Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Harry Harding, MHA for the District of Bonavista North, replaces Terry French, MHA for the District of Conception Bay South.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Tony Cornect, MHA for the District of Port au Port, replaces Elizabeth Marshall, MHA for the District of Topsail.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Wallace Young, MHA for the District of St. Barbe, replaces Ed Buckingham, MHA for the District of St. John's East.

The Committee met at 5:10 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Harding): We have the go ahead now to start our Estimates Committee meeting for the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

I would like, first of all, to welcome everyone to our meeting. I would like to ask the Committee members now to identify themselves by name and district.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, MHA for the District of Port au Port.

MR. FORSEY: Clayton Forsey, MHA for the District of Exploits.

MR. DINN: John Dinn, MHA for the District of Kilbride.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, MHA for the District of St. Barbe.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We will follow the normal procedure in that after the first subhead is called I will ask the minister then to – he may have up to fifteen minutes – introduce his officials and to give an overview of his department's estimates for the coming year.

After the minister speaks then the Committee members, the first speaker may have up to fifteen minutes, after that I will stop him and ask the other members on the Committee if they would like to ask questions and we will carry on from there.

I ask the Clerk now to call the first subhead.

CLERK: Subhead 2.3.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 2.3.01.

Does that carry?

Minister Denine.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome everyone here today and in particular, the critic for the Secretariat. It is good to see everyone here. It is a bit earlier than normal because we were supposed to start a bit later, but as things happened, unfolded today, we are going to be starting at this time frame.

We will do Estimates for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer Non-Profit Sector.

First, I would like to introduce the people around me. I will ask them to introduce themselves starting here, Deputy Minister, Volunteer and Non-Profit.

MR. REID: Ross Reid, Deputy Minister of Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat.

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

MS JANES: Colleen Janes, Assistant Deputy Minister, Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

MS CLARKE: Leslie Clarke, Communications Specialist for the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to take a few minutes if I may 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 united Canada and which is treated equitably within the federation.

Intergovernmental Affairs is responsible for monitoring and analyzing intergovernmental dimensions of constitutional, social, fiscal and economic resource policy matters in order to formulate and provide policy advice on the development of government's intergovernmental strategy and agenda.

The Secretariat is focused on the creation and the coordination and review of policy that affects the Province's interests in intergovernmental matters. We have a legislated responsibility to be party to the negotiation and the signing of all intergovernmental agreements.

The Secretariat acts as a point of entry for the federal government where no provincial department exists. It leads the Province's efforts to promote and diversify operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay. We also support the Premier, and my fellow Cabinet ministers, in meetings with the federal government and other provinces and territories.

I would also like to note my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, manages the Province's relationship with the Nunatsiavut government, while the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for the municipal governments.

With respect to promotion, in the interest to the Province, I, as minister, as well as officials from the Secretariat attend various bi-lateral, multi-lateral regional, national, and occasionally international, intergovernmental meetings and conferences to present and promote our Province's position on matters of importance to our Province.

Intergovernmental Affairs promotes the Province's interests by assisting departments in their participation in intergovernmental meetings, negotiations and their negotiations of intergovernmental agreements.

Another issue of significance to the Secretariat is the issue of federal presence in our Province. While we cannot control the 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, numbers of jobs, and in particular, decision-making positions.

The Secretariat also develops a provincial policy in areas that do not fall under the responsibility of other departments, including defence and foreign affairs. On defence matters, the Secretariat coordinates discussion with military officials and local representatives related to planning issues and provincial interests.

In recent years, defence activities have focused on the 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 coordination of policies, programs, activities of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to sovereign governments.

My other portfolio, Mr. Chair, is the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat, which comes from the commitments in the 2007 blueprint. I was appointed Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector in November, 2008. The Secretariat, which was created in the Executive Council, had a deputy minister appointed in December 2007, and an administrative assistant was in place in October 2008; two analysts were placed by January 12, 2009.

Mr. Chair, the Secretariat has five priorities. One: enhancing the ability of the volunteer and non-profit sector to meet changing community needs by working with community-based organizations, government and the private sector to increase the capacity of those that work and volunteer in the community-based organizations that we depend on so heavily. Two: strengthening new relationships and improving collaboration between the provincial government and the volunteer and non-profit sector. Three: promoting volunteerism and the social enterprise inside government and across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to say thank you and remind Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of the immeasurable contribution made by so many people on our behalf. Four: facilitating the development of provincial government programs and policies which support the voluntary and non-profit sector, improving our ability to work co-operatively and to ensure the wisdom and prospectus of the sector are considered in policy making. Five: fostering innovative and creative collaboration approaches to all of 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 or core funding, an advocate for any groups with other departments of government or an appeals body for redress from other departments' 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 is to enhance and strengthen the relationship between government and the voluntary and non-profit sector in a way that we can benefit from their knowledge and experience and commitment.

This, Mr. Chair, is a brief outline of the roles performed by the staff of the Secretariats. I thank you for this and would be happy to respond to any questions and concerns with respect to the estimates.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Denine.

I would just like to add that the proceedings are being recorded by Hansard. So if you need to ask your officials to respond at any time, ask them to identify themselves each time before they speak.

Also, we have observers from the New Democratic Party, and we have an arrangement where they cannot ask questions themselves. However, we have made arrangements that they can pass the questions to Mr. Parsons and he will present the question on their behalf.

Mr. Parsons.

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

Minister, I will not be getting into too much detail on the actual line-by-line stuff. It seems like there has not been much of a budgetary increase in IGA other than, I would take it, the salary increases, basically from $2.4 million up to about $2.56 million?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is this the first year we have had volunteer non-profit? The second year, isn't it?

MR. DENINE: Yes, two years.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The second year we have had it. Yes, that is correct. The figures are there for the increase. Again, the increase from $672,000 to $1 million, is that basically salaries?

MR. DENINE: No. Well part of it is salaries, obviously. The other part is the communication strategy which we are going to implement this year.

We made a commitment to go out to the volunteer non-profit sector and communicate with, basically, in any way, shape or form in which we can help them. One would be helping out with the grants procedures, what we do with grants and how they are implemented, how they are given out and to make it a simple process. Number two, we are talking about capacity in terms of the different organizations within the Province. As you know, hon. member, there is a significant pressure on volunteer groups across this Province to get volunteers within their organizations. So part of that communication strategy would be to help increase the capacity and give them different ways to do it.

The other part is a communication Web portal so that any organization can come in and look at different programs within government and get links so that they are able to search out grants and any other finances that are available to them. So that is a part of that, a brief issue on that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On some of the more general questions, I will start off with our good friend Dr. FitzGerald. We had a little run at the issue last year, affectionately called the – somebody called it the Dr. Feelgood limousine service. Again, it has been raised in the House and in the media as recently as this week.

I will ask the minister again, this new minister, for the record: Can you give us an update on what the role is supposed to be for Dr. FitzGerald? Has he submitted any report within the last twelve months as to what he has done, and if so, whom has he provided that report to?

MR. DENINE: His role has not changed. This is the second person we have had as an Ottawa representative. The role has not changed since we first put someone in there.

From my experience, and to the hon. member, I can tell you that his service has been invaluable to me in terms of getting information on the federal level, getting backed, and also immeasurable to all the ministers and any other members of government in terms of getting information back.

There is no formal report. The reports are ongoing as we speak. Every time there is an issue come up, whatever it may be, there is contact made with our representative in Ottawa and then there is either verbal or written correspondence given. So to say there is a formal report, no.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So he does report verbally, I take it? To yourself, or to the Premier?

MR. DENINE: Both.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So there is nothing that the general public can ever or will ever be able to look at to determine whether they are getting the bang for their buck in terms of this position?

MR. DENINE: Well, the position is a civil servant position. This person is not like the Child and Youth Advocate who is out in the media all the time commenting on things. This person is basically a public servant and reports back in the Premier's office, and quite often with my office.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, but even public servants have evaluations. How do you evaluate his performance if he does not give anything in writing?

MR. DENINE: Well, there are a number of things in which you evaluate. There are a couple of things – for example, as I just mentioned, there is always ongoing issues and to have someone on the ground there to feel the pulse of what is happening on the federal level, it is very, very important for us. From my perspective, it is an ongoing relationship in terms of – it is never just okay, well, we do this one and go on to the next one. It is a continuous thing. I have been on the phone with him numerous times and I know the Premier's office has been on the phone numerous times with different issues. So the answer to your question is no, there is no official report, no.

I do not know if you want, Sean, to comment anything on that.

MR. DUTTON: Well, just that he is one of eight Ottawa offices that are maintained by different provinces and territories. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Nunavut, N.W.T. and Yukon all have offices in Ottawa as well and I guess he would have the same accountabilities as all of the other staff that report to the Premier and within his office.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Do you know what the account –

MR. DUTTON: We are accountable to the Legislature for the expenditures in that office but he reports directly to the Chief of Staff.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Do you know – you referenced these other provinces, not that they are really relevant to our situation. Are you aware of what the accountability standards are for those other provinces and their positions?

MR. DUTTON: They have differing structures. In some cases they are at an assistant deputy minister or a deputy minister classification. It varies. Some of them are reporting through a deputy minister or to their premier's office. So there is a different level but none of them are, I guess, what you would call public figures and I do not think they report individually. Whatever they may have in terms of performance evaluations would be the same as other employees within their respective governments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Do you know if they have filed any reports in writing?

