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

CHAIR (Forsey): If everyone is ready, first we will adopt the minutes of the last Estimates, which was Government Services on April 26.

Could I have a motion to adopt these minutes?

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

CHAIR: Terry Loder.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. First of all, we usually start out by everyone introducing themselves. Also, there is usually fifteen minutes of questions, if need be. If you need a break, to pass it on to the next one, you can, if that is necessary.

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

MR. DENINE: Minister Dave Denine, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

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

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

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

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

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

MS ELLIOTT-TEMPLETON: Vanessa Elliott-Templeton, Researcher, Official Opposition Office.

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

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

MR. DINN: John Dinn, MHA, Kilbride.

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

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

We will begin by asking the minister to give an introduction of his department for a few minutes.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to everyone here. Welcome to the Committee, and in particular to the critic for the Secretariat. It is good to see everyone here this morning. It is great to be inside rather than outside, with torrential rains coming down there now. It is good to be here to do the Estimates for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

I would like to take a few minutes if I may, Mr. Chair, to speak about the Secretariat and their roles within government. I will start with Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. The Secretariat's vision is of a Province which is recognized as making an important contribution to a strong and united Canada and which is treated equitably within Confederation.

IGAS is responsible for monitoring and analyzing intergovernmental dimensions of constitutional, social, physical and economic resource policy matters in order to formulate and provide policy and advice on the development of government's intergovernmental strategy and agenda. The Secretariat is focused on the creation and co-ordination and the review of policy that affects the Province's interest in intergovernmental matters.

We have a legislated responsibility to be party to negotiations and signing of all intergovernmental agreements. The Secretariat acts as a point of entry from the federal government where no equivalent provincial department exists and it leads to the Province's efforts to promote and diversify operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay, 9 Wing Gander and CFS St. John's.

We also support the Premier and my fellow Cabinet ministers in meetings with the federal government and other provinces and territories. I would like to note my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, manages the Province's relationship with the Nunatsiavit Government while the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for municipal governments.

With respect to promotion of the interests of the Province, I, as minister, as well as officials from the Secretariat, attend various bilateral, multilateral, regional and national, and occasionally international and intergovernmental meetings and conferences to present and promote our Province's position on matters of importance to the Province. Intergovernmental Affairs promotes our Province's interests by assisting departments in their participation in intergovernmental meetings, negotiations, and negotiations of intergovernmental agreements.

Another issue of significance of the Secretariat is the issue of federal presence within our Province. While we cannot control decisions made respecting federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador, we advocate to the federal government on behalf of the people of the Province for an increase in federal offices and number of jobs and, in particular, Mr. Chair, executive decision-making positions. The Secretariat also develops the provincial policy in areas that do not fall under the responsibility of other departments, including defence and foreign affairs.

On the defence matters the Secretariat co-ordinates discussions with military officials, local representatives, planning issues and provincial interests. In recent years, defence activity has focused on flight training by allied forces at 5 Wing Goose Bay. International activities also fall within the responsibility of the Secretariat. The Secretariat is responsible for the co-ordination of policies, programs and activities of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to other sovereign governments.

My other portfolio, Mr. Chair, is the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, which comes from the commitments of the 2007 Blueprint. I was appointed Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector in November 2008. The Secretariat was created in the Executive Council and had a deputy minister appointed in 2007. It now consists of two program and policy specialists, two contract positions and an administrative assistant to the deputy minister.

Mr. Chair, the Secretariat has five priorities: (1) enhancing the ability of the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector to meet the challenging changing community needs by working with community-based organizations, government and the private sector to increase the capacity of those who work and volunteer in the community-based organizations that we depend on so heavily; (2) strengthening the relationship and improving the collaboration between the provincial governments and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector; (3) promoting volunteerism and social enterprise inside government across the Province, to say thank you and remind Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of the immeasurable contribution made by so many people on our behalf; (4) facilitating the development of provincial government programs and policies which support the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector; improve our ability to work co-operatively and to ensure the wisdom and the perspectives of the sector are considered in policy making. Finally, Mr. Chair, fostering innovative and creative collaboration approaches to all these tasks will bring us all to a great deal of success.

The Secretariat is not intended to become another layer of bureaucracy, a source of project of core funding, an advocate for any groups with other departments of government or an appeals body to redress from departmental decisions. We are facilitators and advocates within government and across the Province for and on behalf of the community-based organizations wherever they are. Our ultimate goal, Mr. Chair, is to enhance and strengthen the relationship between government and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector in a way that we can all benefit from their knowledge, experience and commitment.

This is a brief outline, Mr. Chair, of the roles performed by the staff of the Secretariat. I thank you for this, and I would be happy to respond to any questions or concerns with respect to Estimates or indeed any issue. I have invited my officials to participate and jump in where needed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay.

Thank you, Minister.

We will start by calling the subhead for IGA.

CLERK: 2.3.01.

CHAIR: 2.3.01. Before you respond, it is nice to give your name, those responding, so as we make it clear for the Clerk.

Mr. Parsons, do you want to…?

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

First of all, Minister, I would like to go through some of the line-by-line stuff and then I will get into some probing questions after, if that is okay.

MR. DENINE: Sure, whatever you wish.

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

MR. DENINE: Purchased Services?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Purchased Services. I wonder if you could give us some idea exactly what kind of purchased services we would be dealing with.

MR. DENINE: The purchased services could be professional training, official entertainment, printing, furnishings, equipment, rentals, repairs, maintenance and general purchased services.

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

MR. DENINE: I am sorry. Also, memberships in different organizations would be part of that, and other services like printing, advertising, photocopying costs, et cetera.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, what we have usually done in the Committees is any time we require information that the minister does not have available we would ask that the minister provide an undertaking that he will provide it.

CHAIR: Yes, that is the normal procedure.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, and those undertakings are recorded. Usually, whenever they are requested by one party it is requested that it goes to both. For example, if the Official Opposition requests it through my questioning we still provide a copy to the NDP and vice versa. That way we do not have to ask for it twice.

CHAIR: Okay.

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

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

MR. DENINE: We did that last year.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I am wondering if you, in fact, could undertake to provide a copy or list of the purchased services that I just referenced in 06. You gave me the generalities; I am wondering if you could give us the breakdown on what each of those were. You do not necessarily have to do it here now, but some time you can just send us along a copy of the breakdown.

MR. DENINE: Yes, I think we sent the House Leader - we sent you a copy last year of some of the things that you wanted. That was done after our meeting here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just curious, of the $395,400 that was spent, you referenced entertainment. How much would have been for entertainment?

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

MR. DUTTON: We do not have a breakdown for that here. That is one of the eligible costs that could be charged to Purchased Services. The largest portion of the expenditure is for our memberships in intergovernmental organizations. First, 2009-2010 membership in the Council of Atlantic Premiers was $270,300, the Council of the Federation membership was $47,000, and membership in the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers was $13,000. There was another $65,100 for other services, including printing, advertising and photocopier costs. We will have to get you a breakdown of that after the meeting.

MR. DENINE: Very little on entertainment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, 2.3.02.10. Grants and Subsidies, $49,400., what would that be in reference to? To where would you be making grants and subsidies?

MR. DUTTON: The largest part of that is $44,400 for the contribution to the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. They provide services to all intergovernmental meetings where translation services and other technical services are required. We provide that one contribution for all government departments. There is another $5,000 set aside for other anticipated requests, but none had materialized. At one time we provided funding under this line item for the Crossing Boundaries, which is now defunct.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: 2.3.03.01., the Salaries. It looks like you were down last year about $150,000 and you have a new $680,000 chosen for this year. Is there some –

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: 2.3.03.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Item 01. Salaries. You had $749,000 last year, you only spent $590,000 but you have it back up to $680,000. Are you filling a job there or something?

MR. DENINE: Right now we have nine permanent positions and a temporary assistant. The savings last year were due to staff turnover and anticipated requirement for temporary assistance and overtime. This year, Sean, with regard to bringing it back up (inaudible).

MR. DUTTON: All of the permanent positions are currently filled. Over the last number of years we have had a lot of turnover. As a result of that there have been temporary vacancies from time to time. We would anticipate having these positions filled for the full twelve months, but we can never predict when people are going to depart or be seconded.

