120 million for the provincial

government, but we do not see any line item within the whole budget of

provincial allocation, despite it being mentioned on page 51 of the Budget

saying that we are counting on Ottawa to provide its share.

MR. GRANTER:

No is the simple answer, but

the answer in length would be that funding would not flow to CETA until it would

be ratified, and that would be a number of months out and probably would be in

the Budget year beyond this particular Budget year.

That is why you would not see a budget line this year there.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Are

there any pieces of correspondence or memoranda of understanding that have been

exchanged in these talks so far this year in 2015?

MR. GRANTER:

I am not sure what you are

asking.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

In terms of your dialogue

with either the federal minister or the negotiating team, in your capacity as

minister who the fisheries fund would fall under the department?

MR. GRANTER:

In this calendar year, no.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Was there anything in the

last calendar year?

MR. GRANTER:

Any correspondence that

would have been in the last calendar year would have been presented in the House

of Assembly and tabled as documents in the House of Assembly.

You would already have those.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

That would be when Premier

Dunderdale was Premier; those documents that were tabled then?

MR. GRANTER:

All documents that have been

tabled in the House of Assembly.

OFFICIAL:

Right up until last fall.

MR. GRANTER:

Right up until last fall,

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay, so you are confirming

there is no MOU signed on this deal?

MR. GRANTER:

I am confirming all

documents that were available have been tabled in the House of Assembly, and you

have those.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

So since there was no MOU in those documents, I guess there is no MOU on

this particular fund, based on what you are saying.

Have

you had any discussion, your officials, ministers, or Premiers that specifically

correspondence or things; an update that you are willing to provide the House

here, the Estimates Committee, on this particular fund that would flow up to

$400 million to the Province?

MR. GRANTER:

I have nothing to report or

can report to the Estimates Committee.

I will report anything that is associated with a line that is in the

document, but I cannot at this stage of the game, report to the Estimates

Committee to the question that you are asking.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Under

this section, Fishing Industry Renewal, MHA Sam Slade wrote you to inquire about

government plans to invest its committed share of the $400 million fish fund,

especially if the feds would not participate.

The response at the time by the department was really noncommittal.

What is the status on that in terms of, if the feds do not move forward,

is the $120 million on or off the table?

MR. GRANTER:

That is hypothetical and you

know that. The answer to that

question is simple. The federal and

provincial government has an agreement with the fund, it is 70-30 cost shared.

The federal government is in, we are in as a Province, and that has not

changed.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

With this fund that was

announced more than a year ago by the former Premier at The Rooms and there

have been negotiations, discussion with various groups and stakeholders has

any money been committed in Budget last year or this year for industry renewal

related to the CETA discussions, this $400 million hypothetical fund?

MR. GRANTER:

As I said earlier to one of

your questions, the fund would not have come into play until months out.

So those funds would be allocated at a future date.

Funds that would have been allocated would have been associated with

Salaries. They are on budget line

01, under 1.4.01.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Are there any third party

contracts or negotiations pertaining to this fund?

There has been nothing that has been agreed to that has been disbursed or

committed?

MR. GRANTER:

We have undertaken work for

planning purposes. Other than that,

that would be it right now.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What planning would have

taken place?

MR. LEWIS:

As the minister pointed out

under the Salaries line, $400,000 of that $800,000 was established for a

planning team to develop, hopefully in consultation with the federal government,

programming for the $400 million fund.

In the

last fiscal year, a team was constituted and work was commenced before things

went off the rails last fall. The

team has since been disbanded. The

funding is there in the budget again this year in the hopeful event that things

go back on the rails and there is an opportunity to negotiate with the federal

government. The planning team at

the time had developed a consultation plan, had initiated pre-consultations with

some key industry players, and was preparing all of the materials that would be

required to engage in a consultation process, a collective consultation process

to develop the programming.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay, so $400,000 was for

the planning team. What was the

other $115,000 for under Salaries?

MR. LEWIS:

The whole $400,000 was not

spent on the planning. As I said,

the team was created, but subsequently disbanded.

The

total amount that was spent last year was around $180,000.

The remainder was spent on a variety of there are five positons which

are funded under the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy going back to 2007.

They include: a fisheries development officer, a market development

officer, a planning analyst, a financial analyst, and a program coordinator.

Those

positons are temporary positions that we have had in the department since 2007.

They are actually deployed in various divisions in the department.

They are the reason for most of the expenditures in Salaries in this

particular area.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay, so how many people for

$180,000? How long were they

employed? What other type of

benefits would have been associated?

Were they all temporary employees?

Did they get severance, et cetera?

MR. LEWIS:

Yes, they were all temporary employees.

One was a secondment; the other three were departmental employees which

were deployed into this project from another project.

While they were engaged in these activities, their other positions were

left vacant, so there were savings achieved elsewhere in the department.

They

came on; I think it was late summer.

The lead person, the secondment, was discontinued in early winter.

The remainder of the team has subsequently been given notice to go back

to their original positons pending this project going back into a planning

stage.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

I can see my time is expired.

I have more questions on this, but I will come back.

CHAIR:

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Moving

ahead then to 2.2.02

MR. GRANTER:

Sorry, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL:

Subhead 2.2.02.

MR. GRANTER:

Thank you.

MS MICHAEL:

Although looking at that I

really do not have a lot of questions in that section, except I might as well

ask; Professional Services, $63,700 was budgeted and $29,600 spent.

This year it is going up only to $40,000.

What

normally is that used for in this area of the Professional Services?

MR. GRANTER:

The question is what

MS MICHAEL:

What normally is that?

MR. GRANTER:

typically gets funded

under here?

MS MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

The licensing board is

funded through this, travel paid for their costs, which was less last year, and

for any specific or special projects.

MS MICHAEL:

It is the licensing board.

Okay.

Could

we come over to 2.2.04? The first

question is under 01, the Professional Services, $50,000 was spent and nothing

had been budgeted. What would that

be?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance there is a

result of two projects that came up throughout the year that required

professional services funding. Our

projection was $40,000 for a shrimp project and $10,000 for a sea urchin

project. The actual amounts were

$35,000 for shrimp and $3,800 for a sea urchin project.

MS MICHAEL:

Right, okay.

MR. GRANTER:

The shrimp project was the

LIFO project, the report. It was

the all-party report.

MS MICHAEL:

Very good.

Thank you.

Mentioning sea urchins this question is from out of the blue but last year

the government approved a sea cucumber licence for Grand Bank Seafoods.

Can we get an update on how that is working?

Is that being successful in terms of the harvesters and the workers?

MR. LEWIS:

Sea cucumber has proven to be a challenge for most of the licence holders.

That particular licence was given to Grand Bank Seafoods which is owned

by Clearwater. Clearwater is in the

process they are actually working with the Marine Institute of trying to

develop specialized products and processes to utilize the sea cucumber resource.

It has

been quite a challenge. In the last

year or two a significant amount of sea cucumber quota has gone unharvested

despite the department adding licences to the system.

MS MICHAEL:

What is the challenge?

Marketing?

MR. LEWIS:

Yes, market is the challenge, yes.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

Coming

down in that same section, coming down to line 10, Grants and Subsidies, there

has been a $1 million drop from last year's budget to this year.

Could we have an explanation on that, please?

What are the grants and subsidies here?

Where do they go?

MR. GRANTER:

The breakdown under Grants

and Subsidies is FITNOP and core development funding, as well as the Canadian

Centre for Fisheries Innovation, CCFI.

The development, one is from there is a million dollars less in the

budget this year than would have been in previous years.

The Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, CCFI, remains the same.

So that is the variance.

MS MICHAEL:

I missed the point then

about why the drop of a million dollars.

MR. GRANTER:

Why?

MS MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

We are all required to find

budgetary savings and that is one of the areas that was reduced.

