The Committee met at 9:00 am in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Mr. Hutchings): I would like to welcome everybody to the Estimates this morning, and welcome the Social Services Committee. This morning we will be reviewing the Estimates of Municipal Affairs.

Before I get started, there are just a couple of housekeeping issues. Normally what we do, the minister will have ten or fifteen minutes to make some opening comments and I will ask him to introduce his staff. As well, I will ask the Committee to introduce themselves and then we will proceed into questioning on the Estimates. We can go for approximately fifteen minutes for the Committee members and I guess you can rotate back and forth, if that will suffice.

Right now I will turn it over to the minister to make some comments, and then I ask you to introduce your staff.

When witnesses are giving responses to questions, I ask, for the purpose of Hansard, if you could identify yourself each time before you respond, and you can refer to Committee members by their actual name.

Minister.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Estimates Committee.

I am pleased to be here today to present the Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs. I have some brief opening comments, following which we will be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have on the department's Estimates.

Before I go any further, please allow me to introduce the staff members of my department, and the executive who have joined us here this morning.

To my immediate left is Mr. Baxter Rose, Deputy Minister. Next to Baxter is Gerry Antle, Assistant Deputy Minister of Engineering Services; Bill Duggan, Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment Services; Ms Marilyn McCormack, Assistant Deputy Minister of FES-NL, responsible for the Business Continuity Plan; Mac Blundon, Manager of Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements; and, Paul Forristall, Manager of Financial Operations of Municipal Affairs.

OFFICIAL: Denise.

MR. DENINE: And – I am waiting to get a hold of my communications person; they didn't put Denise's name down – my Executive Assistant, Denise Humphries.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Municipal Affairs continues to support our Province's municipalities through substantial financial support, infrastructure development, legislative tools for municipalities, and training for elected and appointed officials to ensure greater professionalism at the local government level.

We fulfill our department's mandate by working in partnership with several key stakeholders: groups such as Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators, the Association of Fire Services, and the Combined Councils of Labrador.

There are several areas which may come up for discussion this morning. Capital works commitments: government will increase its capital budget commitments by $34.4 million annually, for a total provincial commitment to $84.3 million per year. This results in a provincial investment of municipal infrastructure of $252.9 million for 2008-2011, an annual increase of 69 per cent.

New cost-sharing, Mr. Chair: as I recently announced, starting April 1, 2008, the new cost-sharing ratios apply only to new projects funded in 2008 onwards, and cannot be applied retroactively. The new cost-sharing ratios will provide streamlined and simplified approaches to accessing capital works funding on a go-forward basis. The ratios are as follows: 90-10 for populations less than 3,000, which are 258 municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, 31 per cent of the provincial population; 80-20 for populations between 3,000 and 7,000, and that is sixteen municipalities and 14 per cent of the provincial population; 70-30 for populations greater than 7,000, and that is nine municipalities, and the nine municipalities make up 43 per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Local Service Districts would also qualify for funding supports on approved projects. Together with federal and municipal investments, the annualized total investment in municipal infrastructure will be approximately $135 million.

Funding is also targeted to the municipal infrastructure investment strategy, including: $4 million to begin eliminating untreated sewage outfalls; $7 million for strategic projects such as the Corner Brook water treatment facility, the Happy Valley-Goose Bay sewage treatment facility, and we will also have $5.5 million to proceed with the implementation of the Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy for our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; $6 million for the development of innovative methods for providing potable drinking water - and that was recently announced last Friday - especially to residents of small rural communities that may not have the fiscal or human capacity to manage the large scale water treatment plants, in co-ordination with the Department of Environment and Conservation; and, $1.7 million for firefighting equipment.

The department continues to pay down capital costs to construction rather than finance long-term debt. In 2007-2008 MRIF and CSIF programs did not generate the anticipated cash flows, so you may have noticed lower anticipated spending last year. This is due in part to projects being approved but not yet completed, and payments not yet made. These issues will be addressed by the department in the new fiscal year.

Also, two large scale projects being funded under CSIF, the Corner Brook water treatment plant and Happy Valley-Goose Bay sewage treatment plant, have not received final federal approval, which resulted in the delay of construction schedule and hence no payments towards the cost of these projects.

In 2007-2008, expenditures under the gas tax program were less than anticipated due to funding allocated to the Waste Management Strategy not yet utilized. It is expected that all funding will be utilized in the coming fiscal year because we will be spending more this year than we did in previous years.

Community Enhancement Programs: over the past several years Municipal Affairs was tasked with administering a number of employment support programs. In 2007-2008, $6.4 million was spent in support of Community Enhancement Programs, and a further $425,000 was managed by the department but charged against the Fishing Industry Renewal budget of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. These expenditures reflect the investment to assist workers in many rural areas of the Province, as well as special measures to assist workers affected by restricting the fish processing sector.

Budget 2008-2009 provides approximately $4.6 million in the Community Enhancement Program, which includes an increase of almost $600,000 to cover a recent increase in the minimum wage. There was an additional $350,000 carried over from 2007-2008 to cover final payments of these projects completed in 2007-2008, for which the final project audits could not be completed before the Province's accounts were closed in 2007-2008. The total of 2008-2009 is $4.9 million, including the $350,000 carry-over.

Fire and emergency services: Mr. Chair, fire and emergency services, FES-NL, was established in April 2007 and is tasked with the implementation of an emergency management strategy designed to develop and maintain a modern and robust emergency management system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. FES-NL is primarily responsible for both the provision of emergency preparedness, emergency response, planning, training, and for a leadership role in co-ordination and delivery of fire protection and fire prevention services throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition, the agency is leading the development of a provincial Business Continuity Plan for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. During the fiscal year 2007-2008, FES-NL maintained the primary focus on organizational renewal, the development of improved capacity in areas of policy analysis, development and information management and regional emergency planning. Budget 2008-2009 provides resources for continuation of these initiatives for increased levels of activity on both the emergency management and fire protection sides of the agency mandate.

Mr. Chair, I thank you, and I and my officials will be pleased to respond to any questions that come forth.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Before we proceed, I will just ask the Committee to introduce themselves, from my immediate right. Could we start there?

MR. KING: Good morning.

Darin King, MHA for Grand Bank.

MS SULLIVAN: Good morning.

Susan Sullivan, Grand Falls–Windsor–Buchans.

MR. CORNECT: Good morning, Minister, and everyone else.

Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

MR. COLLINS: Felix Collins, Placentia & St. Mary's

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, the District of Port de Grave.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi.

MR. LOVELESS: Elvis Loveless, Opposition staff.

CHAIR: I am Keith Hutchings, MHA for the District of Ferryland. I should have introduced myself at the beginning, I guess.

I will now ask the Clerk to call the first heading.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. carry?

Okay, Committee, questions?

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible) and have the opportunity to go through a few liners, I guess, and then a few questions besides that.

To begin with, heading 1.1.01., under the Minister's Office, with regard to Salaries, I was just wondering how many positions that entails, and probably a brief rundown of what they may be.

MR. DENINE: In the Minister's Office?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. DENINE: Well, obviously, myself.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. DENINE: There is a secretary to me. There is my executive assistant and deputy minister, and a secretary for the deputy minister. That is all-inclusive in the minister's suite.

MR. BUTLER: Under 06., Purchased Services, I was just wondering if you could explain what that might be, the Purchased Services there under the Minister's Office.

MR. DENINE: That reflects basically the printing, photocopying, leasing and entertainment costs.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The other one is 07. and, if you don't mind, on the same page, or in our book it is the same page, under Executive Support - like, for instance, under 07. in each one of them, Property, Furnishings and Equipment -

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: - it shows nothing budgeted, and there is nothing budgeted again this year. I was just wondering, it must be something just came up on the –

MR. DENINE: What happened there, Roland, is that, when we moved to the fourth floor - we were down on the lower floor - and that is the cost associated with moving up to the fourth floor.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

MR. DENINE: That is reflective, I guess, in a lot of the Estimates there. As you go down through them you will see that, and that is probably the answer to all of it.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

You have all my questions taken away from me, look.

MR. DENINE: I have taken half your questions away now. We can go home now, Mr. Chair.

MR. BUTLER: Under 1.2.02., Administrative Support, under 03., Transportation and Communications, last year – I am not going to answer, because I think probably I know what it is, even though I am asking the question - it was budgeted at $67,000 and it went to $187,000.

MR. DENINE: Wait now, $67,000?

MR. BUTLER: It was $67,800 and it went to $187,200, number 03., Transportation and Communications.

MR. DENINE: I thought you were down in the other one. Which one are you on?

OFFICIAL: The next page.

MR. DENINE: The next page?

MR. BUTLER: Under 1.2.02. I am sorry about that.

MR. DENINE: This increase reflects the payment to the Municipal Assessment Agency. There was a grievance procedure which was $126,000 for thirty-six employees, $3,500 each, and also lower communication and travel costs. That is because of the one-time settlement with the Municipal Assessment Agency.

If you want an explanation of that, I will pass it over to my deputy minister and he can –

MR. BUTLER: No, I guess I was wrong. I though you were going to tell me it was due to the storm last year, and the transportation costs which I know would have been up anyway because everybody was going everywhere at that time.

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Going to just a few other general questions now, has there been an independent environmental assessment done on Robin Hood Bay recently, or within the not-too-distant past?

MR. DENINE: Yes, there was. There have been two reports. There was a report done by the City of St. John's and then there was a peer review on that in terms of whether or not Robin Hood Bay can be retrofitted and lined comparable to an engineered landfill. Basically, there were two, one that St. John's did and there was a peer review to support that.

MR. BUTLER: I know we have heard so much about the teepee incinerators and the timeframe. Has any permission be given to continue operating beyond December 31? I know there was some confusion over that a little while ago.

MR. DENINE: No. Roland, that is under the Department of Environment and they control the dates. It is not under Municipal Affairs. Those closure dates are Environment, so Conservation and Environment would be the ones to ask that question in terms of that.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to the Avondale Town Council, what is the status of that town now considering last year the town was shut down for a period of time?

MR. DENINE: The last number of years - you are right, I just wanted to get clarification before I moved on - we had an administrator in there to take over and I think that was for two years, a year and a half.

OFFICIAL: Last summer.

MR. DENINE: Last summer. Right now we are in the process of getting an election there in that community again. So we are moving forward with that process.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I think it was last year in the Estimates meeting, the issue of regional governments - I do not want to use the word that was used years ago, too bad amalgamation.

MR. DENINE: What is that word?

MR. BUTLER: We had the amalgamator. I know the minister said last year, I think, that there were some thirty-some odd communities that were considering coming together, not all in the one area now, I do not mean it that way. I was just wondering: has anything developed on that recently? Will we see anything advancing in the future?

MR. DENINE: Well, I hope so. That has been probably one of the areas I am looking at in terms of regional services coming together, the number of fire departments, the number of people looking at water treatment, et cetera, and snow clearing and garbage collection. We have seconded one of our employees, Mr. Keith Warren, who will be basically charged with that, to go out and have dialogue with those people who are looking at coming together, those who want to share services. He has taken the lead role on that and he has been in it now I would say three weeks.

Just recently I spoke to the symposium, MNL, in Gander, and one of the things I mentioned was that we had seconded Mr. Keith Warren to go out and talk to municipalities, to those who wish to engage in regional services. I talked to him after the dinner and he said, I wish you did not have to say that. About four or five people came to him in different parts of the Province: can we talk to you about some of these?

We are aggressively pursuing it, and again you are right on in terms of whether or not the amalgamation word is not there, because that is not part of our mandate.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, I was wondering how I was doing for time, because the other day they had the clock working and we knew then we were running out.

CHAIR: No, you are doing fine.

MR. BUTLER: I am fine, okay.

CHAIR: You can carry on with another question and after that you can probably –

MR. BUTLER: You can cut me off anyway.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. DENINE: If I am going on too long, you can cut me off.

MR. BUTLER: No, no.

MR. DENINE: I do not mind that.

MR. BUTLER: So you said we would move now, my time is up?

CHAIR: You can have another question and then we move.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

One of the other questions I had, Minister: we all know the terrible situation in Daniel's Harbour with the landslide down there.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering if you can give us an update on that. What was the cost of what did happen there? I know the road had to be changed or whatever.

MR. DENINE: I am going to make a few general comments on the whole disaster thing first, and then one of my staff will give you the details on that.

We have had a number of disasters over the last number of years, and right now I am very confident in the fact of the system that we have set up and put in, FES-NL, that on a go-forward basis we are going to be much more efficient in getting things out and making sure things are done.