The adjustment is down from the budgeted amount because once we reviewed our expenditure overtime, it was determined that because of the steps that people are at and so on, we have never had to spend the entire amount over the last two or three years. It has just been reduced from $749,000 original budget to $680,000. It also reflects the change in pay periods, because there was an extra pay period in the last fiscal year. There would be a 4 per cent increase due to employees this year as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Page 19, 2.3.04. the Ottawa Office, I take it both the representative and his staffer are included in that?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

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

MR. DUTTON: It is in the salary details document. These amounts are not necessarily indicative of the actual amount but it lists in the salary details: provincial representative, $148,352 for 2010-2011 and administrative assistant, $53,985. Those are amounts for permanent positions for 2010-2011. They do not necessarily reflect at what step those individuals might be in their classification.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That gives you roughly $200,000 and you have $250,000 there; $148,000 plus the $53,000 gives you $201,000. What is the other $47,000 for?

MR. DUTTON: There would be funding set aside for temporary and other employees and for overtime and other earnings. They typically would not necessarily be expended. The temporary assistants might include a summer student or an intern or that sort of thing, some temporary staff hired there from time to time in the past.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Last year you had pretty well the same, $247,600 budgeted and spent $230,000. Can you give me the breakdown on exactly what was spent? Was it $148,000 and $53,000 last year for the representative and the assistant?

MR. DUTTON: The amount that we have in our report is just $206,000 for total permanent employees and $24,000 for overtime and other earnings. It is not a breakdown by employee. We do not have that information here today.

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

MR. DUTTON: It is overtime and other earnings. I just do not have a breakdown of what those other earnings are.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would like the breakdown for both: who got overtime, if anyone, and in what amount, and what others would have received any pay – if there were temporaries, for example.

MR. DUTTON: I do not believe there was any overtime paid, but I will have to check. Certainly, the representative would not have been eligible for overtime.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, because again you spent $230,000 as opposed to – I am assuming there were two people in the office, the representative and an assistant -

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: – which totalled around $200,000 a year for salaries; yet, we are showing $230,000. I am just wondering where the other $30,000 went. Did it go in benefits, other earnings, or overtime? If so, who got the other $30,000? If you could undertake to provide us with those details?

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

MR. DENINE: Yes. I think that is the photocopier, printing costs, lease costs, official entertainment and professional training.

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

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, can we get the breakdown as to – because the media reported recently, a front-page story in The Telegram a few weeks ago, that the newspapers are piling up outside his vacant office. So, I am sure we would like to know what we are paying for this vacant office right now.

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

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

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

I will come back; I have some further questions on the representative's office. I will come to that when I do some other questioning.

Before I move on, can you tell me, Minister, the exact date that Mr. FitzGerald submitted his resignation, and when was it effective?

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

OFFICIAL: There was a public announcement.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just wondering, was it a public announcement that he - I am not sure if he left or was leaving. I am wondering if you could verify, for example, the fact that the announcement might have been made in January, was that the effective date of his doing the service or did he, for example, announce today that I will no longer be the representative after February 28 or whatever? I would like to know the exact day when his salary would have ended.

MR. DENINE: That is easily done. We sent out a press release on the whole thing, but I can just give you the approximate date. If I said January 25 it could be wrong, so I will get the exact date for you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

I noticed under that 05. you had put in there last year Professional Services $15,000 but nothing this year. I am just wondering, what was the anticipated Professional Services that the representative might need? I know you do not have it there this year, but -

MR. DENINE: Because it was revised we did not expect to spend it this year, obviously. So, the question is?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The question is: you have a section called Professional Services under this. You anticipated last year that there might be some Professional Services needed. What were the Professional Services you thought you might have needed last year that you do not think you would need this year?

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

MR. DUTTON: I think this has been a standard line item in the office since its inception. We looked at the expenditure pattern over the last number of years. It is not something that has been required. So, as part of ensuring that we are not putting forward requests that are not required, we would reduce it to zero for this year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Moving on to the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat line by line. That is on page 22, 2.8.01.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It looks like you have increased it there from $372,000 to $423,000, anticipating a new hire?

MR. DENINE: What happened was - and I will turn to my deputy after I just give a little brief thing to give you some idea - we were only really staffed up a year ago last January. The amount of money we had in there - we had to put more money, obviously, because we had some permanent employees there. Right now we have four permanent positions and a temporary assistant. Because these are in permanent positions as opposed to last year, then we need to be able to put more money into it.

Ross, is there anything else you want to add?

MR. REID: Yes, the minister is correct. This is a contractual position that we have in place this year simply to help us manage the workload.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has it been filled?

MR. REID: Sorry?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has it been filled?

MR. REID: I beg your pardon?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has that position been filled?

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Who has that position?

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Under Professional Services, I noticed last year you had budgeted $75,000, spent $269,800. What kind of Professional Services were we talking there? Because it is a fairly substantial expenditure beyond what you had anticipated.

MR. DENINE: Well, basically it was the consulting services, and this year we are looking into a communication strategy. We are into the URock awards that cost money. There was an ad to hire a communication firm whereby we could start up the cost; it would be approximately $70,000 and reflects an increase of $105,000. Also, $50,000 was reallocated to Salaries, $20,000 reallocated to Purchased Services, and $175,000 to be re-profiled for the 2009-2010 communications strategy.

Basically, hon. member, there are two things going to happen, or a couple of things happened over the last year. One, we had the URock awards, which were very, very successful, and we started the communications strategy recognizing volunteers within the Province. The first part of that was done. Now we are into the second phase, and that should be unfolded very shortly.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could you undertake to provide us with a breakdown of the $269,800 Professional Services spent last year?

OFFICIAL: You are asking for a breakdown?

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

OFFICIAL: We can get you that, Sir.

OFFICIAL: Not a problem.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

That portion of your portfolio, Minister, is usually referred to as the grip and grin section, is it, thanking volunteers? That is the phrase I have heard put to it. That is the minister's grip and grin phase.

MR. DENINE: Oh, I have done a lot of that. Do you want to know how many hands I shook for Volunteer Week? A lot of them.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It needs to be done.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It needs to be done.

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

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

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

CHAIR: No, he cannot ask anyway.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He has only observer status.

CHAIR: My apologies.

MR. DENINE: It is okay.

CHAIR: Okay. Carry on, Mr. Parsons.

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

MR. DENINE: I doubt that.

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

CHAIR: It was just a weak moment.

MR. DENINE: Not that I could forget.

CHAIR: Kelvin, I had a weak moment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, some of these questions are very general in nature because your office is so diverse.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: From the non-profit and volunteer sector to everything – intergovernmental, of course, is pretty expansive.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Pardon me if I am all over the map here, but sometimes your department has issues that are all over the map as well.

As you have indicated, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of course, you are responsible for monitoring and analyzing intergovernmental dimensions, whether they are constitutional, social, fiscal, economic, resource issues and so on, and formulating policy of our government strategy. That is my understanding of what you do as an office, as a Secretariat.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat have any role in the analysis, formulation or preparation of Bill 75, which dealt with the expropriation of the Abitibi assets back in December of 2008?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No role whatsoever?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How about the fact that we were dealing in that bill, vis-à-vis Newfoundland and Labrador and our interaction, obviously, with Quebec, because it was a Quebec company, and also the fact that the federal government was involved because of NAFTA implications. Was there any thought whatsoever given by, or advice given by, any involvement whatsoever by your Secretariat in regard to the NAFTA implications that might exist as a result of Bill 75?

MR. DUTTON: I think that would probably be largely a legal question that would have to be assessed from the legal implications of NAFTA as opposed to the policy analysis that we would do. Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is primarily responsible for trade policy, so we would work in concert with them, but in terms of our office providing that analysis on Bill 75 or its consideration, no.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Aside from analysis, did you have any involvement whatsoever in regard to the formulation, creation, implementation or drafting of Bill 75?

MR. DUTTON: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So it is fair to say the file was somewhere else other than in your shop.

MR. DENINE: Other line departments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: With regard to - and you alluded to this in your introduction, that you advocate to the federal government with respect to increased federal presence here in the Province, the numbers of jobs, particularly executive decision-making positions and so on. Can you provide us with some idea, an overview or list, of what exactly you have done in the last year? Who have you spoken to, who you have written to, who have you met with, regarding that particular facet of federal presence here in the Province?

