May 4,

2010 GOVERNMENT SERVICES

COMMITTEE

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

CHAIR (Forsey): If everyone is ready, first we will adopt the minutes of

the last Estimates, which was Government Services on April 26.

Could I have a motion to adopt these minutes?

MR. LODER: I would like to make a motion that these minutes be adopted as

written.

CHAIR: Terry Loder.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. First of all, we usually start out by everyone

introducing themselves. Also, there is usually fifteen minutes of questions, if

need be. If you need a break, to pass it on to the next one, you can, if that is

necessary.

We will start with the minister and we will have your people introduced.

MR. DENINE: Minister Dave Denine, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

MR. REID: Ross Reid, Deputy Minister for the Volunteer and Non-Profit

Secretariat.

MR. DUTTON: Sean Dutton, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MS HUMPHRIES: Denise Humphries, Executive Assistant to Minister Denine.

MS CLARKE: Lesley Clarke, Communications Specialist for Intergovernmental

Affairs and Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA, Burgeo & La Poile.

MS ELLIOTT-TEMPLETON: Vanessa Elliott-Templeton, Researcher, Official

Opposition Office.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Ed Buckingham, MHA, St. John's East.

MR. LODER: Terry Loder, MHA, Bay of Islands.

MR. DINN: John Dinn, MHA, Kilbride.

MR. POLLARD: Kevin Pollard, MHA, Baie Verte-Springdale.

CHAIR: My name is Clayton Forsey, MHA, Exploits, and Chair.

We will begin by asking the minister to give an introduction of his

department for a few minutes.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to everyone here. Welcome to the Committee, and in particular to the

critic for the Secretariat. It is good to see everyone here this morning. It is

great to be inside rather than outside, with torrential rains coming down there

now. It is good to be here to do the Estimates for Intergovernmental Affairs and

the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

I would like to take a few minutes if I may, Mr. Chair, to speak about the

Secretariat and their roles within government. I will start with

Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. The Secretariat's vision is of a Province

which is recognized as making an important contribution to a strong and united

Canada and which is treated equitably within Confederation.

IGAS is responsible for monitoring and analyzing intergovernmental dimensions

of constitutional, social, physical and economic resource policy matters in

order to formulate and provide policy and advice on the development of

government's intergovernmental strategy and agenda. The Secretariat is focused

on the creation and co-ordination and the review of policy that affects the

Province's interest in intergovernmental matters.

We have a legislated responsibility to be party to negotiations and signing

of all intergovernmental agreements. The Secretariat acts as a point of entry

from the federal government where no equivalent provincial department exists and

it leads to the Province's efforts to promote and diversify operations at 5 Wing

Goose Bay, 9 Wing Gander and CFS St. John's.

We also support the Premier and my fellow Cabinet ministers in meetings with

the federal government and other provinces and territories. I would like to note

my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, manages the

Province's relationship with the Nunatsiavit Government while the Minister of

Municipal Affairs is responsible for municipal governments.

With respect to promotion of the interests of the Province, I, as minister,

as well as officials from the Secretariat, attend various bilateral,

multilateral, regional and national, and occasionally international and

intergovernmental meetings and conferences to present and promote our Province's

position on matters of importance to the Province. Intergovernmental Affairs

promotes our Province's interests by assisting departments in their

participation in intergovernmental meetings, negotiations, and negotiations of

intergovernmental agreements.

Another issue of significance of the Secretariat is the issue of federal

presence within our Province. While we cannot control decisions made respecting

federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador, we advocate to the federal

government on behalf of the people of the Province for an increase in federal

offices and number of jobs and, in particular, Mr. Chair, executive

decision-making positions. The Secretariat also develops the provincial policy

in areas that do not fall under the responsibility of other departments,

including defence and foreign affairs.

On the defence matters the Secretariat co-ordinates discussions with military

officials, local representatives, planning issues and provincial interests. In

recent years, defence activity has focused on flight training by allied forces

at 5 Wing Goose Bay. International activities also fall within the

responsibility of the Secretariat. The Secretariat is responsible for the

co-ordination of policies, programs and activities of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to other sovereign governments.

My other portfolio, Mr. Chair, is the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, which

comes from the commitments of the 2007 Blueprint. I was appointed Minister

Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector in November 2008. The

Secretariat was created in the Executive Council and had a deputy minister

appointed in 2007. It now consists of two program and policy specialists, two

contract positions and an administrative assistant to the deputy minister.

Mr. Chair, the Secretariat has five priorities: (1) enhancing the ability of

the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector to meet the challenging changing community

needs by working with community-based organizations, government and the private

sector to increase the capacity of those who work and volunteer in the

community-based organizations that we depend on so heavily; (2) strengthening

the relationship and improving the collaboration between the provincial

governments and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector; (3) promoting volunteerism

and social enterprise inside government across the Province, to say thank you

and remind Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of the immeasurable contribution

made by so many people on our behalf; (4) facilitating the development of

provincial government programs and policies which support the Volunteer and

Non-Profit Sector; improve our ability to work co-operatively and to ensure the

wisdom and the perspectives of the sector are considered in policy making.

Finally, Mr. Chair, fostering innovative and creative collaboration approaches

to all these tasks will bring us all to a great deal of success.

The Secretariat is not intended to become another layer of bureaucracy, a

source of project of core funding, an advocate for any groups with other

departments of government or an appeals body to redress from departmental

decisions. We are facilitators and advocates within government and across the

Province for and on behalf of the community-based organizations wherever they

are. Our ultimate goal, Mr. Chair, is to enhance and strengthen the relationship

between government and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector in a way that we can

all benefit from their knowledge, experience and commitment.

This is a brief outline, Mr. Chair, of the roles performed by the staff of

the Secretariat. I thank you for this, and I would be happy to respond to any

questions or concerns with respect to Estimates or indeed any issue. I have

invited my officials to participate and jump in where needed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay.

Thank you, Minister.

We will start by calling the subhead for IGA.

CLERK: 2.3.01.

CHAIR: 2.3.01. Before you respond, it is nice to give your name, those

responding, so as we make it clear for the Clerk.

Mr. Parsons, do you want to?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Minister, I would like to go through some of the line-by-line

stuff and then I will get into some probing questions after, if that is okay.

MR. DENINE: Sure, whatever you wish.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Page 18, 2.3.02., item 06.

MR. DENINE: Purchased Services?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Purchased Services. I wonder if you could give us

some idea exactly what kind of purchased services we would be dealing with.

MR. DENINE: The purchased services could be professional training,

official entertainment, printing, furnishings, equipment, rentals, repairs,

maintenance and general purchased services.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: By the way, Mr. Chairman, for the record

MR. DENINE: I am sorry. Also, memberships in different organizations

would be part of that, and other services like printing, advertising,

photocopying costs, et cetera.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, what we have usually done in the Committees is

any time we require information that the minister does not have available we

would ask that the minister provide an undertaking that he will provide it.

CHAIR: Yes, that is the normal procedure.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, and those undertakings are recorded. Usually,

whenever they are requested by one party it is requested that it goes to both.

For example, if the Official Opposition requests it through my questioning we

still provide a copy to the NDP and vice versa. That way we do not have to ask

for it twice.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is usually what we do.

CHAIR: We are all in agreement of that anyway, I guess.

MR. DENINE: We did that last year.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I am wondering if you, in fact, could

undertake to provide a copy or list of the purchased services that I just

referenced in 06. You gave me the generalities; I am wondering if you could give

us the breakdown on what each of those were. You do not necessarily have to do

it here now, but some time you can just send us along a copy of the breakdown.

MR. DENINE: Yes, I think we sent the House Leader - we sent you a copy

last year of some of the things that you wanted. That was done after our meeting

here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just curious, of the $395,400 that was spent,

you referenced entertainment. How much would have been for entertainment?

MR. DENINE: Entertainment, Sean, do you have that there?

MR. DUTTON: We do not have a breakdown for that here. That is one of the

eligible costs that could be charged to Purchased Services. The largest portion

of the expenditure is for our memberships in intergovernmental organizations.

First, 2009-2010 membership in the Council of Atlantic Premiers was $270,300,

the Council of the Federation membership was $47,000, and membership in the New

England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers was $13,000. There was another

$65,100 for other services, including printing, advertising and photocopier

costs. We will have to get you a breakdown of that after the meeting.

MR. DENINE: Very little on entertainment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, 2.3.02.10. Grants and Subsidies, $49,400., what would that be in

reference to? To where would you be making grants and subsidies?

MR. DUTTON: The largest part of that is $44,400 for the contribution to

the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. They provide services to

all intergovernmental meetings where translation services and other technical

services are required. We provide that one contribution for all government

departments. There is another $5,000 set aside for other anticipated requests,

but none had materialized. At one time we provided funding under this line item

for the Crossing Boundaries, which is now defunct.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: 2.3.03.01., the Salaries. It looks like you were down

last year about $150,000 and you have a new $680,000 chosen for this year. Is

there some

MR. DENINE: I am sorry, what number again was that?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: 2.3.03.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Item 01. Salaries. You had $749,000 last year, you

only spent $590,000 but you have it back up to $680,000. Are you filling a job

there or something?