In Daniel's Harbour we have progressed very, very fast. Just to give you an idea how, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but how it gets slowed down in Canada: when I was at the Fire and Emergency Services meetings, FPT meetings, in Halifax in January, they sent out the last cheque. If you can remember the big sleet storm in Ontario, ten years after that they had the last cheque. I mean there are a lot of hoops to get through.

As far as I am concerned, as the minister responsible, God forbid if something ever happens – and I hope I do not even have to call upon anyone – but we are in a good position to make sure things flow a lot better.

Mac, do you want – or Marilyn, whichever?

MR. BLUNDON: Currently, in terms of costs, total costs to date that we anticipate will be $8.5 million. The largest piece of that work will be the $6 million that has been budgeted or allocated for a six-kilometre bypass road that is going to be put in. All the properties that were in the exclusion zone have been taken care of now. There are still a few projects to be done up there, but they should be all finished this year, we are anticipating.

MR. BUTLER: Just along that line, if I have a few seconds.

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead.

MR. BUTLER: You are talking about emergencies and that, and I just want to make a comment on last August when we had the storm. For the life of me I could not think about it, and I asked my hon. Colleague.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chantal.

MR. BUTLER: Chantal.

All I could think about was the one they had down in Alabama. That was bad enough, but seriously, even at that time, through EMO and through the Fire Commissioner's office, I thought it was excellent the way things unfolded. I know my area was not hit as hard. It was pretty bad in the meantime, but probably not as bad as it was in the Placentia area. I know I called in one time, because a lot of the people who were out there did not know where they were going or what they were doing. I called in, and I do not know who I spoke with. I know I spoke with the Fire Commissioner and they graciously came out and had a public meeting at the Bay Arena, which was excellent, because I would say half of the people walked out halfway through the meeting, when they knew what it was all about. Everyone was after something and they did not know where they were going. I just want to compliment the department and whoever was involved in that at that time because even though it is not similar to Daniel's Harbour, an emergency like that and people losing their homes, it was pretty devastating.

MR. DENINE: I think that was the fear of me coming on and being minister, to make sure it happened properly.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I can follow up on those same points, just to get a little bit more information. I agree: from what I observed, things really seemed to have gone well in the last couple of emergencies that we had to deal with.

Has everybody now, who has put in claims, been reimbursed; individual families in particular and businesses too?

MR. DENINE: No, I do not think that everyone is paid, that the claims are paid, and I will refer it back to Mac. I appreciate both your comments and your compliments to the staff and I think they have done a great job. Mac, do you want to…?

MR. BLUNDON: I think at the last count there may have been about thirty-five claims, personal, individual ones that are still ongoing. There have been a few quirks in terms of the adjustors getting their work back. We are hoping to have those clued up within the next month.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MR. DENINE: That is pretty fast.

MS MICHAEL: It is pretty fast, yes. I am impressed.

MR. DENINE: That is why I say, Lorraine, moving forward, that I am very comfortable in trying – I do not even want to talk about disaster, because I hope it does not happen, but if something unfortunate comes, I think we are well prepared for it.

MS MICHAEL: Right. How many claims where there all together in the last one? How many claims were there all together? You said you have thirty-five left.

MR. BLUNDON: There were approximately 900.

MS MICHAEL: Wow! That is great. That is really good.

If I could, then, come back to the discussion of Robin Hood Bay. I would just like to get a bit more information on the studies you referred to. Obviously, I have a very specific interest in Robin Hood Bay.

MR. DENINE: I am sure you do.

MS MICHAEL: I still have constituents with concerns about the decision that was made around Robin Hood Bay.

You mentioned two studies, Dave. One was done by the city and the other one, you said, was a peer?

MR. DENINE: The peer review. Gerry, who did the peer review?

MR. ANTLE: The study done through the City of St. John's was done by a consultant local engineering firm, Kendall Engineering, in association with Gartner Lee, an environmental engineering firm from Ontario. The peer review was done through the Department of Environment and the consultant they utilized was AMEC engineering.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. ANTLE: There were two studies done on determination of the equivalency of Robin Hood Bay to meet the lined standard of the Department of Environment.

MS MICHAEL: We have the St. John's one but I do not think we have that peer review one. So it should be the Department of Environment I should be going to, to get more information on that, and not your department?

MR. DENINE: They are the ones that take the lead on that part of it. We also say it is an engineered landfill. Roland, do not forget the engineered landfill. I am afraid one of these days I am going to say a dump and you are going to kill me out there.

MR. BUTLER: The one I am talking about is.

MS MICHAEL: What about a waste management site?

Anyhow, I think I have one more question. With regard to the overall analysis then that was done, Dave, with regard to the final decision, was that located in Environment as well or did your two departments work together on the final analysis and decision around Robin Hood Bay?

MR. DENINE: That would be a combination of all three departments, wouldn't' it?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: That would be a combination.

MS MICHAEL: So you worked together.

Was there an actual analysis that was done and put down on paper besides these reviews?

MR. DENINE: Gerry.

MR. ANTLE: There were two studies performed. There was an internal analysis done at each department. That is all I know. I do not know the total details of the analysis.

MR. ROSE: The City of St. John's engaged their consulting firm to make a determination as to whether or not Robin Hood Bay could be retrofitted to provide equivalent to lined protection. Their study demonstrated that it could. The Department of Environment, as being the regulator and setting the standards for landfill operations, would not accept the city's engineering report simply at face value. They did not have a problem with it but it would not be a practical or a prudent method to establish public policy on the basis of one interest group. The Department of Environment commissioned a second peer review. AMEC international conducted an independent review and confirmed the findings of the City of St. John's environmental study.

On the basis that we have two independent engineering firms identifying that Robin Hood Bay does in fact meet the equivalent to lined standards then the City of St. John's were given the authority to go ahead with an exhaustive program of testing to prove the basis on which Robin Hood Bay was equivalent to lined.

There were two independent studies done, and then there was detailed testing which confirmed the preliminary studies.

MS MICHAEL: That is really helpful.

MR. DENINE: If I might add Lorraine, if you wish the City of St. John's has a very good presentation that shows you exactly what they have been doing. If you want that the City of St. John's can get that for you.

MS MICHAEL: I think we have that one in the office. I do not think we have the peer review, but we will get that from the Department of Environment.

Thanks a lot. That is helpful, especially how Baxter put it together there.

I will do some line by line now, since I have a few here. I will not repeat anything that my colleague did here. Where did you end?

MR. BUTLER: 1.2.03. I skipped that one because it is furnishings.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is straight forward. That is furniture.