MR. DENINE: Actually, we have written letters to the responsible ministers, and you are correct; in terms of federal presence in the Province it is not only just jobs. We are very concerned about the decision-making process in terms of - if they have a regional office outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, the major person or individual who was making the decision could be based in Halifax or Moncton or St. John's, et cetera.

So, in response to your question, I spoke to Minister MacKay about it, I spoke to Minister Verner, and I spoke to Minister Shea about the federal presence here in the Province, and any opportunity that I had to bring that up to any minister responsible for that, to make sure that federal presence was thought of for Newfoundland and Labrador, and to protect our interests.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Your involvement with the federal government, is it simply a verbal exchange? You mentioned it to Minister MacKay.

MR. DENINE: It could be verbal and written.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

So my question is: What federal presence in particular did you talk to these ministers about - either Shea, MacKay, whomever - with regard to a presence here in the last year?

MR. DENINE: First of all, the federal presence was basically what I just said in terms of the overall federal presence itself. In particular, there was a job in the Canada service that was possibly going to Halifax and we did not think it should be going there. We would like to have the responsibility here, the decision-making process, and anything that had to deal with that.

I am just trying to find out. If you will give me a minute I will be able to give you some of this, because I am looking for my sheet.

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

MR. DUTTON: The issue with Service Canada was, we were told that they have undergone a regional restructuring; that they are creating an Atlantic office in Halifax that the local office would have to report through instead of to the national capital. So it would be an extra layer of authority through Halifax before getting to headquarters.

It is a fairly centralized department as it is, so they have a large presence across the country. We raised that concern with Minister Finley in writing that this was actually diminishing the amount of authority that the regional director would have for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were a number of other cases like that which dealt with concerns about protecting the positions that we have at this point. Transport Canada had a position of director where the person had retired. The minister raised that with Minister Baird ensuring that that gets re-staffed, that they propose a different structure.

As well, in terms of defence presence, there have been a number of letters exchanged related to 5 Wing Goose Bay, but also the promised territorial defence battalion at CFS St. John's that has not materialized. We are continually reminding the federal government of that public commitment.

Also, there has been quite a lot of attraction over the search and rescue capacity and the government's position that there should have been an increase in federal search and rescue capacity in St. John's to deal with the offshore oil and gas sector that would be incremental to the service in Gander. The minister has also met with the people in Gander and at 9 Wing over their desire to see actually an enhanced level of service from the search and rescue squadron there as well. That has also been the subject of discussion with Minister MacKay.

There was also a personal support centre established for veterans; that was a positive announcement from the federal government. The minister raised that with Minister Blackburn as an example of some of the positive things that can happen on this front.

MR. DENINE: Also, too, the hon. member will remember that there was a private member's motion put forward about federal presence within the Province, and that was unanimously supported. Actually, it was put forth by the Chair of the Committee here this morning, there last year, and that was made known to Minister Verner on that. As my deputy mentioned, search and rescue was there, the Department of Transportation and Works, Industry Canada, Environment Canada, 5 Wing Goose Bay has always been an issue. They certainly know our position on 5 Wing Goose Bay and we continue to promote that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Back to the Service Canada position, what happened with it? You say you made representations that it would not be moved out of the Province to Halifax.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

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

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did Intergovernmental Affairs or the Secretariat make a presentation to the Wells inquiry that C-NLOPB established regarding your safety?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any particular reason you would not have, since that is one of your concerns you alluded to?

MR. DENINE: We did not think it was - in our position, we just waited until - we will react after, once the recommendations come forward. We did not see fit to be there.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just thinking, Minister, you have just mentioned the fact that your relevance and importance is to make these presentations, and here we are with a perfect opportunity to Justice Robert Wells, who is doing this inquiry about search and rescue capacity, and our Intergovernmental Affairs office did not think it significant enough to make a submission. Is there something missing here?

MR. DENINE: No, not really. I see what you are getting at, but the thing is that we made our position known on search and rescue for the Province, and what we expect the federal government to do, and that is the avenue we chose.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: When we did the Justice Estimates, perennially we have an issue here with the feds, for example, when it comes to putting their share in the pot for legal aid. They never have; they have continued to reduce it. It has been a problem for twenty years. They started off, I think it was, contributing maybe 60 per cent of the legal aid requirement here and we are down now to, they might put in 15 per cent, and successive ministers, including myself, have made representations to try to get the feds to put more money in the pot. Again, both the Minister of Finance now, who was the former minister, and the current Minister of Finance, who was the Minister of Justice, and the current Minister of Justice, Mr. Collins, have all had the same problem.

Has Intergovernmental Affairs ever played any role with the feds to try to bring some extra pressure to bear there? Because it is an ongoing problem to try to get extra increased funding federally. We talk about increased presence in terms of jobs and increased presence in terms of infrastructure, but what about increased presence in terms of monetary?

MR. DENINE: Well, in that respect, in terms of that, and you mention the Justice thing, the line department will take the lead on that. If they need help in terms of our support then they will ask for it or we will look at it and get into it, but as far as I can see I do not think there was anything done.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You have never been asked by Justice to try to bring some pressure to bear with the feds to help out there on that issue?

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

MR. DUTTON: Certainly, the government is aware that is a high priority for all of the Justice Ministers across Canada. I think the provincial and territorial ministers have made that a consistent high priority for themselves. We work with Justice as required on preparation for their meetings. We also have that identified as one of the potential issues that could arise in any other discussions with the federal government. The current federal government has not expressed very much interest in that issue. More of their Justice agenda has focused on anti-crime legislation. It has not met with their priorities at this point.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We have a good idea now, we have a perfect idea now, an understanding of where the feds stand, for example, on the penitentiary. That is a Justice issue, but aside from legal aid it is a totally different issue. It is federal infrastructure in the Province. We have had lots of talk in the last two or three years about the need for a replacement of HMP, and we have had the federal minister saying, basically: We are not going there; we are not building any more federal pens, and tough.

Have you in the past year - notwithstanding that position of the feds, and their statement on that regard - have you had any discussions with the feds –

MR. DENINE: Yes, I did actually.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - with regard to HMP?

MR. DENINE: Yes. When I do this, the hon. member should know, obviously, the line department is the one that will take the lead role on it, and as you were a previous member of Cabinet that is exactly what it will be.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

MR. DENINE: At any opportunity I did. I did that when I met with Minister Verner, the federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. I mentioned it, and my comment was: Look, we have been looking for this. It is a needed facility, and we are looking for funding on it; but that is as far as it went in terms of that it is a priority for our Province to upgrade the penitentiary facilities within Newfoundland and Labrador and we would like to have your support on it, and make it known that this is one of our issues. So, yes, I did, I had the opportunity to bring that to his attention.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, it is my understanding as well that our Department of Environment and Conservation received, or there was eliminated - we saw the elimination of about $15 million in funding for projects related to clean air and climate change initiatives in this Province. You are aware of that elimination?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

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

MR. DENINE: That reaction, again, came from our environmental minister on that. So whatever the reaction was, that is where it was.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So it is fair to say, then, that you leave most of these things to the line departments to deal with?

MR. DENINE: Well, yes, because in terms of that – or, for example, if there is something going on, if the minister is going to a climate change conference, federal FPT meetings, then we can gather information to help her assist in that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How about some of the other files? The Lower Churchill, for example, what involvement does your Secretariat have with regard to advocating, talking with and discussions with, anything to do with Lower Churchill in the last year?

MR. DENINE: No. In terms of all that, it goes back to exactly what I said in terms of the Minister of Natural Resources takes the lead on all that, in terms of negotiations, and that is where it is. Our department would supply information, support and so on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So, what information –

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

MR. DUTTON: Certainly, through intergovernmental conferences, energy has been a major focus in a lot of those meetings. Over the past year we would have provided support to the Premier or his representative at those meetings to be able to speak to and advocate for the development of the Lower Churchill and to do the sort of policy framework that would be helpful to that development, including at the Council of the Federation and the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, the latter of which provides an opportunity to speak directly to some of the governors in states that could be potential customers for that power.

Also, the environmental assessment process is being done through a joint review panel for the generation project, and that was established through a federal-provincial agreement. Minister Denine would have been a party to that agreement. We would provide advice and participate in the negotiation of that agreement itself. Now that that is established it is up to Environment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to oversee that process as it is implemented, and a panel has been appointed and is carrying out that review.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What advice in particular did you give in the past twelve months to the Premier or anybody else in this government regarding the Lower Churchill?