MR. DUTTON: I am not aware of any specific reports from those offices, no, but that is not to say they do not exist.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, it is nice to – I appreciate the answers from the deputy minister but it is nice to get your responses as well, because you get more of the mixture of administrative, political view of things, shall we say, rather than a bureaucratic view.

How does it work, actually, in terms of – for example, Minister MacKay in the federal government, as I understand it, is the Cabinet minister who is responsible for what goes on in our Province from a federal perspective because we do not have an MP from here who would fill that role. How does our government interact with Minister MacKay vis-à-vis Dr. FitzGerald? To explain it a bit further; for example, if there is an issue that you want to communicate in some fashion with, how do you do it? Do you have a line of communication directly with Minister MacKay's office as our minister, federally, or do you go both ways the same time? Does Dr. FitzGerald make the entrée for you into the minister's office first or do you make it directly to the minister's office? Is there any interaction between the two? What is the situation there?

MR. DENINE: Well, it could be a combination of both, in terms of that. From my perspective, if I wanted to get a hold of Minister MacKay in an issue that is of concern to the Province, then there is communications directly to his office.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So what is the usual process? Like, I would think if he is there and we are paying him X dollars out of the public Treasury, do you keep him in the loop on all issues?

MR. DENINE: Yes. Oh, most certainly. It is a two-way street here in terms of – we will keep him in the loop of exactly what is happening and he will also in turn keep us in the loop of what is happening up in Ottawa.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just to follow up on that a little bit, he keeps you in the loop as to what is happening up there. I understand there is some – I do not know if friction is the right word or not. That our federal MPs feel that maybe the Premier has a watchdog, shall we say, on what they do in the case of Dr. FitzGerald, that he is not only there to keep the Province informed as to our federal-provincial situations and so on, as you alluded to, but also that he is a daily visitor to the House of Commons, for example, and keeps an oversight, shall we say, on the MPs and what they might be saying and doing. Is that correct?

MR. DENINE: No, I would not say that. I mean, I think the issues that we look at in terms of – you are right, in terms of what is happening up there now, we do not have anyone speaking for us from Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of on government side, and he coordinates a lot of the information for us up there. If we need to find information on a certain topic he will hunt it down and search it out and come back with some information. So, no, I do not think it is a watchdog; it is our ear to the ground.

I think when you look at all the other provinces who have representatives up there, there does not seem to be any complaints from them in terms of what they do, and I can assure you, I have no complaints about what Dr. FitzGerald does. I mean, I can only give you what I see and what I have heard since I have been in the department. It has been excellent services on my behalf, he has been very informative. He has been very quick and efficient getting things back to me and when an issue comes on the horizon that I need some information right away, he does it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Would it be fair to say though, that because he does not file any reports, there is no way that the public will ever know if they get their money's worth, is it?

MR. DENINE: Well, it –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Not from a public observation review, evaluation process.

MR. DENINE: Well, the value to the public – it is more of provincial wide and provincial issues. The value to the public is that – for example, when anything comes up on the seals or the European Common Market or anything like that, or infrastructure or whatever the case may be, they get the value of that. It is not necessarily do they unfold and here is the value, but the value is the information provided to the people who are making decisions. So that is what I see.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Speaking of the EU and seals and so on, our ambassador, former Minister Sullivan of this House, our current Minister of Transportation alluded in Question Period yesterday that since his appointment he has disappeared.

What kind of relationship do you have, and have you had any discussions whatsoever in your capacity as Minister of IGA with Minister Sullivan?

MR. DENINE: In my capacity as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I have had no contact.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So you are telling us that all this stuff in the media about the EU issues and the Premier's statements and so on, as recently as yesterday in this House in Question Period talking about the EU issue, you as a minister have had no contact whatsoever with Minister Sullivan to get his feedback as to any of these issues, the EU and the seals, fisheries?

MR. DENINE: I cannot answer for the fisheries. For example, if it has anything to do with the seals you will have to ask the Minister of Fisheries. He may have contacted Ambassador Sullivan on that issue and that would be a line department concern. So that may have come from them.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What is the interplay between IGA and the other ministries of the government? I would have assumed that if the Minister of Fisheries was going to a federal minister or to Commissioner Sullivan, that you, as Minster of IGA, would be kept in the loop on that stuff. They do not just go off by themselves, do they? That is the purpose of your multilateral or bilateral meetings that would take place.

MR. DENINE: Yeah. Any time there is correspondence that I need to be brought into, it is done, and letters that are copied to federal ministers are always cc'd to me.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So, you have had no contact with Minister Sullivan, or Commissioner Sullivan? I believe that is the title he uses, Commissioner. Am I correct there?

MR. DENINE: Ambassador.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Ambassador Sullivan. Do you know if Mr. FitzGerald has had any contact with Ambassador Sullivan?

MR. DENINE: No, I cannot tell you. I will find out, but I cannot tell you if he had any contact. It could be a social contact, I do not know.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So is it part of Dr. FitzGerald's keeping you in the loop responsibilities, not only with federal ministers and so on and what is happening vis-à-vis the Province and the federal government, these types of international but yet bodies that could impact us as a Province, such as Ambassador Sullivan, would he be expected to be up on that kind of stuff and report to you?

MR. DENINE: Anything that affects this Province, we expect the Ottawa representative to be up to date with us.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am correct, I do believe, in saying that Ambassador Sullivan's office is in Ottawa. That is one of the things that could be impacting this Province from time to time.

MR. DENINE: I think he has an office here in St. John's.

OFFICIAL: I believe he has an office in St. John's and he may also have an office in Ottawa.

MR. DENINE: I do no know, but I know he has one here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Just to take this a bit further in terms of relationships. Anyone who has had eyes and ears in the Province in the last twelve months or so, maybe going back a bit more than that, is certainly aware of the ABC campaign. The frigid relationship, shall we say, between our Premier and Prime Minister Harper. What, in your view, if anything, has Dr. FitzGerald done or are you aware of, to improve that relationship?

MR. DENINE: Improve that relationship? Number one, I think we as a government - just to give you an answer - have tried to improve the relationship. After the ABC campaign the Premier has basically said: Look that is finished with, now let's move on and open up the doors to further negotiations. Dr. John will take direction from this government in terms of what we want him to do up in Ottawa. To say what he has done, he has done what he normally would do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has he been given any directions with regards to the provincial-federal relationship vis-à-vis trying to thaw out the frostiness that exists between the Premier and the Prime Minister?

MR. DENINE: All I can tell you, hon. member, is that we have opened up the door; we have not closed the door. Any time there are negotiations going on with regards to different agreements we will be there. We will discuss them in a very formal way and for the benefit of the Province. For example, any type of a program that comes out federally, most of them are done, as you know, on a per capita basis, and Newfoundland and Labrador will get its share of any program.

For example, they had a $500 million recreational program put in the last budget. We will get our share, I think it is 1.2 per cent, 1.5 per cent of the total expenditure. We will, as a Province, get our equal share in terms of programs that come out.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The question, minister, is: Have you, as a minister, or the government to your knowledge, given Dr. John, as you call him, any particular directions and instructions with respect to federal-provincial relations?

MR. DENINE: In what aspect?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Like, as I say, trying to thaw out the, not frosty, frozen relationship that currently exists between our Premier and the Prime Minister.

MR. DENINE: I know, for example, if ministers here want different meetings with a minister and do not have time to do it, that is charged with Dr. FitzGerald. He can probably phone - for example, counterparts for fisheries will phone the counterpart in Ottawa and he can help set up that meeting. For example, he could set up a meeting with me for Madam Verner in Intergovernmental Affairs. So there is the contact that way, yes.

Is that what you are trying to get at?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, and I will move on to another area.

This sparked my interest here, you mentioned about the recreational programming and the $500 million pot that we share in on a per capita basis, and we get our split of course based on per capita.

I am just curious, and I ask this to educate myself, and being a former Minister of Municipal Affairs you may be able to do it - and I give you the context in which I ask it. We did the Estimates last evening for Tourism, Culture and Recreation and in the course of the discussions there was one section in the recreation budget of that department that said there was $7.5 million for recreational facilities, stadiums and whatever. I inquired of the minister, Minister Jackman: Is that usual that you would have that amount of money in recreation in that department for construction of facilities?

My understanding was that would be over in Municipal Affairs. He indicated, yes, that would normally be the case. He also explained that the reason that particular $7.5 million was there was because of the recent federally announced stimulus package that the federal government brought down and they said they had not worked out the details as to how it was going to be handled. They knew we were going to get a cut, I guess, again on a per capita basis, and they did not know where it was going to go. I asked him - usually if the federal government gives health transfers for example, it goes to Health, if they give transfers for water and sewer, it goes to Municipal Affairs, and if they give it to recreation it goes to Municipal Affairs to build buildings. I inquired as to why that particular $7.5 million - and he used this word, not me: Parked. It was parked there. I said: Well, why was the $7.5 million parked like that and it seemed to be outside the usual transfer arrangements? He did not know, other than, he said: Look, we are going to get this share of money, and that is what was decided.

Now I bring that back to your shop in asking this. As Minister of IGA, who, I take it, would have been a party to negotiations of all these federal provincial type agreements: Are you aware of any reason why it might have been done in that fashion?