If we go to 2.1.01, under subhead 06, Purchased Services, the budget in 2008 was $91,400, then it was revised up to $125,700 and now this year it is up to $241,400. What are the expected services that you will need to purchase under that?

MR. DENINE: That reflected the increase in higher office rent, and that is to our regional offices. Is that the one I am looking at?

MS MICHAEL: 06.

MR. DENINE: 06.

MS MICHAEL: So it is all a reflection of higher office rent?

MR. DENINE: Yes. Is that the one?

MR. ROSE: The increase there from the $91,400 up to $241,400 is a $150,000 increase.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. ROSE: That is additional funds that have been put into our budget. Roland's question earlier about regionalization initiatives: the department has put an additional $150,000 in our budget to hire some contractual staff to assist in regionalization initiatives and to pay for various commissioner hearings and studies.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. DENINE: The other one was the 06 I was looking at.

MS MICHAEL: No problem. That is why you have a DM.

MR. DENINE: That is why I have him here.

That goes back to Roland's issue about the regionalization.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much.

Under 2.2.01., Policy and Planning, appropriations provide for the policy and planning function of the department, support to municipalities undertaking regional co-operation initiatives, et cetera.

The Grants and Subsidies, subhead 10., do you sort of maintain $74,000 as what you would like to have available? Because I notice in 2008 it was $74,000, you only spent $24,000, and you are budgeting $74,000 again, so it is sort of a base that you keep there in case needed?

MR. DENINE: Basically, the decrease reflects the non-payment of grants due to delays in receipt of grant requests.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. DENINE: Several requests have not been received as of April 2008, thus not paid out in 2007-2008, so that will be carry-over. It includes funding for the Municipal Training and Development Corporation. Basically, that is to be carried over into the other years, so we will need that money.

MS MICHAEL: Right, yes, that is what I was assuming. Thank you.

Under 2.2.02., Urban and Rural Planning, which is developing and implementing policies, providing advice and training to municipalities, investigating boundary changes, et cetera, I thought I would use that head as a way to get into some discussion around the provincial land use management plan. What is going on in the department with regard to the land use plan?

MR. DENINE: Well, we have the St. John's rural-urban planning act; that is the regional plan that is being done now. That is to all the stakeholders in the whole area, the Avalon area.

MS MICHAEL: That is the Northeast Avalon?

MR. DENINE: The Northeast Avalon, yes.

Also, too, we are looking at the Humber Valley.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. DENINE: That is one, and we are anticipating having a chairperson very soon on that and move that strategy forward. That is not to say one is more important than the other; but, as you know, out on the West Coast there is a lot of development going on. People want to come because of the beautiful surroundings that are out there, so we need to basically make sure, because it is virgin land out there, that it is developed in the proper sequence that should be done.

We are moving forward with that strategy.

MS MICHAEL: I do know when I first got elected, in doing some travelling around and meeting with mayors, that certainly is a major concern out there, that all of the municipalities be involved in the decision-making, because they felt at that point they really were not involved in decision-making and things were moving ahead way too quickly.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: How broad will the consultations be?

MR. DENINE: The consultations in those will always incorporate all the stakeholders, like, for example, the business communities, the residents, environmentalists who have some concerns, Boards of Trade, Chambers of Commerce, anyone who has relevancy to what would happen if something was changed – zones – and especially, too, I guess, mostly the residents. There should be a lot of opening sessions where people can go and do a brief.

As you know, Lorraine, a lot of the people – especially, you take the West Coast - there are going to be a lot of environmental people who want to make sure that everything is going to be protected, and there are buffer zones that are maintained so that there is no damage to the environment that is out there now.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. DENINE: Similarly so here in the urban areas you have to be careful, too, in terms of where you are going to put developments, what developments you are going to put there, what impact does it have on the water systems that flow through. People do not realize how many water systems you have here on the Avalon - just go around and look at all the brooks that flow in - so you have to be careful when you are developing around those areas.

MS MICHAEL: That is right, because both areas are really important -

MR. DENINE: No question.

MS MICHAEL: - but you are saying that Humber Valley is going to move more quickly than the Northeast Avalon.

MR. DENINE: No, the Avalon – they are probably pretty close to each other, wouldn't it?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, and you do plan. You have indicated public consultations, open meetings, that kind of thing in both areas.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: That is good to know.

It is a broader discussion, but you are obviously aware of it, and this is one of the concerns in both cases: people are not aware of the waterways and people are not aware of what is happening to them. Kelligrews is one example, in the river in Kelligrews.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: People just take all these waterways for granted. They do not even notice them sometimes, and I think there needs to be quite a bit of work done.

Do you see, down the road, legislation coming to help with buffer zones around water bodies, that kind of thing? I think, in some cases, municipalities need provincial legislation to deal with some of the issues that they are going have to deal with, especially when some of the areas are across municipal lines, where it is not just your municipality that is involved.

MR. DENINE: Right now there are buffer zones. For example, I know when I was in Mount Pearl, going close to brooks, there has to be a thirty-metre buffer zone on either side in terms of rivers and that. I anticipate that would be there because a municipality would have to have some control over that in terms of that; because, let's face it, they are probably the eyes for government when they are out there, because they are a little bit closer to the reality of it and they would need some legislation in terms of that, but I think there is enough legislation now that we have to protect that.

MS MICHAEL: You think there is.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

All right, I will go back to you, Roland, unless there is somebody else, Mr. Chair. I am saying Roland, but there could be somebody else.

CHAIR: Anybody from the Committee?

MR. COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions.

CHAIR: Okay, you can proceed.

MR. COLLINS: I can wait until everybody else is finished, if you want.

CHAIR: No, you can proceed. Go ahead.

MR. COLLINS: First of all, I would like to join with my colleague Roland in complimenting the department on their response with respect to the damages and results of Chantal. I guess my area was probably affected worse than any, and we have no reason to be anything but positive on the way the department responded, the Emergency Services, with respect to the individual property claims of the residents.

I had occasion to visit those people regularly after the damages were done, and talked with them on an ongoing basis. Certainly, they weren't jumping up and down over the results, because if they lost three televisions they didn't get three back. It wasn't an insurance program, it was an assistance program, but I think on the whole most residents were very happy with the response at the end of the day and the response on the part of the officials. They were very co-operative and very helpful, and I have nothing but good things to say.

As you mentioned earlier, the fact that out of the 900 claims these are only a minimum number outstanding, I think, speaks for itself with respect to other disasters that have happened around the Province, so I have to compliment the department on that.