MR. DUTTON: I think, in particular, we have looked at how we can ensure that we can access other markets. In particular, in the New England States we have been reviewing the Boxer-Kerry and the Waxman-Markey legislation in the United States.

It has not sort of moved with lightening speed, but they are looking at certain incentives for certain types of clean energy. Large scale hydro is not considered to be renewable for that purpose, so we have continually made that point. We have gotten the support of the Council of the Federation for that position, both at their summer meeting and at their meetings in Washington in February.

Neither of those bills has passed into law at this point. It has also been raised with the US Administration. There is an argument to be said that even if it is not deemed renewable for the purposes of that legislation, because they are trying to incentivize other less economical, riskier forms of power like wind or other green energy, that there is enough of a market in the United States for hydro, wind, and any other green energy that can be developed in Canada. So, we are just trying to continue to ensure that those markets are open.

Also, through the New England Governors, the Eastern Canadian Premiers, the New England Governors gave us a presentation in September on their energy blueprint and certainly made the case, which they accepted that Lower Churchill power and other forms of renewable energy in Canada can be a part of the solution for New England. That was something that the governors accepted and that they are actively looking at.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any discussions with New Brunswick since the Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick deal came off the rails in terms of that being a possible route: discussions with, access to their lines, anything of that nature?

MR. DUTTON: There would have been an application to the system operator, so I believe that would still be sort of an active consideration. One of the things the government will have to decide, through Nalcor, is what route to take for the transmission of energy. That would still be one of the routes that would be considered - in other words, an application to the Régie de l'énergie in Quebec to determine what the actual price should be for transmission through Quebec.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Specifically with New Brunswick.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, but in either instance there might be an opportunity to transmit through New Brunswick either coming down from Quebec through New Brunswick into the other Maritime Provinces or back through.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has your department had any specific contact with New Brunswick to discuss this issue, shipment of energy, since the deal between Hydro and the Province of New Brunswick came off the rails?

I know about the applications and stuff that the Province needed and Nalcor has made to the Régie and through New Brunswick and they are all active. My question is pretty simple: Has your Secretariat had any direct involvement whatsoever with the Province of New Brunswick with regard to the Lower Churchill in any manner, shape or form since the Hydro and New Brunswick deal came off the table?

MR. DUTTON: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

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

MR. DENINE: When I was in Ottawa I did bring that to the attention of Minister MacKay and to Minister Verner. They put, I think, $75 million in this year in the budget. Basically, we are glad that they put money in.

On the second case is the fact that I stressed to them the sustainability of it, to continue putting money into it. The fact that they put some money this year in Marine Atlantic, we said we are happy with that, but we want to look at the sustainability over the next number of years, next number of budgets, to increase it to bring it up to a higher standard.

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

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is who really controls –

MR. DENINE: Again, the hon. member knows that when I bring it forth to a minister it is a concern for us in terms of service that is being provided by the federal government for here. The line minister will be the one – Transportation and Works will be the line minister of that and he would have the direct conversations with the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I have raised these questions in Estimates regarding tourism, for example, because that is a piece of Marine Atlantic as well. Everybody seems to think that the $175 million that the feds put in this year is great stuff.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The bottom line is the federal government reacted because the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, federally, told them just what type of an abysmal job they were doing, so they did put in $175 million.

The bottom line is that is a joke in terms of what is needed to fix Marine Atlantic. We have two ships, the Caribou and the Smallwood, both of which are twenty-five-plus years old. It is going to cost $750 million to replace their fleet properly and yet we get $175 million popped in.

Have you had any discussions along those lines, that it is one thing to put some money in, but if it is a band-aid then acknowledge that it is a band-aid?

MR. DENINE: Well, just to respond to your question, that is exactly what I was saying to the ministers up there, in terms of, hey, it is good to see you put some money in, but this is a service that is a right under the Terms of Union for Newfoundland and Labrador, and the fact is that we need that sustained to a level of service that would be conducive to Newfoundland and Labrador, both in the tourism perspective and our transportation perspective.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have you ever had any discussions with the feds, Minister MacKay, or Transportation, because this issue of the cost of travel – there are a whole bunch of issues. Number one is the infrastructure that you have to operate. Number two, there is the service level that you can provide, and quite often that is connected to what your infrastructure capacity is. There is also this issue of the cost, the operational cost, and the fact that we pay not based on what it is to travel – if you travel ninety kilometres of road here in the Province, there is a cost associated with that. If you travel ninety kilometres across the Gulf, you pay eight, ten times, twenty times what it is. There have been a lot of people in this Province for a long time saying: Can we get some kind of equation between road travel versus sea travel, given that is a constitutional right under Term 32? Have you had any of those discussions with the feds?

MR. DENINE: My discussions were, as I just said - when I talk about service and delivery, it is all-encompassing. It was not that particular thing, but it was relied upon. The line ministers would have, again, that bead on it, if you want to say it. The thing is that my objective of doing it is that we want to make - when I talk about services, it is all-inclusive. It is not just necessarily that - the service, the cost, and so on, et cetera, as you outlined, not specifically - but the fact that we want the improved services here for Newfoundland and Labrador, yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just having some difficulty, I guess, understanding the relevance of your Secretariat, because I have asked questions about Marine Atlantic, I asked questions about the Lower Churchill, I asked questions about the Department of Environment, I asked questions about the Department of Justice, and any time it is easy to say: Well, we leave that to the line departments. That makes one question: What is the purpose of an Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat if every time we ask a question, yes, I chat with them but we leave it to the line departments, keeps coming up.

MR. DENINE: Well, the line department itself does the negotiations on any agreement. We support the intergovernmental agreements. When an intergovernmental agreement comes up, our department is quite involved with it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can we get a list of the different agreements that were signed last year?

MR. DENINE: Last year there were fifty-eight agreements signed - interprovincial. There were another fifty-eight federal-provincial agreements, five with other jurisdictions.

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

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It will be very helpful, rather than just list the agreements, if you could have a little note basically saying what they are about, because sometimes trying to unravel and make a connection between what the head of the agreement says and what it actually did is a tough job. We often have to come back and say: Could you explain what this agreement was about? We do not mean you get into all kinds of in-depth research, but just a note saying briefly what each of those agreements was.

Minister, the federal government brought forward a policy that had an impact on this Province; again, it was environmental and it talked about waste water effluents. Basically, the feds put forward a policy which prohibited untreated waste and storm water from entering the ocean.

We, as a Province, took the position - my understanding is we did not sign on to the agreement because we said unless there was some type of federal financial commitment that we were not prepared to sign on. Now, we know the law is still going to go ahead. The feds did not stop with the implementation and position of that law just because we did not sign on.

What are the implications of this for us as a Province? Particularly, we have hundreds of communities in this Province that do not have any secondary sewage treatment facilities. Yet, the feds have made this law prohibiting this from happening. We have not signed onto it; yet the law, I would assume, applies to all of us. What are the implications of this? Have you made any submissions on it?

MR. DENINE: I am going to make a comment, and I will let my deputy minister comment on it. That has been an issue that was made to two departments within the government - Municipal Affairs and also in Environment - in terms of it is all right to put a strategy in place but you need to have some financial backing in order to make it happen. The minister and this government have made it known to the officials, the federal ministers, that this is not acceptable. I believe MNL has done the same thing, and the FCM.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Before you begin, I just smiled, Minister, because your very comment flashed back to a question I asked in Question Period when you were Minister of Municipal Affairs when they brought in the thing about the Waste Management Strategy and closing down the incinerators. That was my comment: Why would you put a strategy in place if you never gave the funding to the municipalities to replace it? You use the same logic now to explain -

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

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

MR. DUTTON: You mentioned the waste water strategy that had been reviewed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which the Province did not endorse. Full implementation of that strategy would have had a potential cost implication of $2.5 billion over thirty years for this Province. There was no dedicated funding identified.

Just to be clear, the federal government is looking at bringing in waste water system effluent regulations under their legislation. So, it is not in law per se, but it is a proposed regulation that is not yet in effect.

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

MR. DUTTON: Thirty years.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thirty years.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

It was a significant cost implication over time. A lot of rural communities are putting waste water effluent into the harbour, untreated, so that is a large expense to have to deal with that. That was the reason why the Province had not endorsed the CCME strategy because there was no identified funding for this.