MS MICHAEL:

What do you see as the

impact here of that, Minister, because last year almost all of it was spent.

There was only $150,000 variance.

What would be the impact of having a million dollars less?

MR. GRANTER:

We have contributed millions

of dollars to that particular program, and continue to contribute funds to the

particular program. We have

invested heavily over the last number of years.

This million dollars is a continuation of contributions that would go

towards industry, whether it is inshore or offshore, or companies or harvesters.

We will continue to contribute but we had to find some funds, and we took

some funds from that particular program this year.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

So you are saying that if you needed more you would try to find it within

your budget?

MR. GRANTER:

We are not permitted to do

that.

MS MICHAEL:

You are not permitted to do

that.

MR. GRANTER:

We are not permitted to do

that.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

That is all I have there.

Aquaculture; instead of moving into aquaculture, Mr. Chair, if the Opposition

wants to ask more questions prior to aquaculture instead of moving into that, I

am open to turning it over.

CHAIR:

Mr. Slade, do you want to

start?

MS MICHAEL:

I have lots of questions.

CHAIR:

Yes, if you want to come

back we have not been voting off the line items.

We are just going to do the total at the end, so you could have continued

on.

MS MICHAEL:

I will do that then, if that

is what you want.

CHAIR:

Okay.

She will take the rest of her time.

MS MICHAEL:

Under 3.1.01, in terms of

line items, coming down to Professional Services, last year there was a budget

but nothing was spent. This year

there is a budget of $8,000 and this year there is a budget of $183,000, so

there must be some new project or expectation here.

MR. MEANEY:

This year it was announced in the Budget process, $240,000 for scientific and

oceanographic work related to bay management for aquaculture.

So within a grouping there we have increased our funding, as you have

indicated, to $175,000 in Professional Services, $15,000 in Supplies, and

$50,000 in Property, Furnishings and Equipment to accomplish that work.

That requires the charter, for example, of the Marine Institute

Oceanographic vessel to do the oceanographic work, the purchase of scientific

equipment, et cetera, to undertake those studies this year.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you.

What

work is going on with regard to research work around the impact of farmed salmon

on the wild salmon?

MR. MEANEY:

There are quite a number of initiatives ongoing at the current time.

We are co-operating with Memorial University and the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans in regard to looking at the impacts of escaped salmon on

wild populations. DFO is taking the

lead on that, but we provide a lot of input and veterinary advice in that

process.

We have

an ongoing working group with industry ENGOs and our federal counterparts in

looking at mitigative measures to prevent salmon from escaping farms.

That has been our key approach.

In 2000 we brought in the code of containment, which was the first code

that met the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization's requirements for

codes of containment worldwide. We

were the first Province, first country to introduce that.

That has reduced escapes from the farms by somewhere in the vicinity of

95 per cent over time.

We are

doing a lot of work in terms of oceanographic work, and on the piece I spoke to

earlier, it feeds into that, in terms of how we site farms.

Do we site farms in the optimum place so that the impact on the bottom,

for example, will be as minimal as possible?

For example, you would find areas that are not depositional.

You would not put a farm, for example, in an area where there is low

water level, low water flows, and no flushing.

there are quite a number of activities, as well as in the fish health side.

We do a considerable amount of research on fish health and fish diseases.

MS MICHAEL:

Is that research easily

accessible if one wanted to really see what is going on?

MR. MEANEY:

Our code of containment is available online.

We have an annual report and results of our meetings with industry.

The MUN study will be coming out published in a refereed journal in a

year or two, when that work is completed.

The remainder of the work is reported on in our annual reports.

MS MICHAEL:

Right.

Okay.

CHAIR:

Okay.

I think

your time has expired there now. I

just remind everyone at the end of this ten-minute session we will do the

five-minute break and come back at 7:00 o'clock.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

Subhead

2.2.02, Licensing and Quality Assurance; there was a salary drop last year and

less this year of $244,100. When we

need so much emphasis on quality, how many positions are involved here?

Are they just located in St. John's?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance from budget to

revised is due to a vacancy within the division during the year.

It was a data entry operator and that was only part of the year.

For the

current budget, the variance is due to a budget salary increase for 2015-2016 as

part of the collective agreement, as well as funding for any planned salary step

increases. Additionally, it

includes a reduction in salary dollars of $75,000 related to the government

attrition plan.

Dave

will give you more detail.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

I just noted in the salary

summary,

section 5, $305,449 was allocated.

Why is there a discrepancy there?

MR. GRANTER:

I am not following you.

I am not sure which line you are at.

MR. SLADE:

I was in the salary

summary.

It is a

difference there from $244,100 to $305,449.

There is a discrepancy there and I just wanted to know why the

discrepancy.

MR. GRANTER:

Just hang on there now.

I will see if I can find it.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

MR. LEWIS:

The attrition plan for this year requires the department to save $114,000,

roughly, and two PCNs. One area

where we may be able to find savings is in this particular division because

there are a couple of potential retirements, but they are not guaranteed.

So in

putting the attrition plan into the Estimates, funding had to come out in

certain salary areas. Departments

are required to manage the plan as we go forward over the next twelve months.

It is possible that we will not achieve any savings in this particular

division. If there are not

retirements, then we will not save any funding in this particular division, and

we will have to find the savings elsewhere in the department.

terms of reflecting the savings, the overall savings that were required for the

department in the Estimates, this is one area where the savings were reflected.

As I say, where the savings actually get achieved over the course of the

year is a planning process that the department is required to engage in on a

quarterly basis as we go through the year.

MR. SLADE:

Okay, thank you.

Professional Services; why was less than half the budget of $63,700 spent and

who got this money?

MR. GRANTER:

Five meetings for the

licensing board was a part of that and the cost was less than expected.

A sea urchin study of $14,300 was funded here as well.

The remainder was paid to the board members for attendance at board

meetings. There were less board

meetings required last year.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Sir.

Overall, $81,000 less was spent than anticipated.

Is this a reflection of a lack of interest in this program?

In 2013-2014 there was a revenue line from the Province.

Where did this go?

MR. LEWIS:

Phil, do you want to deal

with the revenue issue?

CHAIR:

Phil Ivimey.

MR. IVIMEY:

That revenue item was restated to the Department of Finance.

So that revenue now shows up underneath the Department of Finance as

opposed to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. SLADE:

Under the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture?

MR. IVIMEY:

Yes, correct, under the Department of Finance.

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

Okay.

What

new initiatives and policies are being undertaken to improve quality of seafood?

Are there any new initiatives?

MS QUINLAN:

As noted, there was a sea

urchin study which is looking at the best ratio of sea urchin.

You are looking at the better quality that we can produce within our

local plants and how that is produced within the plants.

We also are looking at other items, including the proper temperatures for

different species and how best to record the temperatures for those species.

There are certain creatures that you would not want to insert a probe in

and things like that.

QCEP

training is also there. That is the

Quality Compliance Enforcement Program that we have for our inspection staff.

The QCEP program covers a number of items.

There are eighteen units they are required to complete, including officer

safety, sensory analysis, proper report writing, issuing of

summary offence

tickets, various items like that that will assist in the professionalization of

the inspection team. This year we

have another eight graduates out of our inspection group.

MR. SLADE:

Does this

section cover any

aquaculture licences or quality assurances?

MR. GRANTER:

No.

MR. SLADE:

Why isn't the detail of what

the Province brings in, in terms of fees, provided here?

MR. GRANTER:

What is, or why isn't it?

MR. SLADE:

Why is it not?

Why isn't it in the details?

MR. LEWIS:

As Phil Ivimey pointed out

previously, the revenue items have been moved to all reflect under the

Department of Finance. There are no

changes in the fees for processing and buyers' licences in the overall

government Estimates but the fees are not shown under the Department of

Fisheries anymore, they are shown under the Department of Finance.