I tell you the reason why I was concerned and asked the question and why I needed the explanation. It is because trying to advise constituents, for example, where to go, my advice to any municipality in my district who want a stadium or a recreational facility would be go to Municipal Affairs. I would not even think of looking under Tourism, Culture and Recreation for that type of funding.

My question to the minister was - except we stumbled on this and saw the money that was parked there, we would have never known that. I am just asking you now. So that was the reason I asked about it. I am wondering, in the course of negotiating the agreements, can you enlighten me at all as to how it might have been done that way? Who made the rules around putting it into Recreation rather than to Municipal Affairs? Was this an exceptional case or what?

MR. DENINE: Well, you are correct in terms of the infrastructure in prior years was gone – I am going to put it over to Sean, the Deputy Minister, first. Before I do, is that you are correct on the first assumption that you made in terms of most of the infrastructure that any municipality had went to Municipal Affairs. This $500 million, which we get $7.5 million, that is our share out of that. As far as I know there has not been any decision, but I am going to defer that to Sean and he will give you the rest.

MR. DUTTON: Just on that, there is no actual federal-provincial agreement in place yet on the flow of the recreation program. There have been some distinctions between some of these new programs that were announced in the federal budget and some programs that are just being continued or renewed. For example, social housing agreements were to expire at the end of March; they announced that they would be renewed. So there is sort of a standard approach in terms of how those are managed.

This recreation infrastructure program is a new one-time program. It was announced as a merit based program. So we could reasonably expect to get roughly our per capita share, but under the administration of this and some of the other programs, there is going to have to be federal-provincial negotiation over the lists of programs that might be eligible, and then we would enter into funding arrangements after those decisions are made. So, they are sort of leaving their flexibility because of what they are used to calling, the use it or lose it principle. They want to be able to ensure that they spend all of the federal money within the one or two year time frame of these particular programs.

So, where provinces are not able to take up all of the money, they may devote it to other places where there is a greater need or a greater capacity to have shovel-ready types of projects. Of course, the timing of the Budget was such that we did not have all of the details on all of these programs when the Budget had to go to print, and there are a number of agreements that will still need to be negotiated over the next couple of months.

I think the federal government was hoping to have all or most of the criteria for the programs approved through their Treasury Board process as of today, and to begin to roll out those programs over the next short period of time to hit this construction season.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: As deputy minister for IGA, I take it you would be aware of all these types of programs that would impact the Province, you are kept informed about that stuff?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So, are there any other pots of money parked in other departments that we do not know about?

MR. DUTTON: I am not sure if I would use that description, but I think all of the departments where there is a program –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A fair question.

MR. DUTTON: All of the departments, where there is an applicable program, then departments would have factored into their budgeting process to be in a position to match the money because that is certainly one of the other conditions, that these programs do require matching funding in order to access them, and it is supposed to be incremental as well. So you cannot just sort of easily slough off money you were going to spend anyway, and try to double your money that way. It has to be some new project you would not otherwise have done.

I would expect that a number of other departments, that would meet the criteria for these programs, would take a similar approach to what Tourism, Culture and Recreation has done.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you give us the details? I ask this because –

MR. DUTTON: I cannot, personally, because I do not manage the budget process. Well, I guess in terms of our office's involvement, when the federal budget came down we reviewed the budget to identify all of the new programs, and communicated all of that information to other departments to ensure that they were aware of that.

I understand the government decided that they were going to make their best effort to access the maximum amount of money for the Province, as you would expect them to do, and we have had a number of discussions amongst federal, provincial, territorial deputy ministers about the roll-out of this program. We have also discussed some of the potential roadblocks that could arise, and we have been generally updated on that process.

So, we are into the negotiation of some of the relevant agreements like the infrastructure stimulus fund and we are working with the departments of Transportation and Works and Municipal Affairs on that particular one. Yes, we have been generally involved in that, but as far as the management of the budget process itself, departments are interacting with Finance and we have passed on our information to Finance but they do their own thing in the budget process, as you might recall.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not trying to be adversarial here. I am asking this question because it impacts how you can do your job as an MHA.

MR. DENINE: That's fair enough.

MR. DUTTON: I understand.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We can go looking for days on end and not know where there are some pots to, and I am not suggesting that there is any nefarious motivation as to why they parked it here or parked it there. All I am saying is we have found out about the amount that is in Recreation. I would just like to know, and you are the person who is aware of all the money that comes into this Province from the federal government, you are aware of the names of the programs under which it comes. I appreciate the fact that the Department of Finance for budgeting purposes might decide where it gets put and whatever, but can you give us a list showing all the different programs and exactly what came into the Province under each one of those, and do you have any knowledge of where it might have gone?

MR. DUTTON: Well, and again, they are going to be managed in different ways depending on whether extensions of existing agreements or if they are top-ups or brand new programs. A number of them are going to be merit based, so we do not know exactly how much money is available or in what communities it might be spent or whether we would get any. So the budget has been to allocate our provincial share to be able to match and leverage that money. We do have all the information on the applicable federal programs that we are pursuing to try to access funds. I can review them for you here, if you wish, and we can also provide you a list after the fact.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is what I would like. I will not take up time of the committee. I am just wondering if you could give us the information –

MR. DUTTON: Sure. Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - and no problem, we can review it then so we will not take up any time of the committee.

The reason I say this, you see, is as we go through each committee, if I go to Tourism and the Tourism minister says, as he did last night, well that pot of money came from a federal government agreement. Well, can you give me the details of it? Well, that is not my shop. All I was told was, here is your cheque. We got it from the feds. That is over in IGA's shop. If I go to Health, they say that money came from the federal-provincial transfers under Health. Well, can you give us any details as to how it was negotiated, where it came from, is that our share? Oh no, that is not us. We just get the cheque, it is over in IGA.

I am saying, I am just trying to fill in the blanks here, because if we can get from you the list of all monies that come into the Province from the feds and the names of the pots and whatever, I guess that is a first step in deciding. We know then how much came in from the federal government and then we try to piece together where it went.

MR. DUTTON: Okay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. DUTTON: Certainly.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, just to give you a little break there.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Sure.

CHAIR: I do not know if any of the other committee members would like to have a question to ask, or anything?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at the present time.

CHAIR: No? Okay.

Mr. Parsons, you may continue.

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

Just to revisit a couple of issues we had last year, and I think in fairness to yourself, being a new minister, I would like to ask that as well because I appreciate that a lot of these issues are perennial issues. You just cannot – unlike a lot of things that you might get in a department, you just cannot simply make a decision today and have it done and deal with it – and that is the early retirement program that has been hatched about for some years in the fishing industry.

Now, one of the issues which the Premier raised with the Prime Minister during the federal election, the last one, was: Could they agree upon a cost-shared early retirement program for the fishing industry? It was suggested that it be a 70-30 deal. The Province, of course, we know from the former Minister of Fisheries, I believe Minister Rideout at the day, said: No problem, we have our $30 million, it is on the table; and challenged the feds to come to the pot.

Could you give me an update on the progress, if any, that has been made in negotiating such a program with the federal government?

MR. DENINE: Yes, I can give you a little bit of it, and then I will get Sean to give you some specifics on that whole thing. As you can appreciate, Mr. Parsons, that my knowledge of the fisheries is not as much as yours, and I gladly admit that.

That has been an ongoing issue, and as you just mentioned, our government is looking at a 70-30 split. The problem we have is to convince the federal government to do it. We have done a number of correspondences to the federal government, going back as far as 2005 in the election letter to Mr. Harper at the time, and he basically wants to say: Look, we want to look at retaining people, not retiring people. That did not sort of fit well with us, because you know the situation in the fishery as well as I do, in terms of the people there who would love to have an early retirement package.

We have made a number of follow ups with different ministers. Mr. Hedderson made a follow up, I made a follow up, basically looking at, saying we need to move on this, but whether or not they want to do this as part of a stimulus package to get people out of the workforce and move people into the workforce, it is very unlikely. So, we have not had, I can say, very much movement in this area that would say yes, the federal government are on side.

Sean, I do not know if you want to add to that?

MR. DUTTON: Since we discussed that at last year's session, the Premier wrote to all the party leaders during the election and posed that question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not respond to his letter. I understand also, from what I recall last May and follow-up to the question that arose, we looked into this federal feasibility study on early retirement that Minister Hearn had alluded to as being sort of a precursor and that report was not publicly available at the time but when it did become available we did review that and I think that was also sent to you in November. It has not resulted in any change of position on the federal government side.

We have looked at a couple of other new or existing programs to see whether they might be applicable, like the Targeted Initiative For Older Workers, which is really not the sort of vehicle for an early retirement program. It is really aimed at retraining people that are I guess later in their careers. Also, some of the new programs on labour market development funding. We have entered a labour market agreement for workers that are not EI eligible but that is also sort of aimed at training and salary top-ups, that kind of thing, rather than an early retirement.

So those programs really have not materialized either, where we would have the flexibility to use their money to direct it in that fashion either.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Again, refresh my memory. Did you say you sent me a copy of the report? I am not saying you did not. I am just saying I cannot recall receiving it.