Having said that, to what extent is the department considering a provincial disaster plan to in any way supplement or complement the federal one, or perhaps fill in the gaps, the deficiencies that the federal one has? Because the federal criteria is such, as we all know, so prescriptive and so cut and dried, that it has to be followed to the letter. That causes problems, as we all know, especially with regard to municipal infrastructure, these particular parts of the program; not necessarily the property damage, the person's property damage, but with respect to municipal infrastructure.

The Town of Placentia, as you well know, has had contracts on the go to repair roads and streets and whatnot. The system in place is that the Province decides at this level, because that is the criteria; the Province decides at this level what the criteria covers as far as the federal money is concerned, and pays out that amount, and then the rest is cost-shared between the provinces, and that creates a lot of problems, a lot of delays, as we have already referenced.

Is there any plan on the part of the government or the department to consider its own provincial disaster plan so that you are dealing directly with the Province as opposed to the federal government through the Province, and the Province (inaudible)? Is there anything on the table with respect to that?

MR. DENINE: First of all, the answer to that is no, right away, in terms of doing that, but the thing is, we have been working with the federal government to try to make the requirements a lot easier in terms of getting claims done. Sometimes the reconstruction of claims, especially if disasters are older, it is very hard to get them all together.

The thing with that is, Felix, if we do this, we would be the only Province on our own. There is a certain responsibility to the federal government, and I am not one to let the federal government off the hook in terms of their responsibilities. There is a bit of danger in terms of taking that over for us, because then we become totally responsible for it. Then, if there are any other cost overruns or whatever the case may be, which we take up anyhow, there is a significant amount of cost overruns that the Province sometimes has to pay out because of certain reasons as a disaster takes place. You have been in the disasters. There are times you do things that sometimes cannot be covered by the federal disaster plan and we get caught with it.

The thing is that I wouldn't want to go there, to be honest with you, because I think the responsibility is for all levels of government and I wouldn't let the federal government off the hook for that.

What I would like to see, though, and we have made some progress - even in January when we went to the FPT meetings in Halifax - in terms of loosening up the requirements and how things get done. Minister Day at the time said we will work with the provinces to make sure that it is streamlined as efficiently and effectively as possible. Other than that – Mac, I don't know if you have anything to say on that one?

MR. BLUNDON: The plan is in our business plan for this year. We are going to try to start to get together with a provincial program that will sort of mirror the federal program because, as the minister said, we are not an insurance agency. We will develop a provincial program over the next two years. Our plan is to start it this year and come up with a program that can be quite effective in administering the disasters.

MR. DENINE: You are talking about two different things now. You are talking about our own disaster plan. What are you talking about, the disaster plan in terms of funding and that, or the disaster plan in how we operate?

MR. COLLINS: That is a good point, because I saw in the paper a couple of days ago - there was an interview, I think, with yourself - that the Province is considering, or some time down the road was considering, a disaster plan. That is a different plan altogether than what we are talking about here, I presume.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: In relationship to Mac's last point, when you are talking about a provincial plan, are you referring to a revised version of the –

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: You are talking about a disaster plan? Okay.

What the minister is saying, then, if I understand you correctly, provinces in general do not have their own plans vis-à-vis the federal plan?

MR. DENINE: Can you just explain? I think we are getting mixed up in what a plan is. Can you just explain what you mean by the plan?

MR. COLLINS: The DFA plan - what is it called - the plan that we use for –

MR. DENINE: Disaster Financial Assistance.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, that plan; that is a federal program.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: The Province administers it according to the federal guidelines. That is federal money that the Province administers. It has deficiencies, bureaucratic problems and whatnot that we have all experienced. You are still getting cheques five years later down the road.

When you say you are working on a program with the feds, are working to streamline that program and work on that program to make it more efficient? Is that what you are saying?

MR. DENINE: Yes, because I think we are getting mixed up in the idea. My terms of plan was like taking over and funding it.

MR. COLLINS: No, no.

MR. DENINE: No? Okay.

That is what I was addressing.

MR. COLLINS: No.

MR. DENINE: The idea of trying to streamline it, yes, we are working with the federal-provincial government relationships in order to try to streamline it. Stockwell Day, the minister for disasters, basically said: Look, whatever we can do to help streamline it - because there was a constant barrage of concerns after every disaster that happens in the provinces of Canada, that there is so much red tape to get through, it is so cumbersome at times, that we need to streamline it. That is what we are talking about.

MR. COLLINS: That is what we are talking about. Okay.

My next question is with regard to the MRIF program under 3.2.02., Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Programs. You have an amount there under 10., Grants and Subsidies, $31,376,400. Is that the provincial share of the federal-provincial infrastructure program? Is that what that is?

MR. DENINE: What is that?

MR. COLLINS: The $31,376,400, number 10., under 3.2.02., Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Programs, Grants and Subsidies, page 252. These are the cost-shared programs you referred to earlier on a 90-10 basis, right?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: Or 10 per cent for municipalities.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: Am I right on that?

MR. DENINE: Baxter?

MR. ROSE: Subhead 3.2.02.10?

MR. COLLINS: Yes, page 252.

MR. ROSE: Page 252, $31,376,000?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. ROSE: That is the share of the federal-provincial cost-shared programs, it would be the Municipal-Rural Infrastructure Fund Program, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program. These are our various municipal capital works programs that are cost-shared with the federal government.

MR. COLLINS: The follow-up question to that then for me is the cost sharing ratio that you have recently announced, the 10 per cent for $3,000 and less, applications currently on the table or projects currently in place, is there any retroactivity to that cost sharing?

MR. DENINE: No, there is no retroactivity. All new applications are as of April 1.

MR. COLLINS: Anybody who is currently involved in a federal-provincial cost-shared program now, it is fifty-fifty dollars?

MR. DENINE: Yes, whatever it is.

MR. COLLINS: They are stuck with that?

MR. DENINE: Yes, because if you go retroactive you can go back forever.

MR. COLLINS: There are communities who have applications in that have not been approved yet. Will they –

MR. DENINE: They will move forward on the new cost sharing ratio; anything that is new. Anything that has been approved the answer is, no. It has been approved on the basis of the ratios prior to this. Anything on a go-forward basis is under new cost sharing.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Anybody else from the committee.

MR. BUTLER: Where do I start? I am trying to keep up and scratch out what everyone else is saying.