It was identified last year actually, that that was a more correct

accounting of fees rather than having them shown in the department.

It was not determined by us, it was the Department of Finance.

MR. SLADE:

Yes, I agree.

Can the

minister provide a breakdown of fees and from what sources for the latest year,

for last year?

MS QUINLAN:

Yes, licence fees are all

online.

MR. SLADE:

They are all online.

Okay, thank you.

Direct

sales; we could ask about this issue or is it best to save that for the House

and ask questions in the House? I

actually asked one today. What is

the position on that?

MR. GRANTER:

Direct sales is something

that I have, as minister, looked at.

I have had conversations with other colleagues, as I said in the House

today. It crosses different

departments with regard to Service NL, licensing, quality assurances, making

sure how far we go with direct sales.

Do we do direct sales with someone from a wharf?

Do we allow someone to catch fish and take it to someone's door?

Do we allow door-to-door selling of codfish or other species?

So that

is where we are with it; trying to get our head around where we would proceed

with regard to direct sales or would it just simply be direct sales to

restaurants around the Province.

There is a whole gamut of how far we go with regard to direct sales.

I am trying to get my head around where we are going to go with regard to

direct sales.

MR. SLADE:

I would just like to say to

the minister, it is being done anyway.

It is probably something that could promote our fishery and also promote

our tourism industry.

MR. GRANTER:

I am not adverse to that.

I understand the fact that it is being done.

We know the amount of fish that is coming out of the water and how much

is claimed for personal use.

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

Well, there is a lot of personal use.

MR. GRANTER:

Exactly.

MR. SLADE:

It is being done anyway.

I just put that on the minister's

MR. GRANTER:

Again, I do not think we are

in any disagreement.

MR. SLADE:

No.

CHAIR:

Okay.

At this

point our time has expired. There

is only one lady in the Broadcast Centre so we will let her have a five minute

break. We will convene at 7:00

o'clock or as close as we can.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, we are ready to resume

again.

As we

start, I think we are with Ms Michael this time.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

We are

still on Aquaculture, 3.1.01. We

were having a little discussion I want to pursue a little bit further; that is

talking about the research with regard to the stocks.

I was

just wondering when the 20,000 farmed salmon escaped from the Cooke Aquaculture

facility in Hermitage Bay a couple of years ago, that was a fair number.

Do the researchers even know how long it would really take to find out

what the impact of that was?

MR. MEANEY:

I think the first important point to note is that these were domesticated

animals.

MS MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. MEANEY:

So their possibility for

survivorship was very, very low.

MS MICHAEL:

Very low.

MR. MEANEY:

They have no idea.

They have no hunting instinct.

They have never caught live prey before in their life so survivorship

would be extremely low.

There

were a number of fish that were identified in Garnish Brook on the Burin

Peninsula. DFO took over all of the

investigation in regard to that.

They are monitoring the brook, both that fall and in previous runs, as I

indicated to you earlier, together with some genetic researchers at Memorial

University, and to use that, if you like, as a laboratory to see, what, if any,

impact those fish would have on the wild population in that region.

MS MICHAEL:

Do they have any idea of how

many cycles it would take to know if there has been an impact or not?

Is one year adequate or do they know?

MR. MEANEY:

If you presume that some fish successfully spawned as an example, you would not

have been able to determine that either until when those fish exit the river,

which in Newfoundland from egg to smolt is generally around three years on the

Island portion of the Province.

MS MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. MEANEY:

So if you put a counting

fence in, it would be three years after the first spawning.

If you were to look at returning adults, it would be another year beyond

that. So you are talking a

three-to-five year time period.

MS MICHAEL:

Three to five years.

Okay, thank you.

Back to

the line item then, under 3.1.02.

This is the Loans, Advances and Investments: appropriations providing for equity

investment in aquaculture. It was

$6 million budgeted last year and only $3.4 million spent.

This year it is all the way down to $2.8 million.

That seems an extremely big drop, $3.2 million.

What is

the impact of that? It seems to me

that is just a decision that has been made.

Could we just have some discussion on that, Minister?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance there is due to

late receipt of the finalized proposal for the Aquaculture Capital Equity

Investment project resulting in lower than anticipated funds being needed for

the 2014-2015 fiscal year. That was

the Northern Harvest project which some portion of the funding was announced in

the previous year, a continuation of funding for this year of $2.8 million, and

the rest to be financed over the next two years.

That is why it is $2.8 million in the 2015-2016 Estimates.

MS MICHAEL:

It was deliberately

amortized over a period of time, is that what you are telling me?

So $6 million was budgeted but only

MR. GRANTER:

The project proponent the

length of the project is over four years.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. GRANTER:

Including their investment

and our equity investment.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

That $6

million that was budgeted, it was not clear when it was budgeted how much would

be spent last year and how much would be moved on, is that correct?

I am trying to get the correct understanding here.

MR. MEANEY:

The program is driven based on our discussions with potential clients and

potential investors as to what their anticipated expenditures may be if they

were successful in the program. One

million dollars of that $6 million identified there was to a previous program we

funded with Newfoundland Aqua Service, an on land net cleaning service.

That was the end of their investment.

The

remaining $5 million we had anticipated at the Northern Harvest project would

have commenced earlier and would have had the proposal earlier.

However, due to a variety of reasons the proponent came with the proposal

later. We were able to flow $2.4

million in the last fiscal year, $2.8 million in the current fiscal year, and

the remainder going out over the following two fiscal years.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

Thank you. That makes it

really clear for me.

Okay,

let's see if I have any more questions under this.

Could

we have a bit of discussion I think that a reference has been made to it

around the Centre for Aquaculture and Seafood Development?

What are the yearly operational costs and how much has been spent to

date?

MR. GRANTER:

What line is that?

MS MICHAEL:

I do not have a line for it.

That is why I am asking.

Where would we find where that happens?

Where does the money for the centre come from?

Which line?

The

facility itself, I understand, from our records show that it costs $8.8 million,

but what is the yearly?

MR. GRANTER:

Subhead 5.1.01, under

Aquatic Animal Health.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Okay.

So it is under the Aquatic Animal Health?

It is the Centre for Aquaculture and Seafood Development. Why would it be

under there?

MR. MEANEY:

It is the Centre for Aquatic

Animal Health and Development.

MS MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. MEANEY:

Primarily all the laboratory

functions for our veterinarians and all the diagnostic work is conducted out of

that building. The cost associated

with that work is associated in this subhead.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

Which was the direct line again, Minister, that you read out?

Subhead 5.1.01, so every

MR. GRANTER:

Subhead 5.1.01.

MS MICHAEL:

Everything under this you

are saying relates to the centre?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

The

next one for me will be 4.1.01 Aquaculture Licensing and Inspection.

There really are not big variances here except under Property,

Furnishings and Equipment. It seems

like you needed something that was more than the usual $5,000.

MR. GRANTER:

That variance there was an

unforeseen expenditure associated with the purchase of a boat trailer for site

inspections.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

If we

come over to 5.1.01, under Supplies there is a variance of $25,000.

Could we have an explanation of that?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes, the variance was

$130,000 to $155,000, you are correct.

It was due to increased supply requirements associated with surveillance

programs for the ISA.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

Obviously, you do not expect that to happen this year.

If it does, it does, I guess.

MR. GRANTER:

It was unexpected.

MS MICHAEL:

It was unexpected.

Okay.

Under

Purchased Services, again a variance of $50,000.

MR. GRANTER:

Yes, from $340,000 to

$390,000. Again, that was for

unexpected costs with regard to ISA surveillance.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

MR. GRANTER:

Laboratory services, sorry.

MS MICHAEL:

Okay.

I think

those are all of my questions, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay.

We will come back to the Official Opposition.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The last time I was speaking

we were talking this is under 1.4.01, Coordination and Support Services around

CETA.