MR. DENINE: Right now we have nine permanent positions and a temporary

assistant. The savings last year were due to staff turnover and anticipated

requirement for temporary assistance and overtime. This year, Sean, with regard

to bringing it back up (inaudible).

MR. DUTTON: All of the permanent positions are currently filled. Over the

last number of years we have had a lot of turnover. As a result of that there

have been temporary vacancies from time to time. We would anticipate having

these positions filled for the full twelve months, but we can never predict when

people are going to depart or be seconded.

The adjustment is down from the budgeted amount because once we reviewed our

expenditure overtime, it was determined that because of the steps that people

are at and so on, we have never had to spend the entire amount over the last two

or three years. It has just been reduced from $749,000 original budget to

$680,000. It also reflects the change in pay periods, because there was an extra

pay period in the last fiscal year. There would be a 4 per cent increase due to

employees this year as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Page 19, 2.3.04. the Ottawa Office, I take it both

the representative and his staffer are included in that?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could you give us a breakdown on the Salaries?

MR. DUTTON: It is in the salary details document. These amounts are not

necessarily indicative of the actual amount but it lists in the salary details:

provincial representative, $148,352 for 2010-2011 and administrative assistant,

$53,985. Those are amounts for permanent positions for 2010-2011. They do not

necessarily reflect at what step those individuals might be in their

classification.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That gives you roughly $200,000 and you have $250,000

there; $148,000 plus the $53,000 gives you $201,000. What is the other $47,000

for?

MR. DUTTON: There would be funding set aside for temporary and other

employees and for overtime and other earnings. They typically would not

necessarily be expended. The temporary assistants might include a summer student

or an intern or that sort of thing, some temporary staff hired there from time

to time in the past.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Last year you had pretty well the same, $247,600

budgeted and spent $230,000. Can you give me the breakdown on exactly what was

spent? Was it $148,000 and $53,000 last year for the representative and the

assistant?

MR. DUTTON: The amount that we have in our report is just $206,000 for

total permanent employees and $24,000 for overtime and other earnings. It is not

a breakdown by employee. We do not have that information here today.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you give me the breakdown as to who received the

overtime?

MR. DUTTON: It is overtime and other earnings. I just do not have a

breakdown of what those other earnings are.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would like the breakdown for both: who got

overtime, if anyone, and in what amount, and what others would have received any

pay if there were temporaries, for example.

MR. DUTTON: I do not believe there was any overtime paid, but I will have

to check. Certainly, the representative would not have been eligible for

overtime.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, because again you spent $230,000 as opposed to

I am assuming there were two people in the office, the representative and an

assistant -

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: which totalled around $200,000 a year for salaries;

yet, we are showing $230,000. I am just wondering where the other $30,000 went.

Did it go in benefits, other earnings, or overtime? If so, who got the other

$30,000? If you could undertake to provide us with those details?

Also, under 06. in the same category, $95,000, I would assume that was the

rental payment?

MR. DENINE: Yes. I think that is the photocopier, printing costs, lease

costs, official entertainment and professional training.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How much is the lease, exactly? How much per month

are we paying?

MR. DUTTON: That figure is not in the information I have here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, can we get the breakdown as to because the

media reported recently, a front-page story in The Telegram a few weeks

ago, that the newspapers are piling up outside his vacant office. So, I am sure

we would like to know what we are paying for this vacant office right now.

MR. DENINE: The office is not vacant - the position.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We certainly do not have a representative there.

Maybe you can provide us with a copy of the lease?

I will come back; I have some further questions on the representative's

office. I will come to that when I do some other questioning.

Before I move on, can you tell me, Minister, the exact date that Mr.

FitzGerald submitted his resignation, and when was it effective?

MR. DENINE: It was late January. I will give you the exact dates, but

what day in January

OFFICIAL: There was a public announcement.

MR. DENINE: There was an announcement and I cannot give you the exact

date.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just wondering, was it a public announcement

that he - I am not sure if he left or was leaving. I am wondering if you could

verify, for example, the fact that the announcement might have been made in

January, was that the effective date of his doing the service or did he, for

example, announce today that I will no longer be the representative after

February 28 or whatever? I would like to know the exact day when his salary

would have ended.

MR. DENINE: That is easily done. We sent out a press release on the whole

thing, but I can just give you the approximate date. If I said January 25 it

could be wrong, so I will get the exact date for you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

I noticed under that 05. you had put in there last year Professional Services

$15,000 but nothing this year. I am just wondering, what was the anticipated

Professional Services that the representative might need? I know you do not have

it there this year, but -

MR. DENINE: Because it was revised we did not expect to spend it this

year, obviously. So, the question is?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The question is: you have a

section called

Professional Services under this. You anticipated last year that there might be

some Professional Services needed. What were the Professional Services you

thought you might have needed last year that you do not think you would need

this year?

MR. DENINE: It could be consulting services and that type of thing.

MR. DUTTON: I think this has been a standard line item in the office

since its inception. We looked at the expenditure pattern over the last number

of years. It is not something that has been required. So, as part of ensuring

that we are not putting forward requests that are not required, we would reduce

it to zero for this year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Moving on to the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat

line by line. That is on page 22, 2.8.01.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It looks like you have increased it there from

$372,000 to $423,000, anticipating a new hire?

MR. DENINE: What happened was - and I will turn to my deputy after I just

give a little brief thing to give you some idea - we were only really staffed up

a year ago last January. The amount of money we had in there - we had to put

more money, obviously, because we had some permanent employees there. Right now

we have four permanent positions and a temporary assistant. Because these are in

permanent positions as opposed to last year, then we need to be able to put more

money into it.

Ross, is there anything else you want to add?

MR. REID: Yes, the minister is correct. This is a contractual position

that we have in place this year simply to help us manage the workload.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has it been filled?

MR. REID: Sorry?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has it been filled?

MR. REID: I beg your pardon?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has that position been filled?

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Who has that position?

MR. REID: Who has the position? A man by the name of Matthew Pinsent.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Under Professional Services, I noticed last year you

had budgeted $75,000, spent $269,800. What kind of Professional Services were we

talking there? Because it is a fairly substantial expenditure beyond what you

had anticipated.

MR. DENINE: Well, basically it was the consulting services, and this year

we are looking into a communication strategy. We are into the URock awards that

cost money. There was an ad to hire a communication firm whereby we could start

up the cost; it would be approximately $70,000 and reflects an increase of

$105,000. Also, $50,000 was reallocated to Salaries, $20,000 reallocated to

Purchased Services, and $175,000 to be re-profiled for the 2009-2010

communications strategy.

Basically, hon. member, there are two things going to happen, or a couple of

things happened over the last year. One, we had the URock awards, which were

very, very successful, and we started the communications strategy recognizing

volunteers within the Province. The first part of that was done. Now we are into

the second phase, and that should be unfolded very shortly.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could you undertake to provide us with a breakdown of

the $269,800 Professional Services spent last year?

OFFICIAL: You are asking for a breakdown?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A breakdown on the $269,800.

OFFICIAL: We can get you that, Sir.

OFFICIAL: Not a problem.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

That portion of your portfolio, Minister, is usually referred to as the grip

and grin section, is it, thanking volunteers? That is the phrase I have heard

put to it. That is the minister's grip and grin phase.

MR. DENINE: Oh, I have done a lot of that. Do you want to know how many

hands I shook for Volunteer Week? A lot of them.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It needs to be done.

MR. DENINE: It needs to be done is right.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It needs to be done.

I will move along, Minister, to more general questions.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, I do not know if you want to probably take a little

break.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not think the NDP have

CHAIR: No, he cannot ask anyway.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He has only observer status.

CHAIR: My apologies.

MR. DENINE: It is okay.

CHAIR: Okay. Carry on, Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am amazed that you anticipate I might be tired.

MR. DENINE: I doubt that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not known to speak at length or anything.

CHAIR: It was just a weak moment.

MR. DENINE: Not that I could forget.

CHAIR: Kelvin, I had a weak moment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, some of these questions are very general in

nature because your office is so diverse.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: From the non-profit and volunteer sector to

everything intergovernmental, of course, is pretty expansive.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Pardon me if I am all over the map here, but

sometimes your department has issues that are all over the map as well.

As you have indicated, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of course,

you are responsible for monitoring and analyzing intergovernmental dimensions,

whether they are constitutional, social, fiscal, economic, resource issues and

so on, and formulating policy of our government strategy. That is my

understanding of what you do as an office, as a Secretariat.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat have

any role in the analysis, formulation or preparation of Bill 75, which dealt

with the expropriation of the Abitibi assets back in December of 2008?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No role whatsoever?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How about the fact that we were dealing in that bill,

vis--vis Newfoundland and Labrador and our interaction, obviously, with Quebec,

because it was a Quebec company, and also the fact that the federal government

was involved because of NAFTA implications. Was there any thought whatsoever

given by, or advice given by, any involvement whatsoever by your Secretariat in

regard to the NAFTA implications that might exist as a result of Bill 75?