Minister, I just want to make a comment. I know mentioned about the word dump a little while ago. In the particular incident that I was referring to at that time, whether it is waste management landfill, I cannot change the word dump around that site.

MR. DENINE: I understand. I know where you are coming from. I am afraid one of these days – if I say in the House a dump, I know you guys would jump on me.

MS MICHAEL: You are more pleasant here, the two of you, than you are in the House.

MR. BUTLER: Just a couple of general questions, not a couple, I have a lot of them here because I do not get on question period very often, only with one question. They cut me off, so I take advantage today.

I think it is probably called the Jet Program: is that still ongoing. It is with the firefighting. That is still there, is it? I know last year during the estimates under the former minister there was - I do not know where it is in the book and that is not my question, but last year he mentioned there were funds left over because there was a low amount of applications from councils or fire departments that made application for money under that program. I was wondering: has that increased this year? I know I spread the word in my area and different areas. He was saying there was a lack of applications that came in and the money was left over.

MR. ROSE: Subhead 4.1.04, Joint Emergency Preparedness Projects. JEPP is the Joint Emergency Preparedness Project. JEPP is the acronym for the program title.

MR. BUTLER: There was $282,000 budgeted and then it was revised at $225,000.

MR. ROSE: The revised was $225,000. The current year's Budget is back up to $282,000 again.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I know, Minister, this probably comes under another department partially, but where you are the Municipal Affairs Minister, I know at the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Convention this year one of the resolutions, I know, is tied in with the Department of Environment and Conservation, where they put a request in for Crown Land within their boundaries if there was a need that came up. I am sure the municipalities brought it to your attention as well being municipalities minister and I was wondering: Is there any involvement from your department to help them to progress with that, with the other department?

MR. DENINE: I can tell you that does rest with the Crown Lands.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. DENINE: I can also tell you that there have been some consultations going on with MNL and they are to come back to the minister. I would not want to speak on behalf of another minister, but I know they are coming back with a brief to the minister at a later date. They are pursuing it, but what happened at that meeting, all I can tell you is that there were consultations going on and they are going to come back and have a subsequent meeting to that.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The only thing I was wondering is if you were involved to help push it for them.

MR. DENINE: I was there.

MR. BUTLER: That is fair.

My hon. colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's was into the issue of whether it is a provincial plan, a disaster plan and so on a little while ago. The one that you referenced in the paper this week, there was an article on it, is that similar to the Emergency Response Program?

MR. DENINE: You are talking about the Business Continuity Plan?

MR. BUTLER: No. The one I will reference – I will go right back to where I started.

MR. DENINE: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: Back when the unfortunate incident happened on September 11 and all the people had to come to our Province at that particular time, my understanding was the municipalities were to submit an Emergency Response Plan. I was just wondering: how many of the 282 actually did that from that point on?

MR. DENINE: The municipalities?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. DENINE: There are a significant number moving forward on it and our FESNL are helping out in that area. I cannot give you the exact number.

MS McCORMACK: The plan, I think, that was referenced in the paper recently was the Business Continuity Plan. The agency is taking a lead role to develop a plan for the government of Newfoundland and Labrador first, and then there are agency staff also working on these operational or emergency response plans in municipalities. Eventually, we will make sure that every municipality has an emergency response plan, as well as the Business Continuity Plan for government.

MR. DENINE: There is more information coming out on 9/11 and the other one you are talking about, the Business Continuity Plan which our department now are looking at in terms of getting the continuity between different departments to make sure that there is a plan for everyone, that they are linked together, that is what we are doing.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. Now, the one I was referencing is with the municipalities themselves. I know some of the municipalities in my area are getting fairly heavy into it and getting a plan in place and talking to everyone in the community and so on

MR. DENINE: That is right, they are.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering if very many across the Province have done that to this point in time, and if not, is there any timeframe on it when they should have this done or what have you?

MR. DENINE: You are right, Roland, in terms of out your way people are becoming more conscious of it in terms of what is happening over the last number of years. As a matter of fact, I was talking to the mayor of Stephenville and they started out a plan with some of the neighbouring communities. They had a plan in Stephenville and now they are branching out and people are starting to move out. The smaller municipalities said, well, can we be part of your plan? So the mayor of Stephenville has taken it upon himself to include people in that. Now it is not going to be the Stephenville plan, they will probably put it under another name, but they will also go down in small communities on the coast, around the bay. They can have that plan and put their own name on it.

It makes a lot of sense in terms of that, because when you have a hub area that would be where a lot of the resources could come from. The smaller municipalities, if there is a danger or something happens in the smaller municipalities, then they can piggyback on the resources of the larger municipality. It was a great initiative, I thought, by the mayor of Stephenville, to move forward.

MS MICHAEL: If I could? We might as well stay with the topic.

CHAIR: Sure, yes.

MS MICHAEL: To what degree then, Dave, will Municipal Affairs be involved in co-ordination, so that we are sure that we have, you know, uniform policies that are going on in the Province around the emergency preparedness?

MR. DENINE: We will always take an active role in that, and that is one of the things we do. FESNL will take some lead in that. That would be part of the whole thing. The thing is, Lorraine, when you look at the FESNL, when we took it all and made it an agency we put a lot of emphasis on that. I think, rather than hide it away, that will be one of the things we will be actively pursuing in getting out and helping to co-ordinate with municipalities.

MS MICHAEL: Have there been guidelines that have been done up for them, or are you leaving it totally to the municipalities to come up with all of that?

MR. DENINE: Marilyn?

MS McCORMACK: There is, in fact, a training program that is offered by the staff of the agency, so they go out to assist municipalities in how to design the program. Of course, they come in when they are completed to the Fire Commissioner's Office so that they can be reviewed and if there is anything missing they could provide some direction and support. There is some assistance there available to municipalities who want to begin emergency plans.

MS MICHAEL: Are there any extra resources if they need financial resources or do they have to come up with that themselves, which would be very difficult for the smaller communities, obviously?

MR. DENINE: I think what we will do, we will give them the guidance in terms of doing it and we will also help out with the expertise part of it. We are not going to leave them on their own.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: I know recently the issue was discussed with regard to fire safety when it came to personal care homes.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I understand everything has been resolved there, but I was just wondering – I know there were some previous to that that just closed, and I was wondering: out of the ones that were listed recently are they all going to install or build new homes, or will some of those be closing as well?