MR. DUTTON: No, my recollection was, from my records, I think we may even have a copy of the letter at the office. There would have been a letter sent out to you in November with the link to the report, and I believe a copy of it was attached. This was the report that Hearn had referenced. It was one of the considerations in not proceeding with early retirement at the time of the fishing industry renewal announcement, that they were going to await the results of this study but the study is now done. It is publicly available but it just has not resulted in any change of federal policy.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Because we were not aware even, that it was released. We were not aware that it was even released. The study, as I understood it, there was going to be a number of things done. One was affordability. The federal government said as a precondition to anything they would do, they wanted to look at the affordability of the program and they also wanted to do a study in terms of the labour force issues that surrounded it as well, and to our knowledge we were not aware that it was even released by the feds.

MR. DUTTON: I hope we do not find out it went to Kevin Parsons by mistake.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Anyway, I just –

MR. DUTTON: We will make sure. If you have not received it, we will make sure that you get it again.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would appreciate that.

Has there been any thought given by the Province – it is pretty obvious that the feds pretty well washed their hands of this thing, I think, over the last three or four years. They are using every excuse in the book not to help out. Has the Province given any consideration to proceeding alone, or would you give consideration to that?

MR. DENINE: I do not think we have moved that far ahead yet. That would be basically, in order to move ahead that means, as you know, the Province would have to take on a larger share of it. That is a significant cost to us in terms of that, and I would not want to shed the responsibility of the federal government on this. I know it is going to be a hard slog but it is time for them to come to the plate, too. Why would we even consider that if we are going to let the federal people off the hook? That is like saying, well, we are not going to get it so we will follow on our own. My attitude is that hey, if it is your responsibility, you are the one who should step up to the plate, too, and we are doing it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I agree with you wholeheartedly, Minister, that the federal government should be responsible for their share of this. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to keep their feet to the fire to do so but we have had precedents in this Province where, depending upon the situation, when the feds do not carry their load we pick up the load. I will give you an example of that, and that is on the wildlife and enforcement issues. That was the Premier's pet project. That cost us millions of dollars on an ongoing basis annually. Because the feds did not put the proper enforcement in place, we said we would go it alone. So all I am saying is that, although I agree with you –

MR. DENINE: I hear what you are saying.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - it is not like we do not have some precedence to do that.

MR. DENINE: As far as I know, there is no (inaudible) to go forward on our own. We have to (inaudible).

MR. DUTTON: I am certainly not aware of it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We keep talking about the percentage of 70-30. Has anybody ever ball parked the figure to do the program?

MR. DENINE: A what?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have you come up with a ballpark? Like 70-30 of what? I am just wondering. I have never heard, now that I think about it, anybody give a guesstimate, even, of what such a program might cost. Has anybody ever done any calculations?

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, I can give you a bit of information on that if you want to. The estimate that has been done is $100 million.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

About the same we are asking - in fact, the same, exactly, we are asking for a penitentiary.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you. That was very helpful.

Just to move along here. A couple questions on the Lower Churchill piece in relation to the development of it and the Prime Minister again. Prime Minister Harper made the following comment: "a Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes such as the Hibernia project."

I am just wondering, to your knowledge, minister, what progress, if any – has there been any consultations? Has there been any correspondence on the Lower Churchill piece, that you are aware of, between the Province and the federal government since you took office?

MR. DENINE: Well, just to go back and give you a little – you know the history as well as anyone, in terms of our position.

Yes, we would certainly like to see the federal government coming on side. There has been no commitment to date that they will be coming on side. They gave an indication that it is a good project, but as far as I am concerned, Mr. Parsons, they have not stepped up to the plate.

With that, I will turn over the rest to Sean.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, it is something that we have continued to pursue.

In December, there was an Atlantic Infrastructure Summit in the lead up to the First Ministers' Meeting and the stimulus package. Funding and support for the Lower Churchill was one of our priorities. It was probably the top priority. So it was advanced there, as well as there was an Atlantic Energy Summit following a similar format in January, and it was advanced there as well.

In addition to that, Minister Dunderdale has had follow up discussions with Minister Raitt since that time. There has not been a specific funding commitment to this particular project, but there have been a few other program developments that are of note. I believe we discussed that at last year's meeting that the federal government at that point had announced three different programs that would support the development of transmission infrastructure. The ecoTrust, the Turning the Corner Technology Fund, and Building Canada Fund, but there really is not sufficient money in any of those programs to make a dent in the total capital costs in this program.

They have since announced a fourth program. It is part of the stimulus package, but it is a five-year program, a billion dollar Green Infrastructure Fund, for which transmission would also be eligible. Again, that is a national fund. So you are looking at a total project, between generation and transmission that could range between $6 billion to $9 billion. It is still not covering the full cost by any means, but these are continued signals from the federal government of a willingness to invest in transmission infrastructure. So, I would not say the door is closed in that respect.

In December, at the Council of Atlantic Premiers meeting, all four Atlantic premiers signed on to endorse the concept of a green energy corridor, which would be transmission for electricity that would run from Labrador to Newfoundland, into the Maritimes, and would be a transmission network that all of the provinces could develop renewable resources and sell into that to get into the grid and sell into the Canadian and American marketplaces. They all expressed that support at the energy summit as well.

So we have been continuing to try to build support for the project and concept. The project is now going through an environmental assessment process. We are doing a joint assessment with the federal government on generation and have signed a joint review panel agreement, appointed a panel and they are preparing to start public hearings. Nalcor has also registered a portion of the transmission for EA, that is the transmission between Gull Island and Soldiers Pond with decisions to still be made on any additional capacity that might run either to the Maritimes and or through Quebec.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What is the process in terms of these approaches to the federal government? Nalcor, for example, do you do that jointly with Nalcor or do you do it, they do it?

MR. DUTTON: Well, Nalcor is a Crown corporation and they undertake some of their own communications as the proponent for the project. The government generally has also at the political officials' level, have also been (inaudible) to advocate, whether it is meetings with senior officials or at the ministerial level or at the First Ministers' meeting. I understand Premier Williams also pitched support for this project at the First Ministers' meeting with Prime Minister Harper in January.

Nalcor, like any other public or private utility, would have some of their own meetings as well. Just as you would expect that Husky Energy or Chevron could get an audience with the federal minister, you would also expect Nalcor would be afforded the same opportunity.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was the ask price by the Province at these earlier infrastructure meetings as, would you put x amount in?

MR. DUTTON: I believe we were looking at a loan guarantee and supports in the range of $2 billion and it was also – we made the approach on the basis of trying to do work that could start relatively quickly on the assumption that transmission could be through environmental assessment relatively quickly. That within the next two-year period we would be able to start on things like trail clearing for the transmission route, clearing of logs in the area that would become part of the Lower Churchill reservoir, other prepatory work that would be associated with the development.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The statement of today by the Premier of New Brunswick – you mentioned that the Atlantic premiers had signed on to this green corridor concept. Does his pronouncements in Toronto yesterday, to the effect that, yeah you want to come through New Brunswick but there is a price tag on it. Does that impact what is going to happen here?

MR. DUTTON: I think one of the things to keep in mind is that we would always expect there is going to be a price to use transmission infrastructure. They are selling into the United States market and in order to do that they have to follow the rules of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. So they have to provide as for the reciprocal access or wheeling rights through their transmission grid.

I think, as I understood his comments, were that they did not want to have energy sources from other jurisdictions just go through New Brunswick without the opportunity for New Brunswick developed energy resources to be supplanted or pushed aside. I think the green energy corridor concept is that all of the Atlantic provinces have renewable resources that they would like to develop and sell into the marketplace. So, working collaboratively they could do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did you actual read the published report on what he said?

MR. DUTTON: Yes I did.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: My read of it was - the language even that he used - very firm. I am putting down a marker. You can come through New Brunswick but there is a price tag on this. It seemed to be a very definite position that he is taking. Albeit we are all aware of FERC and so on and the FERC rules and you have to pay if you are going through and so on, pay your share. You get the sense from the tone and the words that he used in his letter that we are at a little different place here now than we were two months ago or before he made the statement in terms of where we are going with this.

Also, in view of that as well, not only his comments, but I believe it was last week I read a part in The Globe and Mail where he talked about the Provincial Government of New Brunswick having this new venture, wind energy developments with the Irving companies involved and so on, and they had the State of Maine involved. It seemed to be that in the last week or so New Brunswick is certainly taking a different approach here as to how this is going to impact us: We are on our own; if you are coming through here you are paying freight.

MR. DENINE: Well just on that, we are starting off negotiating on a front that we are going through different provinces. I mean a province, I would say, would say that. I would not read anything into it. Just because a premier has a hard stance, I mean if we have to put a corridor through they are going to look for some type of compensation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has there been any discussion with the Province of Nova Scotia? Because I understand the transmission line that is currently going through environmental assessment; for example, comes from Labrador, across the Strait, down the Northern Peninsula, goes across, I believe, somewhere in Nova Scotia - Cape Breton, maybe, has been suggested - and not only does it go through Gros Morne, which is obviously going to cause certain issues with certain groups here in our Province, but I understand that also the route takes it through another national park system in Nova Scotia.

Are you aware of that, and are you aware of any negotiations between this Province and Nova Scotia with regard to that issue?