MR. DUTTON: I think that would probably be largely a legal question that

would have to be assessed from the legal implications of NAFTA as opposed to the

policy analysis that we would do. Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is

primarily responsible for trade policy, so we would work in concert with them,

but in terms of our office providing that analysis on Bill 75 or its

consideration, no.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Aside from analysis, did you have any involvement

whatsoever in regard to the formulation, creation, implementation or drafting of

Bill 75?

MR. DUTTON: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So it is fair to say the file was somewhere else

other than in your shop.

MR. DENINE: Other line departments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: With regard to - and you alluded to this in your

introduction, that you advocate to the federal government with respect to

increased federal presence here in the Province, the numbers of jobs,

particularly executive decision-making positions and so on. Can you provide us

with some idea, an overview or list, of what exactly you have done in the last

year? Who have you spoken to, who you have written to, who have you met with,

regarding that particular facet of federal presence here in the Province?

MR. DENINE: Actually, we have written letters to the responsible

ministers, and you are correct; in terms of federal presence in the Province it

is not only just jobs. We are very concerned about the decision-making process

in terms of - if they have a regional office outside of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the major person or individual who was making the decision could be

based in Halifax or Moncton or St. John's, et cetera.

So, in response to your question, I spoke to Minister MacKay about it, I

spoke to Minister Verner, and I spoke to Minister Shea about the federal

presence here in the Province, and any opportunity that I had to bring that up

to any minister responsible for that, to make sure that federal presence was

thought of for Newfoundland and Labrador, and to protect our interests.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Your involvement with the federal government, is it

simply a verbal exchange? You mentioned it to Minister MacKay.

MR. DENINE: It could be verbal and written.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

So my question is: What federal presence in particular did you talk to these

ministers about - either Shea, MacKay, whomever - with regard to a presence here

in the last year?

MR. DENINE: First of all, the federal presence was basically what I just

said in terms of the overall federal presence itself. In particular, there was a

job in the Canada service that was possibly going to Halifax and we did not

think it should be going there. We would like to have the responsibility here,

the decision-making process, and anything that had to deal with that.

I am just trying to find out. If you will give me a minute I will be able to

give you some of this, because I am looking for my sheet.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Was this a particular job you were referencing?

MR. DUTTON: The issue with Service Canada was, we were told that they

have undergone a regional restructuring; that they are creating an Atlantic

office in Halifax that the local office would have to report through instead of

to the national capital. So it would be an extra layer of authority through

Halifax before getting to headquarters.

It is a fairly centralized department as it is, so they have a large presence

across the country. We raised that concern with Minister Finley in writing that

this was actually diminishing the amount of authority that the regional director

would have for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were a number of other cases like that which dealt with concerns about

protecting the positions that we have at this point. Transport Canada had a

position of director where the person had retired. The minister raised that with

Minister Baird ensuring that that gets re-staffed, that they propose a different

structure.

As well, in terms of defence presence, there have been a number of letters

exchanged related to 5 Wing Goose Bay, but also the promised territorial defence

battalion at CFS St. John's that has not materialized. We are continually

reminding the federal government of that public commitment.

Also, there has been quite a lot of attraction over the search and rescue

capacity and the government's position that there should have been an increase

in federal search and rescue capacity in St. John's to deal with the offshore

oil and gas sector that would be incremental to the service in Gander. The

minister has also met with the people in Gander and at 9 Wing over their desire

to see actually an enhanced level of service from the search and rescue squadron

there as well. That has also been the subject of discussion with Minister

MacKay.

There was also a personal support centre established for veterans; that was a

positive announcement from the federal government. The minister raised that with

Minister Blackburn as an example of some of the positive things that can happen

on this front.

MR. DENINE: Also, too, the hon. member will remember that there was a

private member's motion put forward about federal presence within the Province,

and that was unanimously supported. Actually, it was put forth by the Chair of

the Committee here this morning, there last year, and that was made known to

Minister Verner on that. As my deputy mentioned, search and rescue was there,

the Department of Transportation and Works, Industry Canada, Environment Canada,

5 Wing Goose Bay has always been an issue. They certainly know our position on 5

Wing Goose Bay and we continue to promote that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Back to the Service Canada position, what happened

with it? You say you made representations that it would not be moved out of the

Province to Halifax.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Was it actually successful that you kept -

MR. DUTTON: Well, we are awaiting a response. That was only in the last

month that was raised.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did Intergovernmental Affairs or the Secretariat make

a presentation to the Wells inquiry that C-NLOPB established regarding your

safety?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any particular reason you would not have, since that

is one of your concerns you alluded to?

MR. DENINE: We did not think it was - in our position, we just waited

until - we will react after, once the recommendations come forward. We did not

see fit to be there.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just thinking, Minister, you have just mentioned

the fact that your relevance and importance is to make these presentations, and

here we are with a perfect opportunity to Justice Robert Wells, who is doing

this inquiry about search and rescue capacity, and our Intergovernmental Affairs

office did not think it significant enough to make a submission. Is there

something missing here?

MR. DENINE: No, not really. I see what you are getting at, but the thing

is that we made our position known on search and rescue for the Province, and

what we expect the federal government to do, and that is the avenue we chose.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: When we did the Justice Estimates, perennially we

have an issue here with the feds, for example, when it comes to putting their

share in the pot for legal aid. They never have; they have continued to reduce

it. It has been a problem for twenty years. They started off, I think it was,

contributing maybe 60 per cent of the legal aid requirement here and we are down

now to, they might put in 15 per cent, and successive ministers, including

myself, have made representations to try to get the feds to put more money in

the pot. Again, both the Minister of Finance now, who was the former minister,

and the current Minister of Finance, who was the Minister of Justice, and the

current Minister of Justice, Mr. Collins, have all had the same problem.

Has Intergovernmental Affairs ever played any role with the feds to try to

bring some extra pressure to bear there? Because it is an ongoing problem to try

to get extra increased funding federally. We talk about increased presence in

terms of jobs and increased presence in terms of infrastructure, but what about

increased presence in terms of monetary?

MR. DENINE: Well, in that respect, in terms of that, and you mention the

Justice thing, the line department will take the lead on that. If they need help

in terms of our support then they will ask for it or we will look at it and get

into it, but as far as I can see I do not think there was anything done.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You have never been asked by Justice to try to bring

some pressure to bear with the feds to help out there on that issue?

MR. DENINE: No, I have not as minister.

MR. DUTTON: Certainly, the government is aware that is a high priority

for all of the Justice Ministers across Canada. I think the provincial and

territorial ministers have made that a consistent high priority for themselves.

We work with Justice as required on preparation for their meetings. We also have

that identified as one of the potential issues that could arise in any other

discussions with the federal government. The current federal government has not

expressed very much interest in that issue. More of their Justice agenda has

focused on anti-crime legislation. It has not met with their priorities at this

point.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We have a good idea now, we have a perfect idea now,

an understanding of where the feds stand, for example, on the penitentiary. That

is a Justice issue, but aside from legal aid it is a totally different issue. It

is federal infrastructure in the Province. We have had lots of talk in the last

two or three years about the need for a replacement of HMP, and we have had the

federal minister saying, basically: We are not going there; we are not building

any more federal pens, and tough.

Have you in the past year - notwithstanding that position of the feds, and

their statement on that regard - have you had any discussions with the feds

MR. DENINE: Yes, I did actually.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - with regard to HMP?

MR. DENINE: Yes. When I do this, the hon. member should know, obviously,

the line department is the one that will take the lead role on it, and as you

were a previous member of Cabinet that is exactly what it will be.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

MR. DENINE: At any opportunity I did. I did that when I met with Minister

Verner, the federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. I mentioned it, and my

comment was: Look, we have been looking for this. It is a needed facility, and

we are looking for funding on it; but that is as far as it went in terms of that

it is a priority for our Province to upgrade the penitentiary facilities within

Newfoundland and Labrador and we would like to have your support on it, and make

it known that this is one of our issues. So, yes, I did, I had the opportunity

to bring that to his attention.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, it is my understanding as well that our

Department of Environment and Conservation received, or there was eliminated -

we saw the elimination of about $15 million in funding for projects related to

clean air and climate change initiatives in this Province. You are aware of that

elimination?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was our reaction to that?

MR. DENINE: That reaction, again, came from our environmental minister on

that. So whatever the reaction was, that is where it was.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So it is fair to say, then, that you leave most of

these things to the line departments to deal with?

MR. DENINE: Well, yes, because in terms of that or, for example, if

there is something going on, if the minister is going to a climate change

conference, federal FPT meetings, then we can gather information to help her

assist in that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How about some of the other files? The Lower

Churchill, for example, what involvement does your Secretariat have with regard

to advocating, talking with and discussions with, anything to do with Lower

Churchill in the last year?