MR. GRANTER:

Subhead 1.4.01, I just want

to stick to the line items.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

Go ahead.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

This is around Salaries; it

was $180,000 of the $515,500. The

staff had stated there was a temporary employee.

It is a secondment and three redeployed, I guess, from another project,

and stated that this work happened late summer.

When did their work end for them to gain this $180,000 of employment?

MR. GRANTER:

That question was previously

answered, by the way.

MR. LEWIS:

The secondment ended in early winter, I think it was January.

The other staff have just recently been given notice for their positions

and they are going back to their original positions in the department, which

were held vacant while they were on the project.

There is a minimal cost difference between the positions they were in and

the positions they are going back to.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What have they been doing in

the interim, because they announced that we are pulling out of CETA?

That has been made for quite some time now.

What have the employees who are still there been doing that has been

focused on the planning aspect?

MR. LEWIS:

When the project was commenced there was a variety of work that was initiated.

As the minister had indicated, there were RFPs that were developed.

There was website development, consultation plans, a variety of work that

was done and is pending a resumption of negotiations with the federal

government.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

What positions are these three people going back to and in what

section

of these Estimates will they fall?

MR. LEWIS:

The three people; two are in

planning services and one is in seafood marketing and support services.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

You

said these people were hired in late summer of 2014 but the announcement was

made in October 2013. Was there no

staff allocated to deal with the CETA agreement and this fisheries fund between

October and late summer?

MR. LEWIS:

The funding was initiated in

the last fiscal year's Estimates, in 2014-2015.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

From what I am getting from you here is that the announcement was made in

October 2013. There was no money

budgeted at that time. Staff came

on in late summer 2014. That is a

long time from the announcement to getting to the planning stage.

MR. LEWIS:

Well, the process for budget

planning budget initiatives are developed in the fall.

Estimates are not passed until April, and in this case May or later, and

at that time the department proceeded with filling positions.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

I want

to go back to 1.1.01 Minister's Office.

What I want to ask is how many vacancies are in the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture?

MR. GRANTER:

You are referencing under my

office, in the Minister's Office?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Well, if you have a global

number.

MR. GRANTER:

Under 1.1.01 is the

Minister's Office, and your question is how many vacancies are in my office?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

The answer is none.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

How many temporary employees are in this salary line?

MR. GRANTER:

In the Minister's Office?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

How many temporary?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

None.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What about part-time

employees?

MR. GRANTER:

None.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

How many full-time

employees?

MR. GRANTER:

Four.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Under

1.1.01, you had mentioned that under Transportation and Communications the

$58,600 was for seafood department activities such as travel to the seafood show

and other places. Will you provide

a list of the travel expenses associated with each trip?

Were there ministerial staff that would fall under that?

You had

stated it was all ministerial travel, but how many staff would have accompanied?

If there were other staff who accompanied on these delegations, will they

be provided when we get a copy of this information for seafood department

activities?

MR. GRANTER:

I think you would know that

all ministerial travel is available and published online.

It is readily available.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The information is not

always updated or thorough when it comes to all the information, as to the

number of employees or whatnot who would have been accompanying the minister.

Some of that would fall under Executive Support or other information if

they are travelling to various seafood shows or on trade missions.

there an ability to get, when it comes to out-of-Province travel, documentation

from your department on out-of-Province travel by you, as minister, your staff

or other individuals who would be covered under the public department?

MR. GRANTER:

I do not see that is

anything that we cannot provide. I

understand there is already an ATIPP request for that information as well.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Is the minister saying he

will provide the information or you are suggesting we should ATIPP the request?

MR. GRANTER:

I am suggesting it is not

something that I could not provide, no.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Subhead

1.2.01 under Executive Support, Salaries; how many vacancies?

MR. GRANTER:

There are no vacancies.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

How

many temporary employees?

MR. GRANTER:

None.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Part-time employees?

MR. GRANTER:

None.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

How many full-time employees

account for the $874,800?

MR. GRANTER:

Eight.

OFFICIAL:

Eight is it?

Okay.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Eight.

So now there are only seven under the $720,200 because of the person who

retired. Is that correct?

MR. GRANTER:

That would be correct.

It is

still eight, sorry.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Still eight.

Okay, so you are saying that a person who left was given a severance of

$154,600? You had stated that the

person who left retired early and was given a severance, or was it more than

that because of salary increases from the people who are remaining in the

budget.

MR. GRANTER:

Do you want to repeat the

question?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

The question is I will simplify to be clear the person who retired

last year, how much severance was paid?

MR. GRANTER:

Whatever would have been the

entitlement for that particular individual at that point in time.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Do you have a figure, your

accounting or

MR. GRANTER:

I do not have it in front of

me, no.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

How

much would the salary continuance be?

MR. GRANTER:

I do not have that number in

front of me.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Will you provide those two

figures? We had Estimates in

Executive Council where one individual was paid a severance of over $400,000.

MR. GRANTER:

This is not one of them.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Just seeking clarification

as to what the amounts are in the figures because you are saying that the same

amounts of people are working, one person retired, and there is $154,000.

MR. GRANTER:

The total amount is

approximately $125,000. That was for

continuance, severance, and everything.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

My time

has expired there, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Does Ms Michael have any

more questions?

MS MICHAEL:

No, I do not.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

I would

just like to go into a few questions on FTNOP.

Of course, we all know that FTNOP has come in under

OFFICIAL:

Subhead 2.2

MR. SLADE:

Subhead 2.2.04, actually.

MR. GRANTER:

Go ahead.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

FTNOP has come in under heavy criticism that the program benefits big

players and very few fish harvesters, even with over $16 million being spent.

A 2013 report by Pisces Consulting highlighted that one of the weaknesses

of the program was that improvements were required within promotion of small

producers, harvesters, and Aboriginal groups.

How is the department working to address this concern?

MR. GRANTER:

Interesting

preamble to your

question. You referenced, come

under criticism. I am not quite

sure about where you stand or your party stands on FTNOP.

MR. SLADE:

No, no it is

MR. GRANTER:

So that was an interesting

preamble. I kind of picked that up.

MR. SLADE:

Anyway, it is not criticism.

I would assure the minister of that.

MR. GRANTER:

I am wondering if the

criticism

MR. SLADE:

It is not meant to be

criticism, the question

MR. GRANTER:

The question I got is do you

support the FTNOP, or do you not support the FTNOP, or your party.

MR. SLADE:

If the FTNOP is being there

for not only the big players, but also the small players.

I think it is very important that we have a level playing field here.

If government is going to go into a program, it needs to be out there for

all stakeholders, not just the big stakeholders.

MR. GRANTER:

Since 2007, 282 projects

have been approved under FTNOP: processing, $5.8 million; harvesting, $4.6

million; marketing, $2.4 million; a small amount under aquaculture under the

FTNOP, $341,000; and $227,000 plus change for resource based or a combination of

components.

Four

hundred and fifty-eight applications were received and 282 projects have been

approved. Currently, there are

thirty-one projects under assessment.

The total value of all projects is $53 million; and the commitment to

date under the FTNOP is $13.36 million.

The important number I believe, one of the biggest numbers I believe, is

282 projects have leveraged with a value of $42 million as well.

believe as well that as we move the FTNOP forward that FTNOP should benefit

and it has benefited all of the industry.

There have been partnerships between FTNOP and the Fish, Food and Allied

Workers Union, small harvesters, larger harvesters, companies, the inshore and

offshore. So, it has been a gamut

right across the spectrum. As

minister, I can see value for FTNOP for all players in the industry, including

small harvesters as well, if that is your question.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Minister, can I get a

list of

MR. GRANTER:

Programs and who received?

MR. SLADE:

the programs and who

received them and applications of those who applied and were turned down?

OFFICIAL:

It is all online.