MR. DENINE: You are talking about the personal care homes?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. DENINE: The number was twenty-two, I believe, and then there were some that closed. I think there was one in Holyrood that closed permanently and there is one on Bell Island that closed permanently. The Fire Commissioner's Office was given ninety days to move forward on that. He wanted a signed contract and right now they are moving forward on it.

MR. BUTLER: Good.

I know there has been correspondence sent to you by the Joint Mayors' Association of Trinity-Bay-de-Verde and the CBN Joint Councils. I think they had their first joint meeting from one shore to the other, the first time they ever met together, which is good. I know one of the issues that came up at that time was – I will not call it any of the bad words today I will just call it the site on New Harbour Road. That is main concern with them, which was supposed to close down and now I think they are trying to get to Winterton as versus coming to Robin Hood Bay, I guess, for the reasons that they think it is more financially feasible for them.

My question is: isn't the day coming, regardless of where you live on this Island - I know it is very difficult for them. I know how difficult the municipalities in my area find it now having to travel, but they have to do it. Is there anything finalized? I know there were talks or meetings going on that all of them can go to Winterton as versus coming to Robin Hood Bay. Has anything been finalized? I know there was correspondence sent to you. I was copied that.

MR. DENINE: Yes. I will just comment on this. When we moved to the strategy, moved the strategy forward, our idea is to basically come down to possibly three host sites, east, west and central. In order to make the transition a little bit smoother we wanted to see the consolidation come down, take four or five, consolidate into one and then move on to another. So, you are cutting it down. You are not jumping off A and going right to Z. There is a gradual decline in that.

As far as moving it to Winterton, if it is a feasible spot - Gerry, you might want to comment a little bit more on that - but if it becomes feasible to do that right now they can do it. The other part is that if you look at Carbonear in terms of Carbonear and Harbour Grace - remember when the incinerator was out there and it was causing problems out there - right now they are all moving their garbage to Robin Hood Bay, or their waste I should say. I should get into saying waste not garbage any more. It is garbage right now until we start doing more recycling on it. Again, terminology! So, (inaudible) consolidation is that they are now much more comfortable in doing that now. They are bringing it right to Robin Hood Bay.

You see where they are trying to move down from four or five small ones and move it on forward. Once you get it on the truck you are only talking a timeframe that can move it there, so it is not a big issue.

Gerry, on the issue with Winterton.

MR. ANTLE: There are several studies underway now on the Avalon Peninsula. The Bay de Verde Peninsula is under study. There are no decisions made. There is not a draft report yet. We have met with a consultant and we are aware that there are a number of alternatives. There could be any number of sites consolidated, as the Minister says, before Robin Hood Bay is the regional site. There are no decisions made yet. It is under study. The communities will be involved and they are aware. I understand these studies should be concluding in the next two to three weeks, at least in a draft stage, and they will be engaged in alternatives and considerations of which is the best option for them as in interim measure until such time that Robin Hood Bay is finally developed.

MR. BUTLER: I guess I will lead into the other question now. I saw an article when you mentioned one time before, Minister, that one of the biggest issues is waste management. No doubt it is. I think the figure that was used was $38.5 million overall cost for Robin Hood Bay.

I was just wondering: When will that be all unfolded and completed, I suppose? At what point in time will that be?

MR. DENINE: The target date is 2010, 2011 for Central and we are saying 2016 for Western, but the issue here is, as you go down through so many of these studies and so many of these consolidation areas and people putting policies in different parts of the Province, you do not have to reinvent the wheel. The one on the West Coast could be speeded up. But 2010 would be on the East Coast.

MR. BUTLER: Judging by that and what your Assistant Deputy Minister said, that is possibly the timeframe when we are going to see everybody having to come to that point in time.

Robin Hood Bay, does that take in the Burin Peninsula as well?

MR. DENINE: It could. There is a regional services committee down there in terms of looking at what they can do.

Our policy is that when waste is to be disposed of it has to be done in an engineered landfill. The infrastructure that is needed to put in a small one and a large one is significant. The thing is, is that if they could finance one down on the Burin Peninsula they could, but I know that it is not going to happen. Eventually what could happen. I do not preclude what they are going to decide, but I would say a good guesstimate would be the fact that they will be coming to Robin Hood Bay, yes.

When you deal with that amount of garbage, my deputy minister can give you a great view of how much would come off the Burin Peninsula because we have talked about it. People say, well, it is such a large area and there are so many people, but the amount of tonnage is not as great as you think it is.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. BUTLER: Along the same vein, I guess - I know I asked you a question earlier about the teepees, and like you said the timeframes are within another department and that is understandable. The small rural local service districts and some isolated communities, and I am thinking about up on the Southwest Coast and what have you, the only means they have to get to them really is by a ferry. What type of a system will be put in place for them? Are we saying that they are going to have to ship it out by the ferry service?

MR. DENINE: That would be something that, for example - the West Coast, I guess, you would be referring to more than anywhere else.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. DENINE: That would be something that would come under the West Coast management committee, and as they move through their consulting with the stakeholders they will come up with a solution, whatever they think it better. I am not going to preclude that, because their options could be varied.

MR. BUTLER: Someone mentioned to me the other day – I did not have this here as a question but I will mention it now. There is one community on the Labrador Coast that, like they said, if they are going to have to move it to one of the larger sites, it is either going to have to go by komatik or by some other means, and they were not making fun.

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. BUTLER: That was the only means to get it somewhere else unless they can take care of it right where they are.

MR. DENINE: You are right, there would have to be something that would have to be developed for those specific areas.

MR. BUTLER: I do not know what my timeframe is, but I am sure the hon. gentleman will cut me off.

CHAIR: Yes, we are getting close. Would you want to move on?

MR. BUTLER: One more?

CHAIR: Yes, go right ahead.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, the question I want to ask you now is not to take away from the wonderful announcement you made the other day about the 90-10, 80-20, 70-30; and I mean that is all wonderful. I know another issue that came up through the municipalities' convention was the MOGs, and I do not think there was any announcement made on that. Probably this program is going to help a lot of municipalities, regardless of whether they have anything under their MOGs or not. I am thinking about some of the communities that cannot come up with the 10 per cent or 20 per cent, and they are out there, no doubt about that. I was just wondering: is there any little program for those? It does not have to be called an MOG like it was in the past.

MR. DENINE: Well, this was a major initiative that we took on.

MR. BUTLER: I am not arguing with that fact, sir.