MR. DENINE: No. In terms of all that, it goes back to exactly what I said

in terms of the Minister of Natural Resources takes the lead on all that, in

terms of negotiations, and that is where it is. Our department would supply

information, support and so on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So, what information

MR. DENINE: And I will ask the deputy minister to say

MR. DUTTON: Certainly, through intergovernmental conferences, energy has

been a major focus in a lot of those meetings. Over the past year we would have

provided support to the Premier or his representative at those meetings to be

able to speak to and advocate for the development of the Lower Churchill and to

do the sort of policy framework that would be helpful to that development,

including at the Council of the Federation and the Conference of New England

Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, the latter of which provides an

opportunity to speak directly to some of the governors in states that could be

potential customers for that power.

Also, the environmental assessment process is being done through a joint

review panel for the generation project, and that was established through a

federal-provincial agreement. Minister Denine would have been a party to that

agreement. We would provide advice and participate in the negotiation of that

agreement itself. Now that that is established it is up to Environment and the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to oversee that process as it is

implemented, and a panel has been appointed and is carrying out that review.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What advice in particular did you give in the past

twelve months to the Premier or anybody else in this government regarding the

Lower Churchill?

MR. DUTTON: I think, in particular, we have looked at how we can ensure

that we can access other markets. In particular, in the New England States we

have been reviewing the Boxer-Kerry and the Waxman-Markey legislation in the

United States.

It has not sort of moved with lightening speed, but they are looking at

certain incentives for certain types of clean energy. Large scale hydro is not

considered to be renewable for that purpose, so we have continually made that

point. We have gotten the support of the Council of the Federation for that

position, both at their summer meeting and at their meetings in Washington in

February.

Neither of those bills has passed into law at this point. It has also been

raised with the US Administration. There is an argument to be said that even if

it is not deemed renewable for the purposes of that legislation, because they

are trying to incentivize other less economical, riskier forms of power like

wind or other green energy, that there is enough of a market in the United

States for hydro, wind, and any other green energy that can be developed in

Canada. So, we are just trying to continue to ensure that those markets are

open.

Also, through the New England Governors, the Eastern Canadian Premiers, the

New England Governors gave us a presentation in September on their energy

blueprint and certainly made the case, which they accepted that Lower Churchill

power and other forms of renewable energy in Canada can be a part of the

solution for New England. That was something that the governors accepted and

that they are actively looking at.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any discussions with New Brunswick since the

Hydro-Qubec and New Brunswick deal came off the rails in terms of that being a

possible route: discussions with, access to their lines, anything of that

nature?

MR. DUTTON: There would have been an application to the system operator,

so I believe that would still be sort of an active consideration. One of the

things the government will have to decide, through Nalcor, is what route to take

for the transmission of energy. That would still be one of the routes that would

be considered - in other words, an application to the Rgie de l'nergie in

Quebec to determine what the actual price should be for transmission through

Quebec.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Specifically with New Brunswick.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, but in either instance there might be an opportunity to

transmit through New Brunswick either coming down from Quebec through New

Brunswick into the other Maritime Provinces or back through.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has your department had any specific contact with New

Brunswick to discuss this issue, shipment of energy, since the deal between

Hydro and the Province of New Brunswick came off the rails?

I know about the applications and stuff that the Province needed and Nalcor

has made to the Rgie and through New Brunswick and they are all active. My

question is pretty simple: Has your Secretariat had any direct involvement

whatsoever with the Province of New Brunswick with regard to the Lower Churchill

in any manner, shape or form since the Hydro and New Brunswick deal came off the

table?

MR. DUTTON: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

What discussions, if any, in the past year have you had with regard to Marine

Atlantic?

MR. DENINE: When I was in Ottawa I did bring that to the attention of

Minister MacKay and to Minister Verner. They put, I think, $75 million in this

year in the budget. Basically, we are glad that they put money in.

On the second case is the fact that I stressed to them the sustainability of

it, to continue putting money into it. The fact that they put some money this

year in Marine Atlantic, we said we are happy with that, but we want to look at

the sustainability over the next number of years, next number of budgets, to

increase it to bring it up to a higher standard.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did you have any meetings with the Minister of

Transport directly?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is who really controls

MR. DENINE: Again, the hon. member knows that when I bring it forth to a

minister it is a concern for us in terms of service that is being provided by

the federal government for here. The line minister will be the one

Transportation and Works will be the line minister of that and he would have the

direct conversations with the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I have raised these questions in Estimates

regarding tourism, for example, because that is a piece of Marine Atlantic as

well. Everybody seems to think that the $175 million that the feds put in this

year is great stuff.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The bottom line is the federal government reacted

because the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, federally, told them just what type

of an abysmal job they were doing, so they did put in $175 million.

The bottom line is that is a joke in terms of what is needed to fix Marine

Atlantic. We have two ships, the Caribou and the Smallwood ,

both of which are twenty-five-plus years old. It is going to cost $750 million

to replace their fleet properly and yet we get $175 million popped in.

Have you had any discussions along those lines, that it is one thing to put

some money in, but if it is a band-aid then acknowledge that it is a band-aid?

MR. DENINE: Well, just to respond to your question, that is exactly what

I was saying to the ministers up there, in terms of, hey, it is good to see you

put some money in, but this is a service that is a right under the Terms of

Union for Newfoundland and Labrador, and the fact is that we need that sustained

to a level of service that would be conducive to Newfoundland and Labrador, both

in the tourism perspective and our transportation perspective.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have you ever had any discussions with the feds,

Minister MacKay, or Transportation, because this issue of the cost of travel

there are a whole bunch of issues. Number one is the infrastructure that you

have to operate. Number two, there is the service level that you can provide,

and quite often that is connected to what your infrastructure capacity is. There

is also this issue of the cost, the operational cost, and the fact that we pay

not based on what it is to travel if you travel ninety kilometres of road here

in the Province, there is a cost associated with that. If you travel ninety

kilometres across the Gulf, you pay eight, ten times, twenty times what it is.

There have been a lot of people in this Province for a long time saying: Can we

get some kind of equation between road travel versus sea travel, given that is a

constitutional right under Term 32? Have you had any of those discussions with

the feds?

MR. DENINE: My discussions were, as I just said - when I talk about

service and delivery, it is all-encompassing. It was not that particular thing,

but it was relied upon. The line ministers would have, again, that bead on it,

if you want to say it. The thing is that my objective of doing it is that we

want to make - when I talk about services, it is all-inclusive. It is not just

necessarily that - the service, the cost, and so on, et cetera, as you outlined,

not specifically - but the fact that we want the improved services here for

Newfoundland and Labrador, yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just having some difficulty, I guess,

understanding the relevance of your Secretariat, because I have asked questions

about Marine Atlantic, I asked questions about the Lower Churchill, I asked

questions about the Department of Environment, I asked questions about the

Department of Justice, and any time it is easy to say: Well, we leave that to

the line departments. That makes one question: What is the purpose of an

Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat if every time we ask a question, yes, I

chat with them but we leave it to the line departments, keeps coming up.

MR. DENINE: Well, the line department itself does the negotiations on any

agreement. We support the intergovernmental agreements. When an

intergovernmental agreement comes up, our department is quite involved with it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can we get a list of the different agreements that

were signed last year?

MR. DENINE: Last year there were fifty-eight agreements signed -

interprovincial. There were another fifty-eight federal-provincial agreements,

five with other jurisdictions.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right. Can we get a list of those agreements?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It will be very helpful, rather than just list the

agreements, if you could have a little note basically saying what they are

about, because sometimes trying to unravel and make a connection between what

the head of the agreement says and what it actually did is a tough job. We often

have to come back and say: Could you explain what this agreement was about? We

do not mean you get into all kinds of in-depth research, but just a note saying

briefly what each of those agreements was.

Minister, the federal government brought forward a policy that had an impact

on this Province; again, it was environmental and it talked about waste water

effluents. Basically, the feds put forward a policy which prohibited untreated

waste and storm water from entering the ocean.

We, as a Province, took the position - my understanding is we did not sign on

to the agreement because we said unless there was some type of federal financial

commitment that we were not prepared to sign on. Now, we know the law is still

going to go ahead. The feds did not stop with the implementation and position of

that law just because we did not sign on.

What are the implications of this for us as a Province? Particularly, we have

hundreds of communities in this Province that do not have any secondary sewage

treatment facilities. Yet, the feds have made this law prohibiting this from

happening. We have not signed onto it; yet the law, I would assume, applies to

all of us. What are the implications of this? Have you made any submissions on

it?