MR. SLADE:

Pardon?

OFFICIAL:

It is online.

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. SLADE:

I just think and I mean

even if I go into it a little bit deeper; in 2014 one report also concluded that

there was no evidence that this money provided equal benefits to the majority of

boats in the inshore. The report

provided four recommendations to refocus the business sense.

Are these recommendations being considered and implemented now?

MR. GRANTER:

Absolutely.

MR. SLADE:

Okay.

We are not against the FTNOP, I want to make that perfectly clear to the

minister, but we do think that it can be shared out more equally among the

stakeholders. We do believe that.

MR. GRANTER:

I was very clear in an

interview I did back when I first became minister it would have been sometime

in the fall that I believe FTNOP and any funding that we provide to the

industry should benefit all stakeholders.

MR. SLADE:

Exact words you said, Mr.

Minister.

MR. GRANTER:

That would be offshore,

inshore, large harvesters, small harvesters.

That is where I am.

MR. SLADE:

That is exactly your

statement.

MR. GRANTER:

Take some time to move

things through. Keep in mind that

FTNOP is based on the amount of applications that comes in.

A company might put in ten or fifteen applications and some individual

may put in one application as well.

A lot of times you get a lot of multiple companies putting in a lot of

applications.

MR. SLADE:

It is a fair statement, Mr.

Minister. Like I said, it is just

smoothing the program out so that everybody is involved and everybody gets an

equal crack at it.

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

Thank you.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Minister

MR. GRANTER:

Still under the same?

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

It is just a question about the

Cape Dorset . We put a heavy

investment into that boat and we are kind of getting the indication that there

was no insurance carried. Am I

correct to say that?

MR. GRANTER:

The

Cape Dorset does not fall under the

fisheries department. That would

fall under another department within government, not us.

MR. SLADE:

Not your department?

Can anyone tell us which?

MR. GRANTER:

No, that is not our

department.

OFFICIAL:

IBRD.

MR. GRANTER:

BTCRD.

I do

not have an answer for that. Sorry.

MR. SLADE:

Okay, Sir.

Mr.

Minister, has any of the scientific work I am still there on

MR. GRANTER:

Subhead 2.2.04?

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

Okay, go ahead.

MR. SLADE:

These questions may be a

little bit outside of 2.2.04, but anyway, just a question: Has any of the

scientific work on the Celtic Explorer

been peer reviewed by any DFO personal?

Are you sharing the information with DFO, the scientific information?

Is DFO using it?

MR. GRANTER:

I could not tell you what

DFO is using or not using. Any

information that we had would already be currently published.

The

Celtic Explorer has been doing work

in Newfoundland this is the fifth year now.

They have numerous reports that have been produced and made public in the

last five years on the work and research.

MR. SLADE:

The question I am asking is:

Does your department send off the information that you guys are getting now from

that report? We all know it is

provincial information, right? So

would DFO being using any of that in their assessments?

MR. LEWIS:

The Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research works out of the Marine Institute

at Memorial University. The

scientists publish their scientific reports in peer review journals.

There have been numerous reports produced over the past five years since

CFER was in place. The scientists

also attend DFO's assessment meetings when they are reviewing the stock status

of various stocks. They provide

information. They sit in on those

meetings. They present information

at those meetings to assist in an overall understanding of the stocks.

The

head of DFO science in the Newfoundland region sits on the industry advisory

committee for the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research as well.

They recently came out with a report.

I guess you probably have a copy of it.

CFER published a report just in the past couple of weeks that is pretty

comprehensive.

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

MR. LEWIS:

It gives a good overview of how they interact and the work they are doing.

MR. SLADE:

So basically they are using

it or are not?

MR. LEWIS:

Are they what?

MR. SLADE:

Are they using it or are

they not? You would think they are.

It is provided to them whether they use it or not.

MR. GRANTER:

It is available like you

provide a document of information to anyone, it is up to the group or the

organization whether they use it or not.

MR. SLADE:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

You would hope that any

organization would use any piece of research that is out there that would

benefit

MR. LEWIS:

Just to clarify, there are a

number of projects that are being conducted by CFER in conjunction with DFO.

A good example would be the halibut tagging study on the West Coast which

is trying to determine the range and spawning areas of halibut.

That is done in conjunction with harvesters, the FFAW, and DFO.

There are a number of those projects that both CFER and the federal

government are engaged in, collaboratively working on the same projects.

MR. SLADE:

One would think and one

would hope that the information that we are out there doing now on the status of

cod that they would want to be in on that, and both parties using the

information to the betterment of all concerned in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is

the status of the vessel the RV Gecho II .

There has not been much about the research vessel as the

Celtic Explorer .

How much money has government allocated to this vessel in total in this

year's budget?

MR. GRANTER:

We provide money for CFER

and it is up to CFER themselves how they allocate the funding through the work

that they do in a particular year.

So we allocate the funds and they dispense the monies through their

organization.

MR. SLADE:

So what survey work is this

ship doing? Can anyone tell me

that? Is she on a different survey

altogether?

MR. LEWIS:

The

Gecho II is a small, inshore,

fiberglass vessel. It is fitted with

acoustic equipment, but it does research in Trinity Bay, for example, in the

inshore bay areas. The

Celtic Explorer is a sixty-five metre

offshore vessel that ranges the coast from Labrador all around the East Coast of

the Island and as far down as the St. Pierre Bank.

The

Gecho is doing research.

Doctor George Rose is using it, students are using it for some of their

research; but it is an inshore, small, fiberglass vessel fitted out with

acoustic equipment to be able to conduct different research in the bays.

MR. SLADE:

Okay, I understand how it is

inshore vessel.

Thank

you.

MR. LEWIS:

It is wholly owned by CFER.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Chair, is my time up?

CHAIR:

Ms Michael

MS MICHAEL:

I am okay.

CHAIR:

You are still okay, so we

will not set the clock anymore, you can just (inaudible) and if Ms Michael wants

to interject, she can just let us know.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I will go.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Mitchelmore.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Under 1.2.02, this is the

Administrative Support for capital assets.

This is the wharf infrastructure for, I guess, the aquaculture industry,

the wharf that was announced the last couple of years, the Milltown wharf, I

believe. Is that correct?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The government contracts out

the design for these and also does the build and owns and maintains them

forever. Is that the concept with

this investment, they become one of our capital assets?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Under

1.3.01, the planning and administrative support, I would like to know under the

Salaries line how many positions are vacant here.

Did you say four positions?

MR. GRANTER:

You are referencing 01,

Salaries?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I am just interested in job

vacancies in 2014 and currently.

MR. GRANTER:

You are asking about

current?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Current job vacancies.

MR. GRANTER:

There are currently three

vacancies, but there are two going back I understand.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

How

many employees under this

section do you have budgeted for?

MR. GRANTER:

Twelve.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Twelve, okay.

The

contracts that you set under Professional Services in this budget line were for

a review of records management. Can

you elaborate on who was contracted and what the scope of work actually was?

MS WISEMAN:

The work that was done was done by Prima consulting and they were hired on to do

a review of the records inventory and classification systems for the Aquaculture

Branch.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

I want

to go down to the revenue aspect in this line 02, Revenue Provincial.

I know you have explained this as reimbursement on prior overpayments.

Why would the department be overpaying this sum of money and be

constantly expecting to be in overpayment of $2,000?

Last year, somewhere there was an error made where there was an

overpayment of $21,600. Can you

further explain how these errors would happen?

MR. IVIMEY:

I would not classify them as errors.

The line object is more or less a placeholder for revenue in the

department. It is the only area in

the department that we have for, I guess, what we term miscellaneous revenue.

It would be, for example, if we issued a grant of $200,000 to a proponent

and for some reason at the end of the day the proponent's expenditures were only

$175,000 or $190,000, we would then expect the proponent to return that funding

and it would return to the department as revenue.