MR. DUTTON: Just along that front, Nalcor has an MOU with Emera, a corporation in Nova Scotia, so they are still carrying out discussions, I think, on what arrangements they might reach. I think they have talked about the potential to have an area near Sydney as sort of a landfall for an undersea route that would run through Nova Scotia. There has been no specific transmission route registered for environmental assessment, so at this point it might be speculative as to what route the transmission might actually take.

I would suppose that the decision on whether the route called the Soldier's Pond line ends up going through Gross Morne Park or around it may also inform what decisions they would make on any additional trunk lines, for want of a better word, into other jurisdictions.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just curious. You are obviously very well informed about the issues that have impacted the Province. This is an historical question, in a sense of, how long, to your knowledge, has the Lower Churchill been discussed in this Province in terms of can we develop it?

I read a book recently; it was the biography of the late Premier Moores. Back then, even, in the Moores Cabinet, that was a topic of discussion. I am wondering if it goes back any further than that. That is thirty-five or forty years out and we are still talking about it. Successive governments have made the point of trying to solve this riddle on the Lower Churchill.

MR. DUTTON: Ever since I can remember. I would say probably since the mid-1970s.

MR. DENINE: Would it be earlier?

Just to the question, Mr. Parsons, what you are saying, I thought I remember reading something, and even after the first one was done they were talking about the other one. You go back –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It would take you to the 1660s.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

I can remember reading something on that. I think it was something to do with the Upper Churchill. They were also talking about Muskrat Falls and the whole works. That was all we got.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just moving on to another issue here, the 8.5 per cent of the Hibernia share, in a letter from Prime Minister Harper to the Premier on January 15 last year the Prime Minister asked specific questions, as I understand it, of the Province about acquiring that 8.5 per cent. To my knowledge there has been no public answer, at least, to what he asked. So I would just like to have a few questions in that area if we could.

Is the Province still interested, and are there negotiations ongoing with anyone – and, if so, with whom - vis-à-vis the 8.5 per cent?

MR. DENINE: That question, from my perspective, is still on, and from government's perspective is still there. The Energy Minister will be able to, in much more detail, answer that question. From my perspective the answer is yes, and the fact that if we can get the 8.5 per cent in Hibernia stakes I think we will take it.

I don't know if you want to add something, Sean?

MR. DUTTON: You indicated the information about the Prime Minister - the federal government not having recouped its initial investment. They did subsequently confirm that their calculation of that included nearly a billion dollars of a non-repayable grant and their argument has been an investment you recoup would not be something you would consider to be non-repayable. On that basis, we think they have more than recouped their investment.

There was some talk in the media over the past number of months that the federal government might be interested in disposing of some assets as a way to try to help to improve their fiscal situation. I understand Minister Dunderdale has approached Ministers Flaherty and Raitt to express an interest that if they are ready to talk that we are still interested in pursuing the acquisition of those shares, but I am not aware that she has received a response to date.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The price tag?

MR. DUTTON: There have been no price tags exchanged. First we have to get to the table, I guess, and then we can talk about it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is it the Province's expressed position so far that they do not want to pay for it? They are just saying give it to us?

MR. DUTTON: I think our position was to acquire.

MR. DENINE: That would be part of negotiations, what would transpire then.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am thinking from the angle. Maybe I am all wet here, but the Province's position now, when it comes to the oil industry, is we buy equity shares. We have done it in White Rose and that is part of the Hebron factor. Obviously this would be the same thing, I guess; if we are asking for the 8.5 per cent share that gives us an equity position in Hibernia.

If you start negotiations, you start from somewhere. They have asked the feds to sell it. The feds have obviously come back to the Prime Minister and said, well, we are interested – it was Mr. Flaherty, actually, who said we might be interested in selling some assets. The Prime Minister made certain comments about what was or what was not recovered. In the midst of all of that, my question is: There has to be a starting point. Has the Province made a starting point, saying this is what we pay? Or is that answer to that zero? I am not saying that is unfair; I agree with zero, actually.

MR. DENINE: Well, if we get it for nothing, sure, why not? I think in all fairness that is a question Natural Resources would answer more so than me.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You are not aware of that as being the Intergovernmental Affairs Department, what would have transpired?

MR. DENINE: That would flow over, but the lead department would be Natural Resources.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes. So you are aware of it, you are telling me, but you cannot tell me? Is that what you are saying?

MR. DENINE: No, I did not say that. I said if and when the federal government are going to sit down to negotiate, the lead department on that would be Natural Resources.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Again, I guess I have to be more express here, explicit. Are you aware of any price tag put on the 8.5 per cent purchase price by this Province?

MR. DUTTON: No.

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

One question that came to mind while we were – I am all over the place here because that is the nature of the business; you are into 5,000 different areas of negotiation.

MR. DENINE: You are hitting pretty good (inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I ask this – this lady is a constituent of mine, actually, but she is of a provincial-known basis now, and that is one Elizabeth Harvey, who lives in Isle aux Morts, in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile – and that is the issue, of course, concerning the fishermen who were bought out some time ago in the 1990s and we had a situation where the federal government gave tax breaks to certain individuals and did not give them to others, and she has been fighting that cause ever since. She has knocked on every door in Newfoundland, I believe, every door in Canada, talked on every Open Line show, to try to get that issue resolved, which seems to be, from my review of what I have heard and seen with her and her group, absolutely, patently unfair what the federal government did here.

Is that anywhere in your department now? Did you make any representations on behalf of Ms Harvey? Where does that sit now?

MR. DENINE: Let us not go back too far. There has been correspondence back and forth, but just one that is recent is that in September, during the election, the Premier wrote asking for a reversal of that tax burden as it related to the capital gains, to make sure (inaudible) but we have not received a response. Subsequent to that, Ms Harvey, as you mentioned, has had no satisfaction and Minister Shea has rejected the request for compensation. Her answer to that is very simple; it is saying it is before the courts and must be dealt with there.

I am on your side, and government is on your side. It was grossly unfair.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, you alluded in your introductory remarks about one of the pieces that you are involved with in your department is the issue of federal presence in the Province.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In your department's activity plan for 2006-2008, the minister claimed, for all of those years in your activity plan, you indicated that the goal was to "promote the military diversification and long-term operation of 5 Wing Goose Bay."

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: As of last year, notwithstanding some commitments by the Prime Minister, we had not gotten very far on that issue. Where are we now?

MR. DENINE: Well, I took over in November 2008 and my first trip was to 5 Wing Goose Bay. To be quite frank about it, I knew of 5 Wing Goose Bay but I did not know the infrastructure myself. As the minister responsible, I figured the onus was on me to understand the situation a little bit more. So I did take a day or two, I cannot remember - I have gone so many places, it could have been one day or two days - to go through it and get a briefing on what is up there. From what I have found out it is significant infrastructure, first-class infrastructure up there, and our Province and our government have said we need presence there and we need to be able to promote that.

I basically have been talking to some embassies, and every time there has been any talk with embassies, 5 Wing Goose Bay has been brought up: about its potential, its infrastructure, how first-class it is, and the fact that countries can avail of it for military practices. When I meet anyone from any embassy at all, it is one of the things that we promote.

As a matter of fact, only last night I was at a dinner for the Ambassador to Germany, and their use of 5 Wing Goose Bay, and Germany has been a very good partner with 5 Wing Goose Bay. They are not using it as much as we would like for them to use it, but they are doing a sporadic thing in terms of they come and do so many weeks and go back; but, I can assure you that any time I get a chance and meet anyone else it will be on 5 Wing Goose Bay.

As a matter of fact, I have been talking to Mr. FitzGerald and he was given direction to line up some meetings with other embassies up there and discuss the future of 5 Wing Goose Bay with them in hopes to attract other users in the facility.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: My understanding is not only did the Prime Minister commit to do 5 Wing Goose Bay, but there were also some very deliberate, spelled out commitments from the federal government in terms of a presence here in military ways; for example, battalions here in the Avalon Region and so on.

MR. DENINE: Rapid reaction force.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right, the rapid command force and so on.

Has the Prime Minister of Canada just simply said now it is not on? Has he changed his mind again, like he did on some other things?

MR. DENINE: I do not know if he changed his mind, but he certainly has not followed through on his promise.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What have you done to keep his feet to the fire in that regard, to continuously remind him that: Look, you made the promise; are you going to do it or not?

MR. DENINE: Well, again, there are two things. I want to get Sean to go in on things. I do not want to reiterate exactly what my intention is, but from my perspective each and every opportunity, whether it be federal presence or whether it be other countries using the facility, I look at it as my mandate, as part of my department, to promote, and that is what I will do.

Sean, do you want to comment on the federal issue part of it?

MR. DUTTON: Well, just on that front between Minister Denine and his predecessor, in the last twelve months they have written to Minister MacKay eight times about defence presence in the Province, mostly on 5 Wing but also related to the commitment to territorial defence battalion for CFS St. John's. The minister has been to 5 Wing twice and had ambassadors coming through town that we have had meetings with as well, to promote the base.

As far as the commitment, I do not think there has been any public statement from the federal government to say that they will not keep the commitments they have made, but there have not been any new positions created at either 5 Wing or CFS St. John's since those promises were made in the 2005-2006 election.