MR. DENINE: I am going to make a comment, and I will let my deputy

minister comment on it. That has been an issue that was made to two departments

within the government - Municipal Affairs and also in Environment - in terms of

it is all right to put a strategy in place but you need to have some financial

backing in order to make it happen. The minister and this government have made

it known to the officials, the federal ministers, that this is not acceptable. I

believe MNL has done the same thing, and the FCM.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Before you begin, I just smiled, Minister, because

your very comment flashed back to a question I asked in Question Period when you

were Minister of Municipal Affairs when they brought in the thing about the

Waste Management Strategy and closing down the incinerators. That was my

comment: Why would you put a strategy in place if you never gave the funding to

the municipalities to replace it? You use the same logic now to explain -

MR. DENINE: No, but we did. There is funding there to replace it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Maybe Mr. Dutton can explain where we are.

MR. DUTTON: You mentioned the waste water strategy that had been reviewed

by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which the Province did

not endorse. Full implementation of that strategy would have had a potential

cost implication of $2.5 billion over thirty years for this Province. There was

no dedicated funding identified.

Just to be clear, the federal government is looking at bringing in waste

water system effluent regulations under their legislation. So, it is not in law

per se, but it is a proposed regulation that is not yet in effect.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You said $2.5 billion over how many years?

MR. DUTTON: Thirty years.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thirty years.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

It was a significant cost implication over time. A lot of rural communities

are putting waste water effluent into the harbour, untreated, so that is a large

expense to have to deal with that. That was the reason why the Province had not

endorsed the CCME strategy because there was no identified funding for this.

Any discussions with the federal government to this point have just pointed

towards existing programs as a source of funding, like Building Canada and so

on, which are time limited. Also, any number of other infrastructure projects

would be eligible, so we would have to compete with other projects, and a lot of

those funds have already been allocated. There is not an identified source of

funding to be able to deal with the issue.

The federal government has given until March 19 to provide comments on the

draft regulations and their implications, so there is still an opportunity for

government to make its views known. We have certainly heard from other

jurisdictions. Quebec and Nunavut did not endorse the CCME strategy either. We

have had discussions with the Maritime Provinces that are also very concerned

about these federal regulations. I am sure all of us will be taking the

opportunity to make those views known before March 19 to the federal regulator

May 19, pardon me.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, moving on now to a couple of policy areas,

I guess, that you are directly responsible for, a lot of these other issues

dealt with, like you said, line departments that could be involved would be

involved: defence and foreign affairs. Particularly on the defence angle, I

believe Mr. Dutton alluded at one point to letters that went back and forth with

regard to the squadron that was intended. We had announced several years ago

MR. DENINE: Battalion, rapid response.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: there are supposed to be response teams here in St.

John's. I believe there was another squadron that was supposed to be placed in

Goose Bay. There were several federal commitments regarding personnel, military

personnel that would be placed in this Province, and we have not seen squat in

those commitments in the last three or four years. Where are we right now with

those? Is there any likelihood or is this just a pipe dream at this point?

MR. DENINE: Well, as you know, the rapid response battalion team was a

commitment by the federal government, and we had a response back last summer

saying that rapid response battalion team was not on.

The other part was the unstaffed aerial vehicles. That was supposed to go.

Those were brought to Minister MacKay's attention numerous times, in terms of

our position. Minister MacKay has said to us, in our last meeting, that UAVs are

still under study and the fact that they have not decided which one they will be

using. They are using UAVs over in Afghanistan now. That is in a different

atmosphere, drier and so on, to put it up north. We are still waiting to hear

back on that. It is still under active consideration. That part, hon. member, is

that these issues with regard to presence within the Province, I cannot tell you

how many times I spoke I know I had three meetings with MacKay, and each and

every time these issues were brought forward in terms of living up to the

commitment. We are waiting on the response for the UAVs.

As a matter of fact, just this morning, if you listen to CBC Radio, they are

doing some work up there in the target area. They are doing a barracks up there

for fifty people, so they will not be having to transport people in from the

prime target area. That is a positive thing; they are putting infrastructure

into it. Also, in the last little while you have heard in the media that there

is half a million dollars given to a marketing company to help market 5 Wing

Goose Bay. Each and every opportunity that I have, when I meet people from other

governments, I promote that. I meet with ambassadors in terms of that, and I

always promote 5 Wing Goose Bay and the opportunities that it has.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, speaking of 5 Wing and the marketing piece,

we had an incident here just a couple of months ago when the Minister of

Labrador Affairs talked about meetings that he and you had in Ottawa with regard

to having certain training done here, and meetings that you had with ambassadors

to get training done in Labrador, only to find out that it had actually gone to

the United States.

Now, I realize in Question Period you do not always get to ask all the

questions you want and you certainly do not get to give all the answers that you

might like to give, or wish to give. It looked a bit embarrassing, in my view,

that here we have ministers standing up and saying that we are having meetings

about this contract and meanwhile before the flight hits the tarmac back here we

find out that the contract has actually been let to a States. What went wrong

here?

MR. DENINE: What went wrong was the fact that they found a better

facility to operate from. The jets that were needed for that target drill, the

target zone practicing, whatever they use, in terms of that, and the fact of the

cost of bringing jets over, they found a place down in the States, I believe, to

carry on that, where they had the F-16s and the proper jets available which did

not cost so much. The fact that, the issue that. other foreign countries are now

cutting back on defence, that was an issue. It is not dead in the water in terms

of what is happening because we are still - pardon the pun - on the radar for

next year, and up until 2016 the exercise will be ongoing. NATO will be the ones

who will decide that. We will be doing what we can to promote that.

They are putting things in Goose Bay with regard to the practice area I just

mentioned, in facilities that they are doing. Also, for the hon. member's

information, we had a meeting with 5 Wing in November and December. They came

down here in December, I believe was the month, and they had some environmental

issues to get over with. I assured them that this government will not be

standing in the way of making things happen.

Our relationship with 5 Wing Goose Bay up there is very close in terms of

co-operating. We did everything we could as a government to make sure that it

was on. There were no environmental issues; there were no permits holding it up.

From our end, we followed through on it and I made sure of that, along with my

Minister of Labrador Affairs. From our perspective, yes, we are still going to

continue to promote it and hope that NATO will be back next year to continue on

with the exercise.

A couple of positive things have come out. One is the fact that they are

still going on with the infrastructure. Number two, we have $500,000 for

marketing, and I have instructed our Intergovernmental Affairs staff to write a

letter to the marketing company so that we will be able to sit down and have a

discussion with them on the market.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The contract that went to the States, I believe that

involved the Germans; am I correct?

MR. DUTTON: The training involved CASEX 2010; it was renamed Ramstein

Rover. It was for close air support and it was a NATO exercise. So Germany and

the other NATO countries may be involved. One of the other issues that we were

advised of - because we certainly had letters we were told about, they were not

sent to us - 5 Wing had letters from senior generals in NATO that indicated a

high desirability to go to Goose Bay, but this was the first year that this

exercise had been proposed and they did not have it built into their budgets for

this year. When cost pressures came about they sent in a lack of availability of

aircraft. They looked at a location in the United States where there were

existing squadrons of aircraft available. So they did not have to reallocate

them, and it was a much smaller scale exercise than what had been contemplated.

I think that was to involve a number of NATO countries, not just the United

States or Germany.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Could you educate me on the whole issue of

just to make sure I understand the thing properly - when we talk 5 Wing Goose,

who exactly is 5 Wing Goose when it comes to getting these contracts? I take it,

it is absolutely military. There is no local involvement up there. This is done

from somebody, and are those people in Goose Bay or are they bureaucratic or

military people in Ottawa? Who does this negotiation to decide whether we are

going to have exercises?

MR. DUTTON: It is a bit of both; 5 Wing has a wing commander. It is a

full Canadian Forces base. They work closely with a marketing office in Ottawa.

It used to be called the Goose Bay Project Management Office. It has a different

name. It does not have Goose Bay in the title any more but it does the same

thing. There is a retired colonel who is working for DND there, and a major in

the Air Force, who are involved in that marketing office. That is the group that

is letting this contract to a private marketing company in the Ottawa area.

These individuals like Colonel Bisson and Major Kendell, they go to air shows

and trade shows and they meet with other militaries. They are primarily military

decisions on where military forces are going to go for their training. So they

have been out doing that marketing, and the Wing people would be responsible for

preparing the facilities and ensuring that they are able to host. That has

included some of the improvements the minister mentioned to the practice target

areas, provision of the hangar space and all of the support services around

hosting aircraft or winter training or whatever other kind of training they

would want to bring in.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This Ottawa office that deals with this marketing and

trying to arrange these contracts, they do not just deal with the Wing, do they;

they deal with land, air, sea? Is this an office that Ottawa has with different

pieces in it that go out and try to negotiate these contracts, or is this an

office in Ottawa that deals exclusively with trying to get contracts for Goose?

That is what I am trying to establish.