Any discussions with the federal government to this point have just pointed towards existing programs as a source of funding, like Building Canada and so on, which are time limited. Also, any number of other infrastructure projects would be eligible, so we would have to compete with other projects, and a lot of those funds have already been allocated. There is not an identified source of funding to be able to deal with the issue.

The federal government has given until March 19 to provide comments on the draft regulations and their implications, so there is still an opportunity for government to make its views known. We have certainly heard from other jurisdictions. Quebec and Nunavut did not endorse the CCME strategy either. We have had discussions with the Maritime Provinces that are also very concerned about these federal regulations. I am sure all of us will be taking the opportunity to make those views known before March 19 to the federal regulator – May 19, pardon me.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, moving on now to a couple of policy areas, I guess, that you are directly responsible for, a lot of these other issues dealt with, like you said, line departments that could be involved would be involved: defence and foreign affairs. Particularly on the defence angle, I believe Mr. Dutton alluded at one point to letters that went back and forth with regard to the squadron that was intended. We had announced several years ago –

MR. DENINE: Battalion, rapid response.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: – there are supposed to be response teams here in St. John's. I believe there was another squadron that was supposed to be placed in Goose Bay. There were several federal commitments regarding personnel, military personnel that would be placed in this Province, and we have not seen squat in those commitments in the last three or four years. Where are we right now with those? Is there any likelihood or is this just a pipe dream at this point?

MR. DENINE: Well, as you know, the rapid response battalion team was a commitment by the federal government, and we had a response back last summer saying that rapid response battalion team was not on.

The other part was the unstaffed aerial vehicles. That was supposed to go. Those were brought to Minister MacKay's attention numerous times, in terms of our position. Minister MacKay has said to us, in our last meeting, that UAVs are still under study and the fact that they have not decided which one they will be using. They are using UAVs over in Afghanistan now. That is in a different atmosphere, drier and so on, to put it up north. We are still waiting to hear back on that. It is still under active consideration. That part, hon. member, is that these issues with regard to presence within the Province, I cannot tell you how many times I spoke – I know I had three meetings with MacKay, and each and every time these issues were brought forward in terms of living up to the commitment. We are waiting on the response for the UAVs.

As a matter of fact, just this morning, if you listen to CBC Radio, they are doing some work up there in the target area. They are doing a barracks up there for fifty people, so they will not be having to transport people in from the prime target area. That is a positive thing; they are putting infrastructure into it. Also, in the last little while you have heard in the media that there is half a million dollars given to a marketing company to help market 5 Wing Goose Bay. Each and every opportunity that I have, when I meet people from other governments, I promote that. I meet with ambassadors in terms of that, and I always promote 5 Wing Goose Bay and the opportunities that it has.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, speaking of 5 Wing and the marketing piece, we had an incident here just a couple of months ago when the Minister of Labrador Affairs talked about meetings that he and you had in Ottawa with regard to having certain training done here, and meetings that you had with ambassadors to get training done in Labrador, only to find out that it had actually gone to the United States.

Now, I realize in Question Period you do not always get to ask all the questions you want and you certainly do not get to give all the answers that you might like to give, or wish to give. It looked a bit embarrassing, in my view, that here we have ministers standing up and saying that we are having meetings about this contract and meanwhile before the flight hits the tarmac back here we find out that the contract has actually been let to a States. What went wrong here?

MR. DENINE: What went wrong was the fact that they found a better facility to operate from. The jets that were needed for that target drill, the target zone practicing, whatever they use, in terms of that, and the fact of the cost of bringing jets over, they found a place down in the States, I believe, to carry on that, where they had the F-16s and the proper jets available which did not cost so much. The fact that, the issue that. other foreign countries are now cutting back on defence, that was an issue. It is not dead in the water in terms of what is happening because we are still - pardon the pun - on the radar for next year, and up until 2016 the exercise will be ongoing. NATO will be the ones who will decide that. We will be doing what we can to promote that.

They are putting things in Goose Bay with regard to the practice area I just mentioned, in facilities that they are doing. Also, for the hon. member's information, we had a meeting with 5 Wing in November and December. They came down here in December, I believe was the month, and they had some environmental issues to get over with. I assured them that this government will not be standing in the way of making things happen.

Our relationship with 5 Wing Goose Bay up there is very close in terms of co-operating. We did everything we could as a government to make sure that it was on. There were no environmental issues; there were no permits holding it up. From our end, we followed through on it and I made sure of that, along with my Minister of Labrador Affairs. From our perspective, yes, we are still going to continue to promote it and hope that NATO will be back next year to continue on with the exercise.

A couple of positive things have come out. One is the fact that they are still going on with the infrastructure. Number two, we have $500,000 for marketing, and I have instructed our Intergovernmental Affairs staff to write a letter to the marketing company so that we will be able to sit down and have a discussion with them on the market.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The contract that went to the States, I believe that involved the Germans; am I correct?

MR. DUTTON: The training involved CASEX 2010; it was renamed Ramstein Rover. It was for close air support and it was a NATO exercise. So Germany and the other NATO countries may be involved. One of the other issues that we were advised of - because we certainly had letters we were told about, they were not sent to us - 5 Wing had letters from senior generals in NATO that indicated a high desirability to go to Goose Bay, but this was the first year that this exercise had been proposed and they did not have it built into their budgets for this year. When cost pressures came about they sent in a lack of availability of aircraft. They looked at a location in the United States where there were existing squadrons of aircraft available. So they did not have to reallocate them, and it was a much smaller scale exercise than what had been contemplated. I think that was to involve a number of NATO countries, not just the United States or Germany.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Could you educate me on the whole issue of – just to make sure I understand the thing properly - when we talk 5 Wing Goose, who exactly is 5 Wing Goose when it comes to getting these contracts? I take it, it is absolutely military. There is no local involvement up there. This is done from somebody, and are those people in Goose Bay or are they bureaucratic or military people in Ottawa? Who does this negotiation to decide whether we are going to have exercises?

MR. DUTTON: It is a bit of both; 5 Wing has a wing commander. It is a full Canadian Forces base. They work closely with a marketing office in Ottawa. It used to be called the Goose Bay Project Management Office. It has a different name. It does not have Goose Bay in the title any more but it does the same thing. There is a retired colonel who is working for DND there, and a major in the Air Force, who are involved in that marketing office. That is the group that is letting this contract to a private marketing company in the Ottawa area.

These individuals like Colonel Bisson and Major Kendell, they go to air shows and trade shows and they meet with other militaries. They are primarily military decisions on where military forces are going to go for their training. So they have been out doing that marketing, and the Wing people would be responsible for preparing the facilities and ensuring that they are able to host. That has included some of the improvements the minister mentioned to the practice target areas, provision of the hangar space and all of the support services around hosting aircraft or winter training or whatever other kind of training they would want to bring in.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This Ottawa office that deals with this marketing and trying to arrange these contracts, they do not just deal with the Wing, do they; they deal with land, air, sea? Is this an office that Ottawa has with different pieces in it that go out and try to negotiate these contracts, or is this an office in Ottawa that deals exclusively with trying to get contracts for Goose? That is what I am trying to establish.

MR. DUTTON: Any kind of military training for Goose Bay would be the sort of thing they would be into, is my understanding. We have had a number of winter exercises with, like paratroopers and that kind of thing, that do not involve the traditional perception of low-level flying at Goose Bay, but that has been a regular occurrence. It is not as big bucks as the aircraft training because they are not buying the jet fuel, and they are out in a tent instead of in a hotel, that sort of thing.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No. What I am getting at is, the retired colonel or major, whomever he is, goes off to the air show in Lichtenfels somewhere, and he meets with the colonels over there who are with NATO, and he is trying to negotiate some kind of deals to bring these people and their money and their bucks and their personnel to Canada. Is he exclusively there to negotiate contracts for Goose Bay, or is he saying: Look, this is what we have. We have this in Goose Bay, we have this out in Comox, we have this out somewhere else, and we have this somewhere else. Or is he there exclusively to negotiate for 5 Wing Goose? That is my question, because you did say that it had the name Goose Bay on it at one point.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, at one time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So now is it –

MR. DUTTON: I believe there are different marketing people for the other bases, and there have been other cases where they have done other types of training. Like Cold Lake is an area that does a lot of military training, Wainwright and Suffield in Alberta, and I believe they have different structures for marketing purposes than what they have at Goose Bay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So, is it fair to say that the Canadian military who negotiate these deals, whether they be with NATO or anyone else, that they are just not over there negotiating and marketing exclusively for Goose; they are there marketing from a Canadian perspective?