MR. DENINE: Also, Mr. Parsons, in talking to the commander of the base last night, there are actively discussions going on with different opportunities there. He mentioned a few of them and, to be honest with you, I do not know if I am at liberty even to say that because it was mentioned in a private conversation, but from his perspective he is doing the same thing. He is looking at promoting the base in other ways, also, as a matter of fact, as of last night, trying to make sure that the government and also the Forces understand it, and I think the Forces themselves basically look at the facilities as first-class, as I do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hog all the question time here. I am just wondering if the government members have any questions they might like to pose at this point.

CHAIR: Okay, we can check and see.

Mr. Dinn.

MR. DINN: I just want to ask if the department had any discussions with federal or other provinces about student loans, the interest on student loans. Do you remember last year we discussed this in the House of Assembly? I think we said that we would write the other provinces, and also the federal government to see would they do anything about it. When we did discuss it there was some discussion and some comments made about we should write off student debt altogether. I did some numbers on it and you are talking about massive amounts of money.

In our Budget that we presented last week we referenced something like 49,000 students benefiting from the fact that we reduced the interest on the provincial portion. Now if you extrapolate that and say that every student owed $10,000 you would be roughly talking about $50 million. Across Canada there would be probably 2.5 million students who had loans, so then you would be talking about probably $25 billion. So it is not just a matter of saying write it all off.

I am just wondering if we were going to talk about that and discuss it with these people. You do not know, Sean, if anything was ever done, do you?

I will ask Sean. You weren't there at the time.

MR. DENINE: No. Minister Burke wrote the feds on this issue.

MR. DINN: Okay.

MR. DENINE: That is right, John. That is as far as we have gone with it in terms of that. We have taken the lead, as you know –

MR. DINN: Yes, I know.

MR. DENINE: - in terms of wiping out the interest rate on the provincial portion of the student debt, which is significant. We have done significant, I guess, other ways of saving money for post-secondary students with regards to the tuition freeze.

MR. DINN: Oh, I know, yes.

MR. DENINE: That has been going on now since we have been in office in 2003. That is significant savings, and we have been recognized by the Canadian Student Federation as the leaders in post-secondary institute studies for basically making it easier for students to go to university.

MR. DINN: I think we are the only ones who responded to their cry for help. I am really surprised that it was not an issue in the last federal election because you have so many students all across Canada that have debt, who are pretty well crippled in their life until they get that debt paid off.

MR. DENINE: They recognize us as leaders, so there you go.

MR. DINN: I am just curious, that is all.

MR. DENINE: Okay.

MR. DINN: Thank you.

CHAIR: Any further questions from the committee members?

AN HON. MEMBER: None.

CHAIR: None.

Okay, you are just back in time, Mr. Parsons.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Parsons, I was just about to leave.

MR. DINN: You almost lost.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons.

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

That must have been a short answer.

MR. DENINE: I did it deliberately to see how fast you would come back.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Anyway, minister, to move on to a topic that is near and dear to my heart, personally, and that is the Marine Atlantic situation.

The corporate workings of Marine Atlantic, of course, are the mainstay of the Port aux Basques area, which is the mainstay of the tip of the Southwest Coast. Many people are employed there, and so on.

During the last federal election the Prime Minister said that he recognized the importance of, "a reliable and affordable ferry service to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador", when he was referencing Marine Atlantic.

First of all, have you had any discussions, yourself, with the executives of Marine Atlantic? Mr. Follett is the new president and CEO. I am wondering if you have had any discussions yourself, with them?

MR. DENINE: I have not.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have you had any discussions with the federal government at all, concerning Marine Atlantic in any way, since the federal election of last fall?

MR. DENINE: No, because the first line of communication would be the line department and that would be Transportation. They would be the ones to make the first contact.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Are you aware, again, because you people all interrelate, the different departments. Are you aware of any communications between the Department of Transportation and the federal government, vis-à-vis Marine Atlantic?

MR. DENINE: There have been ongoing things, it is not necessarily on that, but there have been ongoing things as far as concerns over the rates, and that was back in September 2008. Also, too, Transportation and Works met with Marine Atlantic twice last year regarding the progress of the fleet renewal program that was announced in 2007.

Transportation and Works officials have been with Marine Atlantic in regard to their organizational review, and we are pleased to see that a high number of level positions have been advertised so far this year.

In saying that, as you mentioned, just recently it was announced that they were going to take the fuel surcharge off the rates. Well, that is a welcoming thing that they did, because given the fact that we have the tourist season coming up, to advocate that that ferry service should be basically an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. That was one when I was in Municipal Affairs – not Municipal Affairs, in my own previous career as Mayor of Mount Pearl and member of the Federation of Municipalities, that is one of the things that we looked forward to, and that is some of the things.

On that, Sean, do you have any (inaudible)?

MR. DUTTON: No, I think you have pretty much covered it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Are you aware of any discussions concerning the structure the company has?

Just for a bit of background here, when they closed out the headquarters for the old Marine Atlantic Inc. in Moncton back in 1998, the Province at the time accepted a deal, which I always disagree with and publicly stated I disagree with, that they were moving out of Moncton and they were going to go somewhere. Anyway, a political decision was made between the Province and the feds, and there was a provincial agreement to this, that we put a certain piece of Marine Atlantic in North Sydney. The human resources piece was put over there and we put a piece of it in Port aux Basques, which was the finance office, and the headquarters actually was said to be in St. John's. Anyway, it caused a lot of racket at the time. There was no doubt that it was a political decision done trying to appease everybody at the time. They wanted to appease the Province of Newfoundland, the people of Port aux Basques, the Premier of Newfoundland at the time. Premier Tobin wanted a piece of it down here because there were some people in here squawking and saying they wanted jobs. Anyway, we ended up with half the jobs over in North Sydney.

I have always maintained that the only jobs that should ever be in North Sydney vis-à-vis Martine Atlantic should be enough stevedores to tie the boat on and nothing more because we own the service. It was created for us, and if it was not for us being an Island there never would be a Marine Atlantic. That is my explanation of it. I got in trouble once. I told a senator from Nova Scotia that and he was not too kind towards me.

Have you had any discussions at all regarding that piece? I know we talk about rates. I know we talk about infrastructure for the company and so on, but the whole piece, the bigger piece of, it should be here in the Province anyway.

MR. DENINE: Again, the only thing I can reiterate to that, and I understand where you are coming from on that. Transportation and Works have been in contact with Marine Atlantic. That is basically what you are referring to, organizational review. Basically, from the report that we have back is that they are pleased with the fact that so many high-level jobs will be advertised for this year. So, there have been discussions. Now, much detail on that, I cannot give it to you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Offshore oil, your department's activity plan included - the statement said: By 2011 the Secretariat will have worked to advance the Province's jurisdictional ownership and effective control of petroleum and other resources in the offshore.

Can you expound on that a little bit?

MR. DUTTON: Sure. This is mostly focused on the oil and gas resources in a couple of areas. One is just clarifying the jurisdiction relative to the federal government in the offshore board on occupational health and safety in the offshore sector. Certainly, it is very clear the board is responsible for offshore safety but we have been working with the federal government on some required amendments to clarify the responsibilities in that regard.

Also, just related to the geographic jurisdiction of whether the extents or limits of our jurisdiction. We have a resolved boundary between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which you will remember quite fondly I think. We do not have a similar defined boundary between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec and the other Maritime Provinces in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. So that is something that we would certainly seek to clarify.

We had noted that Quebec has published some maps in the la Romaine Environmental Impact Statement that depicted a Maritime boundary that does not exist in law, that we have never signed off on. Minister Denine has brought that to their attention and some of his other Cabinet colleagues that it is inappropriate and should be rectified.

Ultimately, we would like to prepare for having that resolved so we can have clarity of jurisdiction in that part of the offshore. There is certainly some prospect activity there. In the Old Harry parcel there was a licence awarded there last year off the west coast. So if there was any significant discovery there it would be really important to resolve what the limits of our jurisdiction would be.

Also, with St Pierre et Miquelon, Canada and France had signed an agreement, I think it was in 2005, related to how the trans boundary oil discoveries, how the resources would be shared between the two jurisdictions. It is almost certain, given the shape of what they call the baguette exclusive economic zone for St. Pierre, that any discovery on either side or within their boundary is going to overlap between Newfoundland and Labrador and St. Pierre jurisdiction.

So there has been an agreement in place. France has ratified it but it has not been ratified yet on the Canadian side. We are very close to concluding an agreement. There are still a few issues to iron out between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador over the implementation of that and to ensure the principles and the accords are respected in terms of joint management. So we are working on that as well.

Also, we have been monitoring developments under the federal oceans act for large ocean management areas, they are called. They have one for Placentia Bay–Grand Banks that extends across the South Coast of the Island, and another called the Eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management area, sort of north and west of Cape Breton.

DFO had adopted a boundary for the Eastern Scotian Shelf, LOMA, which was using the lines between NAFO areas three and four. That actually encroaches on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore area under the accord acts. So we have raised concerns with that. It is not that the federal government would have any different jurisdiction in that area, or that Nova Scotia would, but these integrated management areas are intended to involve stakeholders in sharing information and decision making. It would involve a lot of people involved in the fishery and other sectors based in Nova Scotia. The Offshore Petroleum Board would currently not have to consult on making decisions on the management of the offshore in our waters. They have been seeking to resolve that – I do not want to call it a boundary dispute, but to ensure that appropriate boundaries are adopted that reflect the jurisdictions of the two offshore boards in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Another area that we have been working on jurisdiction and control under the energy plan is everything Natural Resources led is just the whole aspect of gaining equity stakes in the offshore projects. They have gotten, I think it was, 4.9 per cent equity stake in Hebron, and 5 per cent on the White Rose Extension, if I am not mistaken. They have a position in the energy plan to seek 10 per cent on future oil and gas projects. Obviously, that would give you more control if you have a seat at the boardroom table in terms of decision making on how projects are developed and how they proceed.