MR. DUTTON: Any kind of military training for Goose Bay would be the sort

of thing they would be into, is my understanding. We have had a number of winter

exercises with, like paratroopers and that kind of thing, that do not involve

the traditional perception of low-level flying at Goose Bay, but that has been a

regular occurrence. It is not as big bucks as the aircraft training because they

are not buying the jet fuel, and they are out in a tent instead of in a hotel,

that sort of thing.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No. What I am getting at is, the retired colonel or

major, whomever he is, goes off to the air show in Lichtenfels somewhere, and he

meets with the colonels over there who are with NATO, and he is trying to

negotiate some kind of deals to bring these people and their money and their

bucks and their personnel to Canada. Is he exclusively there to negotiate

contracts for Goose Bay, or is he saying: Look, this is what we have. We have

this in Goose Bay, we have this out in Comox, we have this out somewhere else,

and we have this somewhere else. Or is he there exclusively to negotiate for 5

Wing Goose? That is my question, because you did say that it had the name Goose

Bay on it at one point.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, at one time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So now is it

MR. DUTTON: I believe there are different marketing people for the other

bases, and there have been other cases where they have done other types of

training. Like Cold Lake is an area that does a lot of military training,

Wainwright and Suffield in Alberta, and I believe they have different structures

for marketing purposes than what they have at Goose Bay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So, is it fair to say that the Canadian

military who negotiate these deals, whether they be with NATO or anyone else,

that they are just not over there negotiating and marketing exclusively for

Goose; they are there marketing from a Canadian perspective?

MR. DUTTON: For these two individuals who run this marketing office, they

would be focused on Goose Bay, it is my understanding. The Department of

National Defence, Canadian Forces, would be looking for foreign military

training at any number of bases in Canada because it would help to subsidize

Canada's own training activities. One of the dilemmas we have always had is that

the Canadian Forces commitment to doing its own training activity at Goose Bay

has not been great.

There is a forward operating location hangar there where CF-18 aircraft could

be housed and they are not housed there. They have to deploy aircraft from

Bagotville to Goose Bay in order to participate in multi-national training at

Goose Bay. They do not have their own aircraft there. Their higher priority in

the system would be on the bases where they have a greater operational

requirement.

This is why we thought that the rapid response battalion and the UAV squadron

would be two very positive things. Besides the money that they would bring in

from the activity itself, it would also give Goose Bay an operational

requirement. We would hope then the department would have taken more ownership

of and responsibility for continuing to ensure the long-term future of the base.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The point I am making and trying to understand here

is, when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for Newfoundland and Labrador

and the Minister of Labrador Affairs goes off to a meeting with someone from

NATO, there are obviously other players in the game, for example, the federal

military people.

Really, it is not a case of what relationship we just have with the NATO

people, whether it is Germans or Italians or whatever it is. We have to get on

the good side of whoever is in the Canadian military office as well, I guess,

because they have other interests as well, whether it goes to Goose, goes to

Cold Lake or goes wherever else. Is that fair to say?

MR. DUTTON: Well, I think that is part of the reason why the minister

meets and writes so regularly with the Minister of National Defence; because, as

the head person, that is something that he has always done. That has been the

case with our previous ministers, and Ministers of Defence as well.

There has always been a strong economic development argument for Goose Bay.

We continually have to ensure that at the highest level 5 Wing remains a

priority, in the event that there are elements within the department or the

Canadian Forces who would be just as happy to try to direct training to some

other location.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What is your Secretariat doing to be proactive to

ensure that we have a good shot at this stuff now, anything that comes up in the

next year?

MR. DENINE: Well, exactly what I just said a few minutes ago in terms of

we made sure, number one - there were some environmental issues up in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay in terms of 5 Wing Goose Bay - that we were not in the way of

making any regulations that would stop it. Number two, we have made our feelings

known to the ministers. Number three, we are in the process now to look at the

marketing plan with the marketing people who were appointed recently. Each and

every opportunity - the Minister of National Defence, Minister MacKay, is quite

well aware of our concern with 5 Wing Goose Bay. We have, in IGA, a person

responsible for the military there, and he is in constant contact with that

military base and anything and all we can do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A total change of direction here, Minister. Our

office was briefed last year at the Labrador Expo about the concept of the

Arctic Gateway. That is, of course, where they are saying when it comes to

sovereignty, environmental sovereignty, safety concerns, because of the

Northwest Passage being ice-free for the first time ever sort of - and it was

important, from this Province's perspective, to see if anything were to happen

with the Northwest Passage, particularly from transportation, safety,

environmental issues, how we might be able to put Labrador front and centre to

take advantage of that. What, if anything, has your department had on the

environment on that issue?

MR. DENINE: From our perspective, again when you talk about the Northern

facility such as 5 Wing Goose Bay with absolutely phenomenal infrastructure,

different capabilities up there, and again, with the sovereignty in the North,

we promote it as much as we can in terms of the ministers responsible, in terms

of saying we would like to see funding put in place, and that will help promote

that as a focal point of the North.

Sean, do you want to add to it?

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

One of the approaches we had looked at over the past period of time was

related to the gateways and border crossings fund. The federal government had

established a $2.1 billion program to support the development of trade gateways.

The Northern Gateway was where we had positioned ourselves with respect to the

Atlantic Gateway concept. The expectation was that all of the Atlantic Provinces

would receive investments.

As the criteria came out for that program, a lot of the components of what we

were looking to do to position ourselves as the Northern Gateway did not meet

with the federal criteria for the program. So, while we have been encouraged to

try to be more strategic in the big picture in looking at our priorities, it has

become a much more narrowly interpreted infrastructure program.

I think, as the Premier mentioned in the media last week, he raised the

gateway with the federal ministers during his visit in Ottawa and the Northern

Gateway remains a priority. From the gateways and border crossings fund

perspective, it may be that we would have to look at other infrastructure that

meets the criteria in order to ensure that we get our fair share of that

program. We have had a number of discussions with Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development and other departments about how we can move forward to continue to

position ourselves on the Northern Gateway.

There are a lot of opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador beyond the

kind of trade corridor issue with the Northwest Passage. Support for northern

sovereignty, the minister mentioned. There is also a lot of potential oil and

gas exploration in the North. Newfoundland and Labrador companies have a lot of

expertise in that work in harsh environments, so there is a niche opportunity

for us to access there and a number of other opportunities where our geographic

location would be an advantage.

I think it is still a high priority for government, and we will be working

with those departments to continue to try to position ourselves. Some of that

may be our own policy and spending initiatives and some of it may be trying to

look at where there are federal programs that would help us to achieve that

vision.

Certain elements of the Northern Gateway have been funded through other

programs, even though they had not received gateways and border crossings fund

monies like the continued development of the Trans-Labrador Highway, the St.

Anthony port development and things of that nature.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, the Premier said in the House that this

government is not signing on to the current negotiations with the EU until

certain trade issues have been addressed. Of course, we know the European ban on

seal products will have a devastating effect on us. What involvement has the IGA

Secretariat had on this issue in the last year, the whole piece about the

Premier's position on not signing on, and how has that impacted the seal piece?

This is a foreign affairs type of thing, which I do think would be in your shop.

MR. DENINE: We are observer status - that is the word, I think, observers

-in terms of looking at the rights of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure

that our interests are protected, especially with regard to the fisheries.

We are monitoring very, very closely. As a matter of fact, just last week

people were in Ottawa with meetings. There have been three separate meetings on

the go now, and there has been an individual appointed to have a look at the

ongoing talks and to monitor them very, very closely.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What are the implications for us right now of not

signing on?

MR. DENINE: Implications - yes, go ahead.

MR. DUTTON: The Province has indicated that we are not endorsing the

progress on our issues on the trade front in the past, particularly fisheries

and seal related issues.

While we are monitoring it, the issue of whether to sign on or not is really

dependent upon the issues that are in provincial jurisdiction. This is unusual

negotiation from other trade talks like NAFTA in the past in that the European

Union sort of demanded that the provinces and territories participate because

they wanted to gain access to provincial procurement in particular. There are

other issues that would overlap into provincial jurisdiction like labour and

environment and so on.

jurisdiction would equally apply to Newfoundland and Labrador. Seafood tariffs,

for example, if Canada was successful in eliminating seafood tariffs in the

European Union, it would be for all Canadian products, including in Newfoundland

and Labrador, irrespective of whether Newfoundland and Labrador became a party

to the agreement, because tariffs are in federal jurisdiction.

The decision that the Province would have to make would be whether there

would be sufficient comfort with the terms, that Newfoundland and Labrador could

accept those terms to opt in, and that the benefits would outweigh the costs of

doing so.

As the minister mentioned, we have been participating from the position of an

observer but that has not restrained the Province from advocating to the federal

government positions that it should be taking with respect to matters of

interest to us, particularly on seafood tariffs and other issues on trade in

nickel, shipbuilding and any number of other topics.

Also, we have interacted with the other provinces and territories on what

regime there would be put in place for provincial and territorial coverage in an

agreement. That is not to say we have made any decision to opt in or not to opt

in, but we certainly try to ensure that the best outcome is reached for all

while we retain our sort of observer status. We have been given all access to

negotiation sessions, to draft documents, and any other information that any

other province and territory has received in the course of the negotiation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just trying to understand, again, how the system

works and how the process works. We have a Canadian team that also has

provincial representatives on it when it comes to negotiating with the EU, which

is my understanding.