MR. DUTTON: For these two individuals who run this marketing office, they would be focused on Goose Bay, it is my understanding. The Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces, would be looking for foreign military training at any number of bases in Canada because it would help to subsidize Canada's own training activities. One of the dilemmas we have always had is that the Canadian Forces commitment to doing its own training activity at Goose Bay has not been great.

There is a forward operating location hangar there where CF-18 aircraft could be housed and they are not housed there. They have to deploy aircraft from Bagotville to Goose Bay in order to participate in multi-national training at Goose Bay. They do not have their own aircraft there. Their higher priority in the system would be on the bases where they have a greater operational requirement.

This is why we thought that the rapid response battalion and the UAV squadron would be two very positive things. Besides the money that they would bring in from the activity itself, it would also give Goose Bay an operational requirement. We would hope then the department would have taken more ownership of and responsibility for continuing to ensure the long-term future of the base.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The point I am making and trying to understand here is, when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Labrador Affairs goes off to a meeting with someone from NATO, there are obviously other players in the game, for example, the federal military people.

Really, it is not a case of what relationship we just have with the NATO people, whether it is Germans or Italians or whatever it is. We have to get on the good side of whoever is in the Canadian military office as well, I guess, because they have other interests as well, whether it goes to Goose, goes to Cold Lake or goes wherever else. Is that fair to say?

MR. DUTTON: Well, I think that is part of the reason why the minister meets and writes so regularly with the Minister of National Defence; because, as the head person, that is something that he has always done. That has been the case with our previous ministers, and Ministers of Defence as well.

There has always been a strong economic development argument for Goose Bay. We continually have to ensure that at the highest level 5 Wing remains a priority, in the event that there are elements within the department or the Canadian Forces who would be just as happy to try to direct training to some other location.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What is your Secretariat doing to be proactive to ensure that we have a good shot at this stuff now, anything that comes up in the next year?

MR. DENINE: Well, exactly what I just said a few minutes ago in terms of we made sure, number one - there were some environmental issues up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay in terms of 5 Wing Goose Bay - that we were not in the way of making any regulations that would stop it. Number two, we have made our feelings known to the ministers. Number three, we are in the process now to look at the marketing plan with the marketing people who were appointed recently. Each and every opportunity - the Minister of National Defence, Minister MacKay, is quite well aware of our concern with 5 Wing Goose Bay. We have, in IGA, a person responsible for the military there, and he is in constant contact with that military base and anything and all we can do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A total change of direction here, Minister. Our office was briefed last year at the Labrador Expo about the concept of the Arctic Gateway. That is, of course, where they are saying when it comes to sovereignty, environmental sovereignty, safety concerns, because of the Northwest Passage being ice-free for the first time ever sort of - and it was important, from this Province's perspective, to see if anything were to happen with the Northwest Passage, particularly from transportation, safety, environmental issues, how we might be able to put Labrador front and centre to take advantage of that. What, if anything, has your department had on the environment on that issue?

MR. DENINE: From our perspective, again when you talk about the Northern Gateway in terms of the accessibility into the North, when you are looking at a facility such as 5 Wing Goose Bay with absolutely phenomenal infrastructure, different capabilities up there, and again, with the sovereignty in the North, we promote it as much as we can in terms of the ministers responsible, in terms of saying we would like to see funding put in place, and that will help promote that as a focal point of the North.

Sean, do you want to add to it?

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

One of the approaches we had looked at over the past period of time was related to the gateways and border crossings fund. The federal government had established a $2.1 billion program to support the development of trade gateways. The Northern Gateway was where we had positioned ourselves with respect to the Atlantic Gateway concept. The expectation was that all of the Atlantic Provinces would receive investments.

As the criteria came out for that program, a lot of the components of what we were looking to do to position ourselves as the Northern Gateway did not meet with the federal criteria for the program. So, while we have been encouraged to try to be more strategic in the big picture in looking at our priorities, it has become a much more narrowly interpreted infrastructure program.

I think, as the Premier mentioned in the media last week, he raised the gateway with the federal ministers during his visit in Ottawa and the Northern Gateway remains a priority. From the gateways and border crossings fund perspective, it may be that we would have to look at other infrastructure that meets the criteria in order to ensure that we get our fair share of that program. We have had a number of discussions with Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and other departments about how we can move forward to continue to position ourselves on the Northern Gateway.

There are a lot of opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador beyond the kind of trade corridor issue with the Northwest Passage. Support for northern sovereignty, the minister mentioned. There is also a lot of potential oil and gas exploration in the North. Newfoundland and Labrador companies have a lot of expertise in that work in harsh environments, so there is a niche opportunity for us to access there and a number of other opportunities where our geographic location would be an advantage.

I think it is still a high priority for government, and we will be working with those departments to continue to try to position ourselves. Some of that may be our own policy and spending initiatives and some of it may be trying to look at where there are federal programs that would help us to achieve that vision.

Certain elements of the Northern Gateway have been funded through other programs, even though they had not received gateways and border crossings fund monies like the continued development of the Trans-Labrador Highway, the St. Anthony port development and things of that nature.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, the Premier said in the House that this government is not signing on to the current negotiations with the EU until certain trade issues have been addressed. Of course, we know the European ban on seal products will have a devastating effect on us. What involvement has the IGA Secretariat had on this issue in the last year, the whole piece about the Premier's position on not signing on, and how has that impacted the seal piece? This is a foreign affairs type of thing, which I do think would be in your shop.

MR. DENINE: We are observer status - that is the word, I think, observers -in terms of looking at the rights of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that our interests are protected, especially with regard to the fisheries.

We are monitoring very, very closely. As a matter of fact, just last week people were in Ottawa with meetings. There have been three separate meetings on the go now, and there has been an individual appointed to have a look at the ongoing talks and to monitor them very, very closely.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What are the implications for us right now of not signing on?

MR. DENINE: Implications - yes, go ahead.

MR. DUTTON: The Province has indicated that we are not endorsing the negotiating mandate of the Government of Canada because we have not seen progress on our issues on the trade front in the past, particularly fisheries and seal related issues.

While we are monitoring it, the issue of whether to sign on or not is really dependent upon the issues that are in provincial jurisdiction. This is unusual negotiation from other trade talks like NAFTA in the past in that the European Union sort of demanded that the provinces and territories participate because they wanted to gain access to provincial procurement in particular. There are other issues that would overlap into provincial jurisdiction like labour and environment and so on.

Anything that would be signed by the Government of Canada in its own jurisdiction would equally apply to Newfoundland and Labrador. Seafood tariffs, for example, if Canada was successful in eliminating seafood tariffs in the European Union, it would be for all Canadian products, including in Newfoundland and Labrador, irrespective of whether Newfoundland and Labrador became a party to the agreement, because tariffs are in federal jurisdiction.

The decision that the Province would have to make would be whether there would be sufficient comfort with the terms, that Newfoundland and Labrador could accept those terms to opt in, and that the benefits would outweigh the costs of doing so.

As the minister mentioned, we have been participating from the position of an observer but that has not restrained the Province from advocating to the federal government positions that it should be taking with respect to matters of interest to us, particularly on seafood tariffs and other issues on trade in nickel, shipbuilding and any number of other topics.

Also, we have interacted with the other provinces and territories on what regime there would be put in place for provincial and territorial coverage in an agreement. That is not to say we have made any decision to opt in or not to opt in, but we certainly try to ensure that the best outcome is reached for all while we retain our sort of observer status. We have been given all access to negotiation sessions, to draft documents, and any other information that any other province and territory has received in the course of the negotiation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just trying to understand, again, how the system works and how the process works. We have a Canadian team that also has provincial representatives on it when it comes to negotiating with the EU, which is my understanding.

We have been asked to participate or to sign off; which is it? You are saying we are there as an observer.

MR. DUTTON: They have asked for provinces and territories to participate and to be bound by the agreement, and provinces do not sign international treaties.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Agreed.