That is the subhead in which where it would go.

There

would be other forms of revenue there as well.

For example, if there was an invoice that was double paid in error, or if

there was an invoice that might have been overpaid and the vendor provided us

the funding back, or it is picked up.

As well as miscellaneous revenue from employees, there would be

reimbursement of personal expenditures.

For example, cellphones, those kinds of type of expenditures, or even

travel advances. There are travel

advances made to employees who in turn may not end up taking that particular

travel for which the advance was intended.

That would then be paid back to the department and would show up there in

the form of revenue.

The

$21,600 you see, it does not relate to one particular error, shall we say.

It could be a combination of multiple things that would come back to the

department in forms of miscellaneous revenue during the year.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

You had

mentioned some of the projects, either overpayments or whatnot that would

happen. How would you be in that

position? Why would you be paying

in advance for work that is not done?

Is that standard policy of the Department of Fisheries?

MR. LEWIS:

An example might be the special assistance grants that are $3,000 grants to

harbour authorities and fishermen's committees and so on for small community

infrastructure projects. When the

project is approved and they are ready to commence, we pay out 70 per cent of

the project normally, which is $2,100.

They then proceed to obtain funding from other areas if they can for

materials, perhaps some labour, et cetera, in order to complete the project.

Occasionally, projects do not proceed or they do not utilize all the funding, so

that would be a case where we advance some funding, a modest amount of funding

at the beginning of a project to get it moving and on occasion we might end up

having to get the funding back. As

you can see, $21,000 over a budget of $29 million is not a huge amount.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

How would you recoup that

money? Would it be the department?

Do you have an employee who would be recouping it or would you be sending

it to an outside agency?

MR. LEWIS:

No, it would be internal.

Those projects are managed on the ground by the fisheries field rep in

the area. We have a person in St.

John's who coordinates all of the projects around the Province and deals with

the people in the field. If there

is a project in St. Anthony, the fisheries field rep in the St. Anthony area

works with the harbour authority or fishermen's committee on a particular

project, for example.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What does this account for?

Will we get a list of what the $21,600 in payments back was for?

I would like that information.

MR. GRANTER:

I will take that under

advisement.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Subhead

1.3.02, Sustainable Fisheries Resources And Oceans Policy.

Under Grants and Subsidies, this covers CFER, the research with the

Celtic Explorer as was mentioned

earlier. Dr. George Rose has been

the director there and the lead researcher on this for the last number of years

and has announced that he is going to be retiring after this year.

Is there succession planning here or will government axe this funding

after this year's budget? What is

the plan?

MR. GRANTER:

Valuable work has been done

by CFER, and from my perspective we will continue work with regard to the Centre

for Fisheries and Ecosystems Research.

Just as any employee of government or agency who retires and moves on,

obviously, you look at replacing that particular employee either from someone

internal or someone external. It is

pretty straightforward in my opinion.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

So you plan on leasing the Celtic

Explorer to continue this work or will this end after this fiscal year?

MR. GRANTER:

That is a question I cannot

answer right now.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Under

Fishing Industry Renewal, Coordination and Support Services, this is back to

1.4.01. This goes back to the CETA

situation but you had also noted there was additional work that was being done

in terms of under the Professional Services, $151,500.

Would you explain again how this money was expended in a contract?

Who was the contractor for the professional services?

MR. LEWIS:

The $151,500 does not only include CETA.

There was a review of the Lobster Enterprise Retirement Program from the

previous year. There was a

commitment to do a review of that project.

Under

the Professional Services under the CETA planning process it was envisaged

that there would be four pieces of work done.

Three RFPs were issued on and the fourth one did not proceed at all.

We are awaiting the resumption of negotiations and planning process for

moving the CETA plan forward.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

So, no RFPs.

Those three RFPs that were issued, they have all been cancelled have

they?

MR. LEWIS:

No, they were not cancelled. They

were proceeded; they were issued in the fall and they were proceeded on.

The fourth one was not issued at all.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The three that were moved

forward then, they have been awarded?

MR. LEWIS:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What are the contract values

of these RFPs? I would like to know

where in the Budget line these RFPs would fall.

What are the RFPs and who is doing the work?

MR. GRANTER:

Are you asking for the

amounts of each of the RFPs?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I would like the amount of

each RFP, who is the proponent, and what work they are doing.

MS WISEMAN:

The three RFPs relate to CETA. One

was the Newfoundland Seafood Value Chain infrastructure benchmarking assessment,

and that was for about $44,000.

That was done by Pisces Consulting.

The second one was fishery science needs and assessment for the Newfoundland

commercial species and ecosystems for about $45,000.

That was also Pisces Consulting.

The third one was a review of the seafood development research and

development programs in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That was for about $40,000, and that was done by Gardner Pinfold.

The one

on the lobster was for about $20,000, and I believe the proponent on that was

MQ5.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay, so this work,

obviously, is ongoing. This would

add up to the $151,500, these RFPs and, the work around the lobster

sustainability program.

preparing for CETA, in all of these amounts, there was no work done on trying to

value Minimum Processing Requirements, MPRs?

MR. GRANTER:

No.

What

budget line is that?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Well, the 1.4.01,

Coordination and Support Services, states that this is around planning and

program development related to Canada/EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade

Agreement (CETA) Fisheries Investment Fund.

I guess I get it; all the amounts were accounted for, the $151,500.

I just wanted to clarify that there was no work done on the MPRs.

So that has been clarified.

There

was some discussion earlier around the amount of exemptions, and I believe you

had said that there was only 500,000 pounds of cod that was exempt?

MR. GRANTER:

I do not have that number in

front of me, but I think that was the amount I referenced earlier.

I do not have those numbers in front of me.

That was a question that came up, but I think I did say 500,000, yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

So,

under the agreement with Ocean Choice International, is the Province getting any

type of because I do not see any type of financial return, any type of revenue

for the quotas, or any aspect that would be attached with that deal

MR. GRANTER:

I just want to know what

budget line we are referencing there.

If we could get to the Estimates and get to the budget line, other than

that line of questioning.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay, the

MR. GRANTER:

I have been pretty lenient

on the answers that I have been giving, so if you want to stick to the Estimates

and stick to the budget lines.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Sure.

When it

comes to the Salaries in this department, under 1.4.01.01, Salaries, how many

people are working in this department, this section?

MR. GRANTER:

You are asking for the

entire department?

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Yes, the entire department.

MR. GRANTER:

Nine in 1.4.01.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

How

many people will be, I guess, through the attrition plan under the Salaries item

here you mentioned one employee, you are thinking, will fall under the

attrition plan. Do you have others

in this year's budget that will fall under that 1,200 job reduction plan?

Will there be two, three, or four salaries that will be made redundant or

not filled because of the attrition plan?

MR. GRANTER:

Our budget in 2015-2016 has

been reduced by $115,000-and-change to achieve the attrition targets, as my

deputy said earlier. In addition,

salary funding of $69,300 has been taken from the budget as a result of the

elimination of a vacant manager's position.

Basically, it is two positions per year over five years.

What

divisions they come from within the department, as the deputy minister explained

earlier, will be determined by if someone in a particular division actually

retires or not we do not know. We

know that people are able to retire, we have targets set and if we cannot find

them in one division, well then we will find them in other divisions or

throughout other means to reach the $115,300.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Sure.

I will

defer to my colleague if he would like to ask more questions.

I have several more questions that I would like to ask.

Do you want me to continue?

Okay, I will keep going then.

Under

Regional Services, Administration and Support Services, 2.1.01 this is for the

maintenance and repair of all government-owned fisheries facilities provincial

revenue was revised at $25,000 last year.

What accounted for that revenue?

MR. GRANTER:

The variance was due to

higher than anticipated revenue related to user fees at wharves and laydown

areas lease fees.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

How many facilities would

the Province own where they would be collecting these types of fees?