The Hibernia shares was an item you mentioned earlier, and obviously, if we had the 8.5 per cent interest in Hibernia then we would have 8.5 per cent of the say over how that project is managed as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

You must have a copy of my briefing notes. You answered about six of my questions in one shot.

Just to go back, a couple of little follow-up things now. The Quebec piece, with the reference to the maps and not respecting the 1927 Privy Council decision, it seems like over the last number of years we have had the Quebec government, or agencies of the Quebec government, be – and I will use the term - disrespectful of judicial precedent; not precedent but decision, as to that boundary.

Is it possible to get a copy of the letter that we actually wrote, and who you wrote it to? You have indicated that there was a letter written to Quebec expressing our displeasure over that boundary?

MR. DUTTON: As a matter of fact, Minister Denine's presentation to the environmental assessment panel is on the Internet, on the CEA Web site.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Maybe for ease of reference you might be able to provide me with a copy of it?

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I appreciate that.

On the C-NLOPB, just to go back for a second, we had quite a spat, of course, when the Premier wanted our good friend the former Mayor of St. John's on the C-NLOPB and did not get his way, so he ended up over on the PUB. I am just wondering, is that part of the ongoing discussions with the federal government, defining the process around selection of a chair? Back then it was quite controversial. I do believe there was Mr. Harry Steele, Mr. Dean MacDonald and someone else on the committee. It was chaired by Mr. Steele. Anyway, we had that whole thing and there was a lot of talk about whether the process was right in the selection process. I am just wondering, did that go anywhere or did it fizzle once Mr. Ruelokke was duly sanctioned in the position? Was that the end of it?

MR. DENINE: Since I have become minister it has not been an issue. It has not come up for me.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Just to follow up again on the comment you made about the equity shares, can you give some elaboration on the issue of – because we have posed the question, as an Opposition, and given some thought to this piece - when you buy in an equity position, of course, you raise all kinds of legal issues, besides ownership issues, of do you put yourself in a conflict of interest? You are a government who is putting money into the development of your offshore. You have representatives on the C-NLOPB, which regulates the offshore. How does that whole piece work, and if you are legal, legitimate, to do that? Who has it been talked with and what has been talked about in that regard - potential conflict?

MR. DUTTON: I guess as far as conflict is concerned there just needs to be kept a clear line between the regulator and the proponent. This is one such example of where it appears that the regulator and the government or the proponent are one and the same, but there are numerous others, particularly if you look at environmental assessment process in other cases where forestry management plans are filed by government to another department of government to assess, so we have to maintain an independent process in lines of dividing the two.

I am not sure if that is that different. Nalcor would have an environmental assessment on a hydro project that government would also have to assess as the regulator, so you keep those responsibilities separate between the two. I am not sure that the issue of conflict of interest is not one that is –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has it been raised by the C-NLOPB that it might be an issue?

MR. DUTTON: Not that I am aware. The board is appointed and then it is in place. They all have sort of fixed terms, in terms of their appointment, so it is not that they can be easily replaced. I think they have a degree of independence separate from both the federal and provincial governments.

Ultimately, in a lot of their decisions they make advice that the two ministers need to endorse on approval of development plans and things of that nature, but they give independent advice. They are appointed by the two levels of government, but they make their own advice and then governments decide whether to accept of reject that advice on their decisions.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Chair, Mr. Parsons, can I interrupt? I have to leave for one minute. Excuse me for a second.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Sure.

MR. DENINE: Can we have just a minute break?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It won't be much longer.

CHAIR: Do you want to continue the questioning, Mr. Parsons, or wait until he returns?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not mind waiting until the minister returns. I would like for him to hear what is said.

CHAIR: Okay.

All right, we will probably take a short break, then, and resume as soon as he gets back.

CHAIR: Okay, we are on

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

Just to resume here, Minister, Nova Scotia recently introduced a provincial tax credit for volunteer firefighters - this is under the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat section of your department - to recognize the valuable contributions, of course, that firefighters make, on the first hand, but also as an incentive to get them involved. It has been an ongoing issue in rural Newfoundland. You being the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have handed out hundreds of certificates that you yourself signed, of course, in recognition of their services. I know in rural Newfoundland, keeping them is a problem right now.

In Burgeo, for example, as just one example, the fire department in Burgeo goes from thirty-eight members down to six, because they - or they were, at least, before Alberta got struck in the economic tsunami - have all gone out West working. In terms of fire protection in the community, it is seriously questioned and threatened when that happens.

This was proposed, and is carried out in Nova Scotia, again as an incentive to maybe get some people involved. Not everybody has volunteerism and the spirit for volunteerism as we would like for them to have.

I am just wondering if you are aware of that tax credit piece in Nova Scotia, if it has been proposed to yourself or this government, to your knowledge, and would you be prepared and personally supportive of such an initiative?

MR. DENINE: I know the topic of which you speak, because that was an issue with the volunteer firefighters. We recognize the sacrifice that the volunteer firefighters do for their communities; there is no question about that. As a matter of fact, one of the groups I speak to mostly are the volunteer firefighters. I spoke to two recently, one in Mr. Harding's district and one in Mr. Peach's district, two weekends in a row, and the significant contribution which they make.

Our government, basically, one part that was a big issue back a while ago was the insurance, the level of insurance that was carried and they would be covered under. That was increased. I cannot give you the exact figures. I know some $200,000 rings a bell. I could be corrected on that, but that rings a bell. Is that correct?

OFFICIAL: Yes, that rings a bell.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

The other one was the recognition of the volunteer firefighters in instituting a licence plate. Those are two things.

The other thing is that - and I will ask the deputy minister of the volunteer services secretariat to comment, but before he does - we had an ongoing consultation with the volunteer firefighters in the way of recruitment and retention, and there are a number of issues. Since I left Municipal Affairs, I have not had any contact with that sector as far as doing that is concerned, so I am going to defer to my deputy to see if he has any relevant, up-to-date information for you for that question.

MR. REID: Thank you, Minister.

As the minister said, there has been an ongoing consultation that has involved a huge number of departments, a process that has brought together firefighters, municipal leaders and provincial officials. A number of issues have been discussed; for instance, promotion. Government made a commitment - I think, Minister, you made the commitment - to fund a film that would promote volunteerism.

MR. DENINE: I forgot about that.

MR. REID: One of the questions about the tax credit in this Province was - tax credit payment has been discussed: a $500 payment, for instance, a gratuity, an honorarium, whatever you want to call it. The end of last summer, the association, meeting in Gander, made a presentation to their membership. I was there and the minister was there, overlapping at different times. The thing that they did was, they took a survey and this was one of the questions on the survey. I have to tell you frankly I do not know the results of that survey. I am more than happy to try and find out, but this is part of an ongoing process that is designed by that department and the association to lead to a series of recommendations to government that would be accepted by firefighters across the Province.

MR. DENINE: The other part, too, Mr. Parsons, is that when I was in Municipal Affairs I forgot about the money that we gave for the film. I think it was $30,000 for that. That is what the fire chiefs association wanted, and that was a part of their idea of recruitment and retention.

The other part was that, with the volunteer firefighters, what we have done over the last years with the cost-share ratios going down in terms of what municipalities - I know, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs you had some issues with fire protection equipment and it was fifty-fifty. Now, most of the fire departments that I think you would be involved with would be ninety-ten, and I guess some of the members over here would be ninety ten, so that has been a significant savings for them.

My experience - I just came from two, and the support that they get from the community is unbelievable. I mean, there are people out there raising money for them: women's groups, men's groups, Lions' Clubs, Kinsmen, whatever. They are out to help them out, so they have significant…. Now, as far as supporting it, I will have to see the whole details and what it would include, and what the issues are with that. I have not studied it that far.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, on page 21 of this year's Estimates, when it deals with the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat, it talks about, under 2.8.01.10., Grants and Subsidies of $100,000.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Last year it was$100,000 as well, and the $100,000 was spent. What kind of grants and subsidies would we be talking here, to whom?

MR. DENINE: Well, when we started this department we were looking at a cluster project, and the cluster project was started out in Bonavista. What that is is that we look at different volunteer groups in a specific area, a region, and they come together to look at best practices, how they can help each other out, how they can increase capacity and how they interact with each other. The reason that was done is simple I think, both you and I have said it, is the fact that volunteers are difficult to come by in terms of rural Newfoundland and Labrador with people moving to the urban areas and whatever. So we have started a cluster project and that is with the Community Services Council and that money was – I believe that is $100,000 now in that? Yes, $100,000.

CHAIR: Page two, that is right.

MR. DENINE: Page two. So that is where we are looking at that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So you are saying the whole $100,000 was spent on this cluster project in Bonavista?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

Go ahead.