MR. DUTTON: So, there is still an open question about how, in practice, provinces and territories will become bound by the treaty. The mechanism for doing that has yet to be clearly resolved, but clearly the EU would like to have access to provincial procurement as one of the sweeteners for this arrangement because they recognize procurement by provinces, territories and large municipalities is a very valuable piece of business that they would like to have guaranteed access to.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

The feds, for example, will and can, and do have the constitutional right to sign off when it comes to fisheries, for example. The Province, my understanding is, would have to be a party in order to agree to procurement issues in the Province. The EU is insisting that provinces be at the table with the feds and everybody sign off together. We are there now as an observer on our Canadian negotiating team.

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is it true and correct that the Canadian team can still, for example, go off and make a deal now with the EU on fisheries without our consent and without our participation? We are participating, but only as an observer.

MR. DUTTON: Well, they could do that whether we were a participant or an observer, because we are not invited to tables that are in exclusive federal jurisdictions such as tariffs. We are only invited to participate at those tables where provincial jurisdictions are being discussed.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

So, what is the significance of saying we are not going to sign on? If it does not make any difference anyway whether we are going to sign on or not sign on, the feds are going to do what they want when it comes to fisheries. If it is in their interest -

MR. DUTTON: Well, I would say the feds are a lot more conscious of the need to do something properly on fisheries than they would have been otherwise.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just trying to get some reality around this, because we can hear a news story saying we have not signed on to negotiations for the EU - not to take anything away from the people in this Province - but, like myself, I would say 95 per cent of us have no idea whether that is something fit to eat. What I am trying to understand is that somebody should educate us as to what are the consequences of making a statement such as: We are not going to sign on. If the feds can go off and do what they please anyway, because it is in their exclusive jurisdiction on fisheries, what is the consequence of us saying we are not going to sign, other than making a statement that we are not going to participate and be seen as condoning what you are doing?

MR. DENINE: Well, basically, our interest there is very simple. We want to protect the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, first and foremost.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How are we -

MR. DENINE: The fishery is one. The thing is that by making the statement, as my deputy mentioned, the federal government are quite well aware of our stance and what we want to do. We are going to be there to monitor that our interests are protected; and the fact that, as you say, they can sign on agreements whenever, the thing is that by doing it they know that they are not doing the best interests of the Province. Now, at the end of the day we do not know what the agreement is going to say. We do not know what the agreement is going to say, what it is going to do, but our basic objective there is to make sure that our interests are protected.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I have no problem with that. That is a good motherhood statement. Anybody who lives in this Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, who says that we do not care about the interests of this Province, has something wrong anyway; that is a given. I would think that is a given.

What I am saying is: Why would we deliberately say we want observer status, which to me indicates we are not a participant? We are saying we are going to come to your meetings, we want copies of all your briefing notes and everything else, but we are not going to participate. To me, participate means talking. If we are not going to talk to you while we are at these meetings - it is like this gentleman over here this morning from the NDP; he is an observer but he has no right to ask any questions here.

So, if we are going to sit at these meetings as an observer - we have already said that we are not signing on to it, we are there as an observer - how are we protecting our interests if we put ourselves in a forum where we already said we are going to muzzle ourselves? That is my question. There is something missing in that.

MR. DUTTON: I guess I would make a distinction between being an observer and a monitor and not saying anything. As I mentioned, we would continue to have the opportunity to advocate for the provincial interest in areas in federal jurisdiction, and our officials are continuing to do that. As well, we would have a number of meetings with the other provinces and territories where, as a group, they would strategize about priority issues for them, and where to position themselves, and we continue to have input into that process. Where there are jurisdictions that maybe have not picked up on issues that would affect us all, we have had the opportunity to bring them to their attention as well to ensure that everybody is working on the same page. What we have indicated is that we not endorse the federal negotiating mandate, that we are not an active participant from that point of view, so we have reserved the right not to sign on to any deal at the end of the negotiation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

What is the latest on our seventy-thirty fishery retirement package, Minister?

MR. DENINE: Seventy-thirty?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We had talked that program; that has been floating around for years, too. Any discussions?

MR. DENINE: Yes. We have said as a government that we are willing to step up to the plate, and as of right now the federal government has still not stepped up to the plate; that is the bottom line.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have you discussed it with Minister Shea in the last twelve months?

MR. DENINE: I have not, no.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

What is the status -

MR. DUTTON: I could not say whether that would have been part of the discussions between the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No, but from an IGA's perspective -

MR. DENINE: I just want to make sure I give you the right answer; just in case I forgot, I did.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The taxation issue we had, again I come back to that, and I raised it last year, Ms Elizabeth Harvey of Isle aux Morts, for example, she is getting to be a national icon now. She probably knows more about taxation than half of the tax lawyers in the country. God bless her.

MR. DENINE: No question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just wondering, what is the status? Do you have any update to give us as to where that sits now?

MR. DENINE: Yes. Well, the position of the federal government is basically they are doing nothing about it right now. It is in the courts and they are waiting for the court decision. I can tell you, I spoke to Ms Harvey a few times, but not in the last year or so, it might have been a couple of years ago, but - who is the minister now?

MR. DUTTON: You wrote to Minister Ashfield about it.

MR. DENINE: Yes, Keith Ashfield. I wrote to him and his response back to me was: Look, this is something we are not commenting on. It is in the courts and we will wait and see what happens. So that is the status of that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Ambassador Sullivan left our provincial shores, of course, and went off to be the fish ambassador for the country. Last year when I raised his name in these hearings I asked: Has there been any contact with him on any file? Your answer was no, you had not. I am just wondering, has anything changed on that? Have you had any discussions whatsoever with Loyola Sullivan on any issues?

MR. DENINE: No. Not with our office, no. There could be other departments, maybe, but not ours.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Any involvement of IGA in the NAFO changes regarding the 200-mile limit and the fisheries issues that were discussed?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was the nature of your involvement?

MR. DUTTON: Well, that was an issue that the Premier had raised at intergovernmental meetings, at the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, and also at the Council of Atlantic Premiers. We worked with Fisheries in preparing briefing materials and analysis and correspondence on that issue. As you know, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries advocated regularly on that matter, and I think the Minister of Fisheries may have testified two or three times at parliamentary committees as well. So we worked together closely with Fisheries on that issue.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The catastrophic events that are unfolding in Louisiana, of course, with the oil spill brought the economic and particularly, specifically, the environmental risk associated with the oil industry to bear in the last week or two, ten days. We know government has been working with the feds on the SmartBay project in Placentia. I am just wondering if you have involvement in that as an IGA, or is that also left to a line department?

MR. DUTTON: SmartBay?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: SmartBay project in Placentia Bay.

MR. DUTTON: Well, that was one of the elements of the Northern Gateway proposal that we had advanced, and I guess Innovation, Trade and Rural Development has been particularly focused on that, given its application to the oceans tech sector. It is something that we have continued to advance to the federal government as a funding priority for that to continue on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could you tell me who exactly are all the partners involved in the SmartBay piece?

MR. DUTTON: We have application of a number of sectors. I believe INTRD has been the lead department, but Fisheries and Natural Resources would have particular interest as well because of the oil tank traffic and fishing activity in the area. They would probably be the main departments that have an interest in it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would have just assumed that Environment would have been the lead on it.

MR. DUTTON: Well, Environment is responsible for the environment on land. When you are talking about on the sea, it would only be where it would meet with the coastal zone, I guess, that their interest would come in. They would have an issue more so as far as the SmartBay project and oil spill response; that is where the interaction would occur between the offshore petroleum board when it is on the rig, Transport Canada when it is on a tanker, and the Coast Guard if it hits the water, and then Environment and Conservation if it hits the beach.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This may seem off the wall to a lot of people in this Province who do not deal with it on a daily basis, but we hear a lot in our media – particularly NTV which carries a lot of the court activities and RNC, RCMP activities, crime in general – about child exploitation on the Internet. Does your office have any involvement with that type of thing?

We hear, for example, even here in the City of St. John's, that there are issues of human trafficking and sex workers happening here in our little city. Do you, in IGA, have any involvement with anybody in the federal government or is that left to Justice?

MR. DENINE: That would be left to Justice.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Regarding the Quebec Innu hunting issue - again, a transborder issue - the Quebec Innu claim, of course, that they deserve to be recognized, particularly with regard to: they were not involved in the New Dawn Agreement. Has your secretary had any involvement in that, in the discussions with the Quebec Innu? I understand they were looking for meetings.

MR. DUTTON: The Quebec Innu are not a government.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So you would not deal with them at all?