MR. MEANEY:

Those lease fees and laydown

fees primarily deal with four aquaculture wharves on the South Coast.

Access to each of the wharves is paid by the company.

As well if they have any storage areas in the area, they pay a square

footage fee. Depending on which

wharf and which company, it varies by company.

That is primarily for that. The only other piece is a $5,000 lease fee

for the processing plant in St. Alban's.

That is leased by us to the operator.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

How

come the amount is being reduced this year in this year's budget?

If we anticipate we get $5,000 for the St. Alban's processing facility,

if that is going to continue in operation, why would we not be getting the

additional monies? We would only

anticipate to get another $5,000 for all other activities associated with all of

those four aquaculture wharves and all the other associated fees.

Why would we be going back to a smaller figure?

MR. MEANEY: Last

year there were a number of variances in our accounting.

I am not sure if Phil could address those clearer.

MR. IVIMEY:

Yes, it most likely should have been adjusted up to $25,000, in keeping

consistent with the previous year's number.

That was most likely overlooked as part of the budget process.

It may or may not be as high as $25,000, but that is something that we

should look at for future years, I agree.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

This processing fee in St. Alban's, is it something that is a long-term,

negotiated payment; or it is just something that $5,000 does not escalate; or

does the agreement expire every year and have to be renewed; or it is a long

term, twenty-year agreement for predictable revenue?

MR. MEANEY: It

is a ten-year agreement. We would

be in year four right now.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Each year it is $5,000 every year for ten years?

MR. MEANEY:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

It has not been paid in advance.

We collect $5,000 each year.

MR. MEANEY:

Yes.

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay, thank you for that.

Under Fisheries Programs, 2.2.01, Seafood Marketing and

Support Services, there is also $45,000 in revenue that came in and $45,000 that

was budgeted. When I asked about

the Grants and Subsidies associated with the shrimp marketing and what the

evaluation was, I can only assume that is was $45,000 that was contributed.

What actually makes up that $45,000?

Is that the partner funding?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes, that would be when we do marketing and travel to the Boston Seafood Show,

as an example. That would be the

industry contribution to the booths that we establish at the Boston Seafood Show ,

the Newfoundland and Labrador booth at the show.

So that would be the industry's contribution.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

MR. GRANTER:

That is why it falls in as

revenue.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Where is the line item that

shows the cost associated with renting the booth and that aspect?

Would that be under the Transportation and Communications under this

aspect, or is it the Purchased Services, the $310,000?

MR. GRANTER:

Purchased Services.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

So all of that is

associated. Is the $310,000 what

the Province pays to rent the booth at the Boston Seafood Show, or are there

other costs associated? If there

is, can we get a breakdown of what these purchased services are by dollar

amount?

MR. GRANTER:

The $310,000 is the total of

the entire marketing. Boston

Seafood would be $115,000 and change.

The Seafood Expo in Brussels would be $54,000 and change.

The China Seafood Expo would was $48,000 and change.

The Seafood Expo Asia which was the first time we went there this

particular year was $41,000.

WorldFood Moscow was an allocation of $13,000 and change for the total of

310,502, if you add up all the change.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I am trying to add up the

figures, $115,000

MR. GRANTER:

Yes, $115,792 for Boston

plus the industry networking reception.

That is $37,000. So the

total is $310,502.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

There was $37,000 spent for

networking and hospitality at the Boston Seafood Show?

MR. GRANTER:

That is a part of the

Newfoundland delegation provincial reception that takes place annually at the

show, yes. Each of the provinces

has a networking reception at the show.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Each province has a

networking session?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes, they do.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

How many people would you

generally say come to this networking session?

MR. GRANTER:

Well I have a loud voice and

it took every bit of lungs for them to hear me.

It was a huge crowd. I would

say 500 to 600 people.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

That would add up to the $310,000;

$37,000, $115,000, $54,000, $48,000, $41,000, and $13,000.

MR. GRANTER:

Just to add to that as well,

seafood for that particular event is donated by industry in the Province.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

It is prepared, I guess, by chefs?

MR. GRANTER:

Chefs, that is correct.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Do they do the preparation

or the Province brings a chef?

MR. GRANTER:

Traditionally we take a

couple of Newfoundland chefs to highlight their skills as well at the show, and

Newfoundland seafood and seafood products.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

MR. GRANTER:

Rave reviews too by the way.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I have been to some of the

events that the FFAW has had when it comes to traceability of the halibut

project I believe the past minister was there and talking with the

restaurant reps, a variety of them at the Sheraton.

It is just fantastic in terms of presentation.

We do have a lot of quality to offer.

As my

colleague mentions, the restaurants do bring up, time and time again, access to

fresh fish product, local market, and being able to direct sell that.

Some restaurants have been able to find a way to capitalize on a very

small scale, whether it be with seal products or whatnot.

Certainly there needs to be a broader access and focus, I think, to make sure

that local people and people who come here for the experience of seafood get

that experience. For 500 years we

have been known for our fish and the quality of fish, but we are just not

delivering that, I do not believe, on a broad scale to the overall population.

There

are restaurants and outlets there that are doing it and doing it at a high

quality, but there are limitations to what they are able to deliver based on

current regulations. I know that is

a policy and not actually something that is here in the budget item.

Of your

$200,000 that is listed here for Grants and Subsidies under 2.2.01, do you

anticipate that there could be is that earmarked for anything right now?

Will you continue with the shrimp marketing promotion in the UK or is

there no uptake at this point?

MR. GRANTER:

The shrimp promotion in the

UK has only been recently done in recent months.

That funding, that $200,000 is there, and it is offered to industry if

they want to take uptake on this. I

would encourage them to do so, but we have not had much luck in recent years.

I guess as the deputy said earlier, a $50,000 uptake for the shrimp

promotion is a good first start.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Is there an application or

is there a minimum amount that must be contributed?

Is there anywhere where anybody can go and get some guidelines for this

marketing program that is offered?

I do not want to take up too much time in Estimates discussing this if the

information is available on your website or if we can talk about this elsewhere,

but I would certainly like to get some additional information.

MR. MEANEY:

The seafood marketing program on our website you will see the program

information and criteria that is there identified on our website for that.

As well, the marketing component under FTNOP and the program criteria are

listed on our website there in terms of FTNOP marketing.

That information is available there.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Under

2.2.02, Licensing and Quality Assurance, under Professional Services, $29,600;

you had mentioned that this covers the cost associated with the fish licensing

board and you said they had five meetings.

Why would their travel costs not fall under Transportation and

Communications?

MR. LEWIS:

The actual per diem for Professional Services for the board members to

participate in meetings is covered under Professional Services account.

Their travel is also provided for under the Transportation and

Communications there.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

What is the compensation for the appointed fish licensing board?

MR. LEWIS:

They are Level 2. They are

government set rates. They are

Level 2 rates.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What is the Level 2 rate?

MR. LEWIS:

I am not sure exactly what they are today.

It is a standard government rate anyway, whatever the Level 2 rate for

Professional Services is. It is 280

or 330, something like that for the Chair, and lesser amounts for the other

members.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

They get paid for their

meeting attendance, and they get paid compensation for the travel and associated

costs at the standard government rate?

MR. LEWIS:

Yes, standard rates.

MR. GRANTER:

Standard Level 2.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Even the Chair as well.

Okay.

You

said there was a sea urchin study done under Professional Services here.

What consultant did that study?

MR. LEWIS:

My recollection is that it was Pisces Consulting.

I am not 100 per cent sure.

Sorry,

I am 100 per cent sure. I was

thinking about a different study.

It is Pisces Consulting.