We have been asked to participate or to sign off; which is it? You are saying

we are there as an observer.

MR. DUTTON: They have asked for provinces and territories to participate

treaties.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Agreed.

MR. DUTTON: So, there is still an open question about how, in practice,

provinces and territories will become bound by the treaty. The mechanism for

doing that has yet to be clearly resolved, but clearly the EU would like to have

access to provincial procurement as one of the sweeteners for this arrangement

because they recognize procurement by provinces, territories and large

municipalities is a very valuable piece of business that they would like to have

guaranteed access to.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

The feds, for example, will and can, and do have the constitutional right to

sign off when it comes to fisheries, for example. The Province, my understanding

is, would have to be a party in order to agree to procurement issues in the

Province. The EU is insisting that provinces be at the table with the feds and

everybody sign off together. We are there now as an observer on our Canadian

negotiating team.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is it true and correct that the Canadian team can

still, for example, go off and make a deal now with the EU on fisheries without

our consent and without our participation? We are participating, but only as an

observer.

MR. DUTTON: Well, they could do that whether we were a participant or an

observer, because we are not invited to tables that are in exclusive federal

jurisdictions such as tariffs. We are only invited to participate at those

tables where provincial jurisdictions are being discussed.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

So, what is the significance of saying we are not going to sign on? If it

does not make any difference anyway whether we are going to sign on or not sign

on, the feds are going to do what they want when it comes to fisheries. If it is

in their interest -

MR. DUTTON: Well, I would say the feds are a lot more conscious of the

need to do something properly on fisheries than they would have been otherwise.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just trying to get some reality around this,

because we can hear a news story saying we have not signed on to negotiations

for the EU - not to take anything away from the people in this Province - but,

like myself, I would say 95 per cent of us have no idea whether that is

something fit to eat. What I am trying to understand is that somebody should

educate us as to what are the consequences of making a statement such as: We are

not going to sign on. If the feds can go off and do what they please anyway,

because it is in their exclusive jurisdiction on fisheries, what is the

consequence of us saying we are not going to sign, other than making a statement

that we are not going to participate and be seen as condoning what you are

doing?

MR. DENINE: Well, basically, our interest there is very simple. We want

to protect the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, first and foremost.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How are we -

MR. DENINE: The fishery is one. The thing is that by making the

statement, as my deputy mentioned, the federal government are quite well aware

of our stance and what we want to do. We are going to be there to monitor that

our interests are protected; and the fact that, as you say, they can sign on

agreements whenever, the thing is that by doing it they know that they are not

doing the best interests of the Province. Now, at the end of the day we do not

know what the agreement is going to say. We do not know what the agreement is

going to say, what it is going to do, but our basic objective there is to make

sure that our interests are protected.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I have no problem with that. That is a good

motherhood statement. Anybody who lives in this Province, in Newfoundland and

Labrador, who says that we do not care about the interests of this Province, has

something wrong anyway; that is a given. I would think that is a given.

What I am saying is: Why would we deliberately say we want observer status,

which to me indicates we are not a participant? We are saying we are going to

come to your meetings, we want copies of all your briefing notes and everything

else, but we are not going to participate. To me, participate means talking. If

we are not going to talk to you while we are at these meetings - it is like this

gentleman over here this morning from the NDP; he is an observer but he has no

right to ask any questions here.

So, if we are going to sit at these meetings as an observer - we have already

said that we are not signing on to it, we are there as an observer - how are we

protecting our interests if we put ourselves in a forum where we already said we

are going to muzzle ourselves? That is my question. There is something missing

in that.

MR. DUTTON: I guess I would make a distinction between being an observer

and a monitor and not saying anything. As I mentioned, we would continue to have

the opportunity to advocate for the provincial interest in areas in federal

jurisdiction, and our officials are continuing to do that. As well, we would

have a number of meetings with the other provinces and territories where, as a

group, they would strategize about priority issues for them, and where to

position themselves, and we continue to have input into that process. Where

there are jurisdictions that maybe have not picked up on issues that would

affect us all, we have had the opportunity to bring them to their attention as

well to ensure that everybody is working on the same page. What we have

indicated is that we not endorse the federal negotiating mandate, that we are

not an active participant from that point of view, so we have reserved the right

not to sign on to any deal at the end of the negotiation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

What is the latest on our seventy-thirty fishery retirement package,

Minister?

MR. DENINE: Seventy-thirty?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We had talked that program; that has been floating

around for years, too. Any discussions?

MR. DENINE: Yes. We have said as a government that we are willing to step

up to the plate, and as of right now the federal government has still not

stepped up to the plate; that is the bottom line.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have you discussed it with Minister Shea in the last

twelve months?

MR. DENINE: I have not, no.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

What is the status -

MR. DUTTON: I could not say whether that would have been part of the

discussions between the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No, but from an IGA's perspective -

MR. DENINE: I just want to make sure I give you the right answer; just in

case I forgot, I did.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The taxation issue we had, again I come back to that,

and I raised it last year, Ms Elizabeth Harvey of Isle aux Morts, for example,

she is getting to be a national icon now. She probably knows more about taxation

than half of the tax lawyers in the country. God bless her.

MR. DENINE: No question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just wondering, what is the status? Do you have

any update to give us as to where that sits now?

MR. DENINE: Yes. Well, the position of the federal government is

basically they are doing nothing about it right now. It is in the courts and

they are waiting for the court decision. I can tell you, I spoke to Ms Harvey a

few times, but not in the last year or so, it might have been a couple of years

ago, but - who is the minister now?

MR. DUTTON: You wrote to Minister Ashfield about it.

MR. DENINE: Yes, Keith Ashfield. I wrote to him and his response back to

me was: Look, this is something we are not commenting on. It is in the courts

and we will wait and see what happens. So that is the status of that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Ambassador Sullivan left our provincial shores, of

course, and went off to be the fish ambassador for the country. Last year when I

raised his name in these hearings I asked: Has there been any contact with him

on any file? Your answer was no, you had not. I am just wondering, has anything

changed on that? Have you had any discussions whatsoever with Loyola Sullivan on

any issues?

MR. DENINE: No. Not with our office, no. There could be other

departments, maybe, but not ours.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Any involvement of IGA in the NAFO changes regarding the 200-mile limit and

the fisheries issues that were discussed?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was the nature of your involvement?

MR. DUTTON: Well, that was an issue that the Premier had raised at

intergovernmental meetings, at the Conference of New England Governors and

Eastern Canadian Premiers, and also at the Council of Atlantic Premiers. We

worked with Fisheries in preparing briefing materials and analysis and

correspondence on that issue. As you know, the Premier and the Minister of

Fisheries advocated regularly on that matter, and I think the Minister of

Fisheries may have testified two or three times at parliamentary committees as

well. So we worked together closely with Fisheries on that issue.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The catastrophic events that are unfolding in

Louisiana, of course, with the oil spill brought the economic and particularly,

specifically, the environmental risk associated with the oil industry to bear in

the last week or two, ten days. We know government has been working with the

feds on the SmartBay project in Placentia. I am just wondering if you have

involvement in that as an IGA, or is that also left to a line department?

MR. DUTTON: SmartBay?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: SmartBay project in Placentia Bay.

MR. DUTTON: Well, that was one of the elements of the Northern Gateway

proposal that we had advanced, and I guess Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development has been particularly focused on that, given its application to the

oceans tech sector. It is something that we have continued to advance to the

federal government as a funding priority for that to continue on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could you tell me who exactly are all the partners

involved in the SmartBay piece?

MR. DUTTON: We have application of a number of sectors. I believe INTRD

has been the lead department, but Fisheries and Natural Resources would have

particular interest as well because of the oil tank traffic and fishing activity

in the area. They would probably be the main departments that have an interest

in it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would have just assumed that Environment would have

been the lead on it.

MR. DUTTON: Well, Environment is responsible for the environment on land.

When you are talking about on the sea, it would only be where it would meet with

the coastal zone, I guess, that their interest would come in. They would have an

issue more so as far as the SmartBay project and oil spill response; that is

where the interaction would occur between the offshore petroleum board when it

is on the rig, Transport Canada when it is on a tanker, and the Coast Guard if

it hits the water, and then Environment and Conservation if it hits the beach.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This may seem off the wall to a lot of people in this

Province who do not deal with it on a daily basis, but we hear a lot in our

media particularly NTV which carries a lot of the court activities and RNC,

RCMP activities, crime in general about child exploitation on the Internet.

Does your office have any involvement with that type of thing?

We hear, for example, even here in the City of St. John's, that there are

issues of human trafficking and sex workers happening here in our little city.

Do you, in IGA, have any involvement with anybody in the federal government or

is that left to Justice?