MR. REID: Clusters project, one of the components of the first phase was to set up a pilot project in what they call the Cabot Loop area, basically from Trinity through Bonavista and back to Trinity. Phase Two was to begin to do the same thing on the Burin Peninsula. They identified two areas that were significantly different but would be opportunities to look at ways, as the minister said, to develop networks, shared solutions to common problems, shared resources, that sort of thing.

We funded, this year, phase two to the tune of $100,000. The request was for substantially more than that. We have not funded it at that level. We have said, though, however, if there is demonstrable progress there will be more, but in this case we anticipate that this money will be used for a variety of things.

One of the things that we are very anxious to support is an initiative by the Human Resources Council in co-operation with a number of groups in this Province, to be one of five provinces where they, too, will do a demonstration project or a pilot project to bring people from the community together to address employment issues within the community.

There is an industrial adjustment strategy that has been underway for almost a year, looking at employment conditions in the homelessness sector. That has been led primarily by the Homelessness Coalition. The Chair of the IAS is Marie White. Other leaders are people like Bruce Pearce of the Homelessness Committee; Stella Burry: Choices for Youth. Women's shelters from across the Province are very much involved and native friendship centres.

The Human Resources Council is a national body that looks at human resource issues; put the two of them together. So we will support that initiative through this sort of thing. Another thing that we intend to use the money for –

OFFICIAL: IPAC.

MR. REID: One is IPAC. IPAC is the Institute of Public Administration of Canada for a proposal to do a one-day event where we will look at the relationship between government and the sector.

The thing that we get a lot of requests – it has been very clear from the beginning that one of the things that we do not do are sort of fund projects and that sort of thing, unless they are dealing with issues that pertain to the sector, generally.

One area that we have been called repeatedly on to provide resources for is to support groups that have little or no resources to be able to participate in provincial events or events that they cannot otherwise have access to. One example would be Knowledge in Motion, which was the three or four day event that the Harris Centre put on. We provided - I have forgotten what it was, but it is only like $5,000 to bring organizations in to participate in that. So that is the sort of thing that that money is used for.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can we get the actual list of where you spent the money? Who the cheques were cut –

MR. REID: We have not spent the money yet, but next year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No, but last years $100,000.

MR. REID: The Community Services Council.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

MR. DENINE: Yes, the Community Services Council.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Thank you.

I will wrap all this up in one question. An activity plan and an annual report, does this sector put that out yet or do you have such a beast?

MR. DENINE: Like, the reports that you get normally from Labour Relations, that type of thing?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

MR. REID: We are complying as we go along, with everything that we have to do. It is taking up a wonderful amount of our time, but we are like every other department, even though there are four of us, we are expected to provide all of that information and we will do exactly that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You are required to have an activity plan and an annual report?

MR. REID: No, the issue is: What is the level of our status, as I understand it. I do not know the resolution of that because this is the first full year that we have been sort of actually underway. For instance, the minister has signed a performance contract with me. I am in the process now of sort of going back and doing the evaluation of that, which he then will, with the Clerk - that process is underway.

We have gone through the strategic planning process, in a process that involved our staff, then the minister and his office. We brought senior deputy ministers and senior officials of government – about thirty-five people together – went through it with them. We have gone through it with different groups in the community. That will become our strategic plan, which is part of that process.

What I do not know the answer to, because it has not been decided, I gather, is what our designation will be, A, B, C, or – I think that is the way it is done. That will determine what we have to do, but we are prepared for whatever happens. We have most of the work done.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

On that, Mr. Parsons, if it is deemed that is what we have to do, it is not an issue. We will just give you a report.

MR. REID: Whatever we have to do.

MR. DENINE: Whatever we have to do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How about a Web site? Any plans in the works for a Web site?

MR. DENINE: Yes, and that is going to be a crucial part of our communication piece.

Like, for example, one of the things we are hearing from voluntary, non-profit organizations – it is similar to the question you asked about the money for infrastructure. Where do you get it? What grants are available? Where do we go? How do we get there? What do we have to do? What type of applications do we have to do? What are our contacts? That is one part of the portal which we are going to look at in terms of – so that we will be able to provide a service to the non-profit sector so that they – to make it easier for them.

When I spoke to them the other day, it is the KISS rule – Keep It Simple, Stupid – and that is the idea. That is what I try to portray here, so that when someone gets an application it is not an overburden for them to fill it out.

Just to give you an example, I help out with the Special Olympics, and we asked to have a person, or the committee asked and wanted to go to the federal government to look for money to hire a person on, as you know, like an executive director type of thing, to run the operations for the Summer Games, and I tell you, the form that they sent out was enormous. You look at a volunteer and you say: Well, how would a volunteer who has a limited amount of hours – well, I should not say that because most of them volunteer for a lot – but have a certain amount of hours to do it and go into a very detailed application process.

So, this whole thing of a portal is very crucial to what we want to do. It is a very crucial part to our communications, and we have heard it loud and clear from the non-profit sectors.

So, we will be moving on that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chair, but I do have three here on behalf of my NDP colleagues, if that is okay.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

Number one is: What role has IGA played, or do you have a role, I guess, with respect to the retrieval of the equalization payments, the $1.6 billion that has been ongoing? Is there any position of your department in that regard?

MR. DENINE: Only for support for the Premier's office in terms of that. I think that would be all in terms of what we would do?

MR. DUTTON: I am not sure what you mean by retrieval?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Well, I am assuming we lost it, we are told. Is there any steps being made or arguments being made, and if so, to whom to recover it?

MR. DUTTON: Equalization is a federal program and they have passed it into law. I don't know if I would say that the ship has sailed, but that we have the program that we have now until they change it again. The government has expressed its displeasure with the decision but we have no actual levers to alter the program because it is not a subject of agreement. The federal government imposes the rules itself.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So other than the public protests and the comments that the Premier has made, for example, has there been any role in IGA to write to anybody, the Finance Department, and say, you screwed us over or whatever? Like, to formalize the complaint is what I am getting at.

MR. DENINE: Well, just to answer that question, is that to formalize it in terms of – you know, we have made our case known in the media, in the world. We have made it known to officials. We have made it known to the Finance Minister. We have made it known to the Prime Minister of Canada. We are going to look out for the benefits of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So we will still lobby for – to be changed to the benefit of us.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

This concerns the volunteer sector. According to the information I have here it says there has been a $400,000 increase in that particular section.

MR. DENINE: Which one is that?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Last year over this year. Last year you had $672,000. This year you have $1,095,000, about a $400,000 or 63 per cent increase in the totals. I am just looking for some breakdown, I guess, as to –

MR. DENINE: Okay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - that 63 per cent increase in that spending, or budgeting.

MR. DENINE: Okay, I have it. Sorry about that.

The $350,000; that goes into, basically, the question you asked about: How do we look at serving the volunteer sector? That will be a creative interrelation communication program to celebrate and promote community commitment and recognize the contribution that this sector has made to the overall well-being of the Province.

It is a multidimensional thing. How do we get people involved? If you look at technology and the way it has transpired over the last number of years and how our young people are connected to the communication of technology, we are going to be looking at a multidimensional approach. We looked at it in terms of - no longer just putting in the paper a volunteer. We have to do something else. We have to do more creative things. So that will be the ongoing process with that. That will be the whole process of the communication program.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What role did your department play or are you going to play - it was mentioned in the Throne Speech about the international registry for workers?

MR. DENINE: That would be HRLE.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Being of an international scope of course, national and international, is there any role for you folks, or that is not scoped out yet?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. DUTTON: Human Resources, Labour and Employment is responsible for immigration and multiculturalism, so they would be administering that program.

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

I have no further questions. I would like to thank the minister and his staff for your candid answers. We look forward to the information that they have indicated they will provide.

Thank you very much.

MR. DENINE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Parsons.

Any further questions from the Committee? Does the minister have any concluding remarks?

MR. DENINE: No, just to thank Mr. Parsons. I know he put questions on behalf of the NDP, the member could not be here today, and I certainly appreciate it. I hope the information we gave him were the answers to his questions. That is it.

CHAIR: If there is no further discussion, I ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

CLERK (Mr. MacKenzie): Subhead 2.3.01.

CHAIR: 2.3.01., does that carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.3.01. carried.

CLERK: Subheads 2.3.02. to 2.3.04. inclusive.

CHAIR: 2.3.02. to 2.3.04. inclusive.

Does that carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.3.02. through 2.3.04. carried.

CLERK: Subhead 2.8.01.

CHAIR: 2.8.01., does that carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.8.01. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, total carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, total heads, carried without amendment.

CHAIR: You have a copy of the minutes of the meeting that was held yesterday, the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

I would like to ask for a motion now to adopt these minutes.

MR. FORSEY: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Forsey, seconded by Mr. Dinn, that the minutes for March 31, Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, carry as circulated.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Just in concluding, I would like to thank the minister and his officials, members on the Committee as well as the House of Assembly staff, and our observers.

I just want to mention before the motion to adjourn, is that the next meeting for this Committee will be tomorrow morning. You will be debating the Estimates for the Department of Finance, Public Service Commission and OCIO.

CLERK: We will all start at 8:30 in the morning.

CHAIR: The Clerk has just informed me that they want to start that meeting at 8:30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m.

Motion to adjourn.

Moved by Mr. Dinn that this meeting adjourn.

This meeting is now adjourned.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.