The

department, in 2013, had some challenges in terms of striking the right balance

between the requirement process in the Province and enabling processors who ship

a certain percentage of sea urchins out of the Province, and trying to balance

the needs of the two processors that are in the Province to provide work in the

plants with the opportunity for harvesters to actually sell their catch.

At end

of the season, we engaged a consultant to meet with various industry

participants. The FFAW, harvesters,

and plants came to the conclusion that the right split was a 50-50 split, where

50 per cent of the urchins will be processed in the Province on an annual basis

and 50 per cent could be shipped unprocessed.

So the exemptions that the department issued for sea urchins were for the

50 per cent to be shipped out unprocessed.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

So, 50 per cent of all the

sea urchins that are caught are shipped out for processing.

MR. LEWIS:

That is correct.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

There are two processors.

Is it Fogo Island Co-op?

MR. LEWIS:

No, it is not. It is Hodder's

Shellfish Inc. in Centreville

MR. GRANTER:

Notre Dame Bay.

MR. LEWIS:

Yes, and Wood-Pick Enterprises Ltd in

MR. GRANTER:

Wareham, Bonavista Bay.

MR. LEWIS:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Right.

MR. LEWIS:

The issue with sea urchins

is it is a dive fishery. When you

get good weather and there is a good content of roe, divers can aggressively

harvest sea urchins. The problem is

capacity it is an extremely labour-intensive process; plants can only handle a

certain amount of product. With the

number of divers out there and the number of plants that we have licensed at the

moment, you can glut the market very easily.

So what we are finding is a bunch of divers on perfectly good days being

unable to fish because there was no outlet for their product.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

These exemptions are

basically any company can buy and sell unprocessed sea urchins and ship them

out.

MR. LEWIS:

No. It is only related to the two

processing companies that hold the licences to process sea urchins.

It allows them to buy sea urchins, ensure that they have the full amount

of sea urchin that they require to keep their processing operation operating and

their workers engaged, but it allows them to accommodate any surplus landings

that come in from harvesters and gives them an outlet for that product as well.

So, you do not have a situation where you have a glut where you have to

shut down the harvesting side of the fishery, but at the same time you have the

opportunity to provide the plants with the continuity of work.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Under

2.2.03, Compliance and Enforcement, this is where you would be doing the audits.

Do you have auditors that would fall under these salaried positions?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

How many auditors?

MR. GRANTER:

We have two in total; one is

a senior auditor and the other is a junior auditor.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Do they

go and audit the sites themselves, the licensing facilities?

MR. GRANTER:

This is for processing so

they would audit the processing facilities in the Province.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Do they do a site visit

every year for every processor, or do they spot audit?

How is that

MR. GRANTER:

No, they do not, but I will

ask the deputy if he could explain a little more on that.

MR. LEWIS:

We have the two auditors. We have

approximately eighty processing facilities in the Province.

They have set up an audit plan where they rotate their audits of various

plants. They do not do all each

year. They do so many each year.

Generally, it is every two years.

There is a bit of risk management in it too in terms of if you ran into

any situations previously.

Generally, we do not. So, plants

are generally audited between every two and every three years.

The

purpose of the audit is to ensure that MPRs are being met and that the

production reports that are coming in to the department are accurately

reflecting what the plants are actually producing.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Have you audited the OCI

plant down in Fortune, the auditors?

MR. LEWIS: I am

certain that they have. I do not

know when the most recent one would be.

Now, that is a separate audit than the audit of the

agreement. When the minister

referenced the agreement, we went in and we audited as I said, the audit that

we normally do with our auditors is we go in and we determine that company X has

reported production of a certain amount of lobster, a certain amount of cod in,

say, filleted form, et cetera.

Those are reported to the department.

They have implications for licence renewal.

They have implications in some cases for fees and so on.

The auditor goes in and confirms that all of those reports are accurate,

a normal audit of their records.

In the case of the OCI audit, OCI had certain commitments.

They had to acquire a vessel.

They had to invest a minimum of $1 million in the Fortune plant.

They had to pay $2.50 top-up for any workers who were displaced out of

Marystown when Marystown shut down.

There are a number of extraordinary requirements under the agreement that are

not the normal thing that auditors would have reviewed.

The audit of the OCI agreement looked at those extraordinary items to

ensure they had in fact been met.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Would we be able to get a list of the companies that were audited and the

year when they were audited?

MR. LEWIS: I do

not see why we could not.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I do not need the details of the audit reports if that is

MR. GRANTER:

You are just asking for a list if a list is all you are asking for, that

should not be difficult to provide.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Given what the deputy minister just said around the implications of these

audits, if people are not meeting their MPRs, Minimum Processing Requirements,

or if production is not happening, what sanctions

has your department done?

Have you cancelled licences?

Have you imposed any fines to companies in the last budgetary year?

MR. GRANTER:

We have cancelled licences,

but we have not cancelled licences for this particular purpose under that

particular line. Licences have been

cancelled over the last number of years.

In each year, we see a number of licences that get cancelled.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Has

there ever been any fees collected or fines I guess that is not something that

the government does is impose a fee or fine if somebody is not obliging by the

Minimum Processing Requirements in the Province.

What aspects is that something Service NL would do, or who is

responsible when it comes to the lack of compliance to policy?

MR. GRANTER:

We do have, under our

regulations, that we could actually lay charges from our department.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Has the

department ever laid charges on any processor?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes, we have.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Subhead

2.2.04, when it comes to Fisheries Innovation and Development, under

Professional Services $50,000 you said the all-party report falls under that

and it was $40,000?

MR. GRANTER:

That is correct.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

That was done by Pisces

Consulting as well?

MR. GRANTER:

Yes.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The sea cucumber report,

which is also under this one, is a secondary report, but is that also done by

Pisces Consulting or was it another consultant?

MR. GRANTER:

I do not know the name

offhand, but it was not Pisces.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

We can get that information after; that would be fine.

wanted to ask around all of these Professional Services, there are a lot of

consulting fees as we are going through the budgetary items.

Were these through a tendering process or were there exceptions granted

to any of these consultants?

MR. GRANTER:

There are published

guidelines for consultants across government and we would follow the published

guidelines for consultants.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

Have

there been, in times, exceptions granted under those published guidelines?

There is ability where you can go outside and get a consultant

exclusively, I guess, without going through a tendering process if they are

unique circumstances.

MR. GRANTER:

The department has done that

over the years, yes, but not in recent

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Okay.

The

seal inventory processing loan, 2.2.05.

The advance that was revised is $2 million for last year's budget.

Can you just elaborate or explain this was money that went to a Dildo

plant, Carino, to purchase the 60,000-something seals.

Is that correct?

MR. GRANTER:

No.

The $2 million is a variance due to the payment of $2 million during the

year to two separate proponents under the Seal Inventory Financing; $1 million

related to Carino and $1 million related to PhocaLux.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I am not 100 per cent okay. The

revised amount, this was in last year's budget and there is nothing for this

year's budget moving forward. So

you do not plan during the seal season that will be coming up in March to

provide any type of inventory financing or whatnot to PhocaLux or any other

company in the future based on that.

There is no line item there.

MR. GRANTER:

We do that based on demand.

Sometimes they come forward looking for funding; sometimes they do not

come forward looking for funding.

We will support the industry if they come forward.

We will look at the proposals that they bring forth.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Yes, but there is no plan

for any type of loan, advance, or investment under capital.

There has been many cases with the aquaculture industry where you have

had $5 million or $6 million allocated, it does not get spent, it gets carried

over for projects. There is a plan

for future development.

Here,

when it comes to sealing, in the past we saw $3.6 million, we see $2 million.

We see a million that has been paid back but we do not see anything going

forward. You stated earlier,

Minister, you cannot move money around from one

section to the other to make up

for thi

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2015-05-20
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga47_2015-05-20rcfisheriesandaquaculture.html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9893a6ee64066526b9aa8e15e0a2b05cccf92bea

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).