MR. DUTTON: No, and I can say I do not because I wear another hat that we will talk about on Wednesday night.

MR. DENINE: Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So IGA would not have any involvement with them as a group requesting a meeting?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Did IGA have any involvement in the CF(L)Co/Nalcor/government application or case that is unfolding now with regard to the Upper Churchill and the court action?

MR. DUTTON: No, that is a legal matter.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. I am just trying to verify where you guys fit in, because I would not want to go away saying: Well, you should have asked IGA about that.

Do you have any idea when the Citizens' Rep position might be filled or advertised, or is that something that is left to the Premier?

MR. DENINE: That will be left to government to decide when that will be done. When the person is found, he or she will be announced by the government at the time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So far, are you aware of any –

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I understood that the advertisements were done through your office the last time; there was an advertisement process.

MR. DUTTON: I do not know; I was not here then.

MR. DENINE: I cannot remember. If it was, we can check it out for you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Do you have any involvement with anybody on the federal level regarding the Stephenville Airport? They are constantly in a funding issue there.

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You talk about airports, the use of, trying to improve the number of people who use the airports. Has your Secretariat had any involvement in that regard, or has that been left to Transportation, whomever?

MR. DENINE: That would be Transportation.

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible) another department.

MR. DENINE: It would be Transportation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. I asked that in particular because there was some federal funding available. There was an issue out there that the airport authority or the airport committee that is out there had not applied for some funding that was available from the feds. I did not know –

MR. DUTTON: (Inaudible) program.

MR. DENINE: What program?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: There is some infrastructure program. There was an application that could have been and should have been filed apparently with the feds for some infrastructure money. That became a major issue. They had public hearings in Stephenville last year. I was actually in attendance, as were the members for that area, Ms Burke and Mr. Cornect. I am just wondering if your department, IGA, had any involvement whatsoever or would that have been dealt with again by a line department?

MR. DENINE: Line department.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, if this was Airports Capital Assistance Program than that is just unilaterally administered by the federal government; it is not a cost-shared program. We would not have any involvement in that. If it was Building Canada Fund, because we have had certain airport projects at Deer Lake and Happy Valley-Goose Bay that have been funded under Building Canada, they are done under a cost-shared agreement.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right.

MR. DUTTON: They would be eligible if that was the program they were talking about. The negotiation of the cost-shared agreement would be something the minister would be a party to. The selection of the projects is something that either would be driven by applications or otherwise priority-set by the lead departments, for example, Transportation and Works or Municipal Affairs, depending on whether it was the infrastructure program or the community's component.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes. In my understanding it was application driven. So I guess after you guys were involved in the actual negotiation of the bilateral it was dealt with by the line department.

MR. DUTTON: Yes, it would be only if there was some issue that people asked our assistance for. We would not have an active role in the setting of decisions on which projects get funded. That is really something you rely on the engineers and people to evaluate, what should be at the top of the priority list.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just a small issue – I guess it is small depending on what perspective you look at - the Quebec inaccurate maps issue was raised. Did that go anywhere in terms of discussions with anybody from your shop? That would be a governmental thing, I am sure.

MR. DENINE: Well, we have made representation to the appropriate ministers, and the fact that the Romaine, was it…?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Romaine, yes.

MR. DENINE: Romaine, yes. We talked about that and we made representation to the ministers in writing, saying: When, in future, you refer to that, you refer to the correct boundary.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could we get copies of that correspondence?

MR. DUTTON: I think we sent it to you last year, did we not? That was the minister's submission to the environmental assessment panel on the Romaine River hydro project.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Can we just double-check and see if we did, in fact, have it? Because I do not remember seeing that one on the Romaine one.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is the Romaine hydro-electric project I am thinking of.

MR. DENINE: Yes, and they were consistently used in (inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

To finish with that issue, IGA, I guess we are on to the Volunteer sector.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We had some discussions last year about possible tax credits for volunteers, particularly firemen. I get asked about this constantly by firemen, usually, asking –

MR. DENINE: Yes, you do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - is there any work being done on this or proposals considered?

MR. DENINE: Well, the question has been asked. I believe in the federal government they have done that and it was difficult to control. The thing is that when I talk about people, people who volunteer, people come to me constantly and say: Well, look, we should get a tax credit for different things we do in terms of the hours of service.

The other thing, too, is that sometimes volunteer sectors are not registered within government guidelines. They might be an ad hoc group. It could be a hockey moms group supporting a hockey team; they are volunteering. It could be a church association that are not given charitable status. So the issue becomes monitoring it, and the federal government has not bought into it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there anything provincially that can be done in terms of tax -

MR. DENINE: We were looking at it. Ross, you can probably continue, but that was an issue that was brought up at our Corner Brook meeting. We had a volunteer summit and that is one of the things that we can take under advisement, but it is a difficult one to do.

MR REID: Minister, the members will remember, last year when we discussed this, we discussed this in the context of volunteer firemen. It had been something that had been discussed at great length inside the study that had been done by the firefighters association in conjunction with Municipal Affairs and others. It is one that remains controversial for the reasons the minister has outlined.

From the summit in Corner Brook we have come away with ten priorities. One of the priorities that the sixty community leaders have asked us to collectively look at is the use of tax incentives by any level of government: municipal, provincial or federal. That, therefore, is something that we will spend some time looking at in conjunction with the community.

We will do a jurisdictional scan and look at what other jurisdictions have done. We will look at some of the things that have been there historically and then bring it forward again. I will tell you, even from that meeting in Corner Brook, there are an awful lot of people who think it is a bad idea, and there are an awful lot of people who think it is an excellent idea, let's be clear, but it is very mixed. The person who supports it least is the one who has to administer it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You mentioned the ten priorities. Have they been publicly announced?

MR. DENINE: No. What happened, in early March we brought together a major cross-section of large groups, small groups, medium groups, regionalized and so on, and asked them – we had a summit: Where do you think our Secretariat should go, and what do you think are some of the priorities that you have and then we can incorporate within ours? What happened after the meeting - there were some teleconferences on the go since - we are now compiling the information and basically that will assume part of our Secretariat. So, published, no.

OFFICIAL: Not yet.

MR. DENINE: Not yet.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Not yet?

MR. DENINE: No.

OFFICIAL: But it will.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is what I am saying, yes.

MR. DENINE: We are trying to redefine everything. There were a lot of things said, so what we are trying to do is redefine what was said, exactly what was meant by it so we can move from there.

MR. REID: It was interesting; the facilitator in this case was Sister Elizabeth Davis. She asked us to conduct the discussions through the three days based on tables as opposed to breakout rooms, so what we have is ten groups. Those ten groups have been directed to get together, as the minister said, over conference calls - a couple of them are doing it by e-mail - to come back with their belief on or their sense of how these ten recommendations can be implemented, who should take the lead, and that sort of thing. Once that is assimilated we will publish it; very predictable, a training strategy, the use of what technology, things like the use of a tax credit, investigate benefits for employees, that sort of thing.

MR. DENINE: Policies, insurance.

MR. REID: Right, all of those sorts of things, yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: It is my understanding, before we call for the subheads, that the questions asked and information sought, or answers to questions, should come back to the Committee for distribution. That is my understanding. I am not exactly sure, but I think it is. Basically it is more or less for the copy for our minutes here, right?

MR. DENINE: If that is the process then that is fine. Whatever the procedure, we have to follow through.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is what is done in other committees.

CHAIR: It is more or less for our files.

MR. DENINE: I know I have a copy that I sent to your office, Opposition Office, last year. Whatever we have to do, Mr. Chair, whatever the requirements are, we will follow through.

CHAIR: Yes. We can confirm that, but it is just my understanding anyway.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, I will call for the subheads.

CLERK: Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, 2.3.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: 2.3.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive?

CLERK: I am sorry, 2.3.01 to 2.3.04 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 2.3.01 to 2.3.04 inclusive for Intergovernmental Affairs carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

On motion, subheads 2.3.01 through 2.3.04 carried.

CLERK: The Volunteer and Non-Profit, 2.8.01.

CHAIR: Shall the Volunteer and Non-Profit 2.8.01 carry?

On motion, subhead 2.8.01 carried.

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

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat carried without amendment.

CHAIR: I will call for a motion to adjourn.

MR. DINN: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by John Dinn.

I would like to thank everybody for their time today, and the minister and your staff.

Thank you very much.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.