MR. DENINE: That would be left to Justice.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Regarding the Quebec Innu hunting issue - again, a transborder issue - the

Quebec Innu claim, of course, that they deserve to be recognized, particularly

with regard to: they were not involved in the New Dawn Agreement. Has your

secretary had any involvement in that, in the discussions with the Quebec Innu?

I understand they were looking for meetings.

MR. DUTTON: The Quebec Innu are not a government.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So you would not deal with them at all?

MR. DUTTON: No, and I can say I do not because I wear another hat that we

will talk about on Wednesday night.

MR. DENINE: Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So IGA would not have any involvement with them

as a group requesting a meeting?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Did IGA have any involvement in the CF(L)Co/Nalcor/government application or

case that is unfolding now with regard to the Upper Churchill and the court

action?

MR. DUTTON: No, that is a legal matter.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. I am just trying to verify where you guys fit

in, because I would not want to go away saying: Well, you should have asked IGA

about that.

Do you have any idea when the Citizens' Rep position might be filled or

advertised, or is that something that is left to the Premier?

MR. DENINE: That will be left to government to decide when that will be

done. When the person is found, he or she will be announced by the government at

the time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So far, are you aware of any

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I understood that the advertisements were done

through your office the last time; there was an advertisement process.

MR. DUTTON: I do not know; I was not here then.

MR. DENINE: I cannot remember. If it was, we can check it out for you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Do you have any involvement with anybody on the federal level regarding the

Stephenville Airport? They are constantly in a funding issue there.

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You talk about airports, the use of, trying to

improve the number of people who use the airports. Has your Secretariat had any

involvement in that regard, or has that been left to Transportation, whomever?

MR. DENINE: That would be Transportation.

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible) another department.

MR. DENINE: It would be Transportation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. I asked that in particular because there was

some federal funding available. There was an issue out there that the airport

authority or the airport committee that is out there had not applied for some

funding that was available from the feds. I did not know

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible) program.

MR. DENINE: What program?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: There is some infrastructure program. There was an

application that could have been and should have been filed apparently with the

feds for some infrastructure money. That became a major issue. They had public

hearings in Stephenville last year. I was actually in attendance, as were the

members for that area, Ms Burke and Mr. Cornect. I am just wondering if your

department, IGA, had any involvement whatsoever or would that have been dealt

with again by a line department?

MR. DENINE: Line department.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, if this was Airports Capital Assistance Program than

that is just unilaterally administered by the federal government; it is not a

cost-shared program. We would not have any involvement in that. If it was

Building Canada Fund, because we have had certain airport projects at Deer Lake

and Happy Valley-Goose Bay that have been funded under Building Canada, they are

done under a cost-shared agreement.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right.

MR. DUTTON: They would be eligible if that was the program they were

talking about. The negotiation of the cost-shared agreement would be something

the minister would be a party to. The selection of the projects is something

that either would be driven by applications or otherwise priority-set by the

lead departments, for example, Transportation and Works or Municipal Affairs,

depending on whether it was the infrastructure program or the community's

component.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes. In my understanding it was application driven.

So I guess after you guys were involved in the actual negotiation of the

bilateral it was dealt with by the line department.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, it would be only if there was some issue that people

asked our assistance for. We would not have an active role in the setting of

decisions on which projects get funded. That is really something you rely on the

engineers and people to evaluate, what should be at the top of the priority

list.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just a small issue I guess it is small depending on

what perspective you look at - the Quebec inaccurate maps issue was raised. Did

that go anywhere in terms of discussions with anybody from your shop? That would

be a governmental thing, I am sure.

MR. DENINE: Well, we have made representation to the appropriate

ministers, and the fact that the Romaine, was it?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Romaine, yes.

MR. DENINE: Romaine, yes. We talked about that and we made representation

to the ministers in writing, saying: When, in future, you refer to that, you

refer to the correct boundary.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could we get copies of that correspondence?

MR. DUTTON: I think we sent it to you last year, did we not? That was the

minister's submission to the environmental assessment panel on the Romaine River

hydro project.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Can we just double-check and see if we did, in

fact, have it? Because I do not remember seeing that one on the Romaine one.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is the Romaine hydro-electric project I am

thinking of.

MR. DENINE: Yes, and they were consistently used in (inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

To finish with that issue, IGA, I guess we are on to the Volunteer sector.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We had some discussions last year about possible tax

credits for volunteers, particularly firemen. I get asked about this constantly

by firemen, usually, asking

MR. DENINE: Yes, you do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - is there any work being done on this or proposals

considered?

MR. DENINE: Well, the question has been asked. I believe in the federal

government they have done that and it was difficult to control. The thing is

that when I talk about people, people who volunteer, people come to me

constantly and say: Well, look, we should get a tax credit for different things

we do in terms of the hours of service.

The other thing, too, is that sometimes volunteer sectors are not registered

within government guidelines. They might be an ad hoc group. It could be a

hockey moms group supporting a hockey team; they are volunteering. It could be a

church association that are not given charitable status. So the issue becomes

monitoring it, and the federal government has not bought into it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there anything provincially that can be done in

terms of tax -

MR. DENINE: We were looking at it. Ross, you can probably continue, but

that was an issue that was brought up at our Corner Brook meeting. We had a

volunteer summit and that is one of the things that we can take under

advisement, but it is a difficult one to do.

MR REID: Minister, the members will remember, last year when we discussed

this, we discussed this in the context of volunteer firemen. It had been

something that had been discussed at great length inside the study that had been

done by the firefighters association in conjunction with Municipal Affairs and

others. It is one that remains controversial for the reasons the minister has

outlined.

From the summit in Corner Brook we have come away with ten priorities. One of

the priorities that the sixty community leaders have asked us to collectively

look at is the use of tax incentives by any level of government: municipal,

provincial or federal. That, therefore, is something that we will spend some

time looking at in conjunction with the community.

We will do a jurisdictional scan and look at what other jurisdictions have

done. We will look at some of the things that have been there historically and

then bring it forward again. I will tell you, even from that meeting in Corner

Brook, there are an awful lot of people who think it is a bad idea, and there

are an awful lot of people who think it is an excellent idea, let's be clear,

but it is very mixed. The person who supports it least is the one who has to

administer it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You mentioned the ten priorities. Have they been

publicly announced?

MR. DENINE: No. What happened, in early March we brought together a major

cross-section of large groups, small groups, medium groups, regionalized and so

on, and asked them we had a summit: Where do you think our Secretariat should

go, and what do you think are some of the priorities that you have and then we

can incorporate within ours? What happened after the meeting - there were some

teleconferences on the go since - we are now compiling the information and

basically that will assume part of our Secretariat. So, published, no.

OFFICIAL: Not yet.

MR. DENINE: Not yet.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Not yet?

MR. DENINE: No.

OFFICIAL: But it will.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is what I am saying, yes.

MR. DENINE: We are trying to redefine everything. There were a lot of

things said, so what we are trying to do is redefine what was said, exactly what

was meant by it so we can move from there.

MR. REID: It was interesting; the facilitator in this case was Sister

Elizabeth Davis. She asked us to conduct the discussions through the three days

based on tables as opposed to breakout rooms, so what we have is ten groups.

Those ten groups have been directed to get together, as the minister said, over

conference calls - a couple of them are doing it by e-mail - to come back with

their belief on or their sense of how these ten recommendations can be

implemented, who should take the lead, and that sort of thing. Once that is

assimilated we will publish it; very predictable, a training strategy, the use

of what technology, things like the use of a tax credit, investigate benefits

for employees, that sort of thing.

MR. DENINE: Policies, insurance.

MR. REID: Right, all of those sorts of things, yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: It is my understanding, before we call for the subheads, that the

questions asked and information sought, or answers to questions, should come

back to the Committee for distribution. That is my understanding. I am not

exactly sure, but I think it is. Basically it is more or less for the copy for

our minutes here, right?

MR. DENINE: If that is the process then that is fine. Whatever the

procedure, we have to follow through.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is what is done in other committees.

CHAIR: It is more or less for our files.

MR. DENINE: I know I have a copy that I sent to your office, Opposition

Office, last year. Whatever we have to do, Mr. Chair, whatever the requirements

are, we will follow through.

CHAIR: Yes. We can confirm that, but it is just my understanding anyway.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, I will call for the subheads.

CLERK: Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, 2.3.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: 2.3.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive?

CLERK: I am sorry, 2.3.01 to 2.3.04 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 2.3.01 to 2.3.04 inclusive for Intergovernmental Affairs

carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

On motion, subheads 2.3.01 through 2.3.04 carried.

CLERK: The Volunteer and Non-Profit, 2.8.01.

CHAIR: Shall the Volunteer and Non-Profit 2.8.01 carry?

On motion, subhead 2.8.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Departments of

Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat carried

without amendment?

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the

Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat carried without amendment.

CHAIR: I will call for a motion to adjourn.

MR. DINN: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by John Dinn.

I would like to thank everybody for their time today, and the minister and

your staff.

Thank you very much.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.