MR. DENINE: That is the problem. The thing is, if you go back into the early 1990s there was $42 million put into MOGs. Now we are down to $17.8 million over thirteen years or something, and there have been clawbacks in terms of different governments that came in. There were two under the Liberals and there was one that we had that affected eleven municipalities, not all municipalities, eleven municipalities, which were the larger ones. Then we, as other programs did, rather than implement the full three years, they only went two years and then cut it off there.

You are right, but I talked to a mayor in Gander just this weekend in terms of doing that. There are a couple of things that happened there that put money back into pockets. One was the 10 per cent and the other one was the tax on insurance. That is one thing we tend to forget with municipalities. They all have buildings, they all have vehicles, they all have insurance policies that they carry, and they are saving the tax on that. That in itself will generate some money within those municipalities. I have to tell you, the mayors I spoke to, and I spoke to a lot of them out there - as you know, I do a lot of talking – they were very, very pleased with what happened. They conceded the fact that, if they are going to be able to get this done they will be able to save some money and refocus that money somewhere else.

MR. BUTLER: No doubt about it. I have not heard anyone complain about the program.

Just to give you an example of where I was coming from, and I am sure there are other little situations similar in the Province, this community was in the Port de Grave district prior to the last election and now it is with the hon. member for Carbonear–Harbour Grace, and the community is Bryant's Cove. I am sure there are officials over there who know the situation. The money that they used to receive from the MOG – they would not get a lot – never ever reached their hands. Maybe I am incorrect in saying this but it used to go automatically from your department up to Transportation and Works, which would cover the cost of their snowploughing in the winter there. They used to do some of the other roads after the main roads were open. I know for a fact that the three or four years I represented them there was funding which came from your department to them and from Transportation and Works and they just could not take it. They could not come up with the financial end on their part.

That is the type of community I was thinking about. Is there some little thing there, because I am going to tell you they are not going to be able to come to you on a 90-10; and that is no disrespect to them. Something has to be done, whether they are going to have to move in with another community next to them or whatever is going to happen there with their tax base.

MR. DENINE: Again, that could be the option. You probably just hit the nail on the head in terms of if they cannot afford 90-10. For example, a community like that probably would only have, I would say, a $100,000 contract type thing and they would only have to come up with $10,000. I think, in terms of that, they might have to look at some other options with what they want to do.

MR. BUTLER: I want to make it very clear now, I am not saying to the hon. Member for Carbonear what he has to do with that community; far from it. I just use them as an example, where they were part of the district that I represent and so on. I will turn it over to my hon. colleague.

CHAIR: I think we are going to go to Mr. King.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, okay, I am sorry.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, a couple of quick comments and a question; if I can echo some of the comments that have been made. Certainly, in my district the cost-shared program has been a tremendous announcement. I am not without my challenges, as the member for Port de Grave just highlighted, around the local service districts, but having said that, it is a tremendous announcement and I certainly thank you and the officials who are with you, as well the tax on insurance.

One other point I want to make before my question is to say thanks because a number of people who are with you today have assisted my municipalities through meetings and discussions on a number of initiatives that we are moving forward with, so I want to acknowledge that as well.

One thing that piqued my curiosity a little bit: I am wondering if you or someone with you might be able to elaborate a bit on the whole issue of shared services. You talked about, I think, Keith Warren who is going to do some work there? In my district, I think you are fairly familiar with the geography. It is probably one where it is fairly conducive to some of that. I have a number of small communities, particularly if you take Point May, Lamaline, Point au Gaul, Lord's Cove, that area of the district in particular. I sense it is a good news thing that might be forthcoming. I wondered if you might be able to take a few minutes to tell us a bit about the vision for that or how it may work or how we might be able to become engaged in it?

MR. DENINE: In terms of the Province or just that area?

MR. KING: Well, my area in particular, but I suppose the process would probably be essentially the same for everybody.

MR. DENINE: Yes, the process and the outcome would probably be the same. It is the same type of objective no matter what part.

There are a number of things that can happen and a number of things can vary in terms of what types of services. For example, it could be consolidation of fire services, it could be consolidation of garbage collection or water treatment. For example, you do not need a technician, someone who knows in the small community, that person can do four or five. It could be any type of shared services that they deem fit. The other part of that could be if they want to come together. We are taking the approach that it would come from the roots up rather than from the top down. That is what we want to see. We want to see the community saying we want to come together on that.

One thing I did not mention that is happening and is in a partnership with MNL is the CCRC, Community Cooperation Resource Centre. What they are doing is a town evaluation form, I think for a better word, a municipal self-assessment. That will give some of those municipalities a chance to go out and go down through a significant amount of questions. At the end of the day, the answer becomes clear to you. When you start evaluation of the revenue taken in, the service you are delivering, the population you have and so on and so on, take all of that into account and then at the end of the day it basically says how sustainable your community is. That will help us, as a tool for those municipalities, to say, well okay, because we are spending this amount of money or this type of thing and we cannot afford it, if we come together with someone else or we cost-share something, this is how we do it. That is one tool that we are looking at.

Darin, to say what will happen, again that will only come under consultation with the people. We do not go out there unless we are asked to go. If they want us to go we will go out there. How serious we are is that we put Keith Warren out there and we are very serious about it. We want to move this policy forward in terms of getting people to come together. When I spoke at the symposium out there in Gander, when I spoke to Keith after lunch, he said, if you did not have to mention that no one would have been talking to me. After I mentioned it he had a number of people come to him.

To say how it is going to take place, that will unfold in itself and it will unfold as discussions take place.

I do not know if that answers your question or not. Maybe I just went around it. I do not know.

MR. KING: I think you gave us some direction there.

I had a meeting last week in my district with all of the mayors from every single municipality and local service district. Actually there were three politicians and the town staff were invited in, so there were forty-five or fifty people. Obviously, most of the discussion focused on the issues in our district but that one piqued their curiosity, even in communities like Grand Bank and Fortune which are two of the larger ones in my district. It is interesting looking at things like fire services and those kinds of things.

I guess the two key questions, Minister, that were raised, and you have spoken somewhat to both I think, are how would we access that if we wanted to pursue it and whether or not there is any financial assistance as part of that program to help us ease into it.

If, for the sake of an argument, Grand Bank and Fortune wanted to merge their fire departments and come together, I guess in a very simple question, how do we engage Keith in this? Is there a formal application or do we just call and invite him down? Secondly, would there be any support financially, or was that the intent of the program to help us move towards the merger?

MR. DENINE: There are two things. The first thing, the request will come to the department from your district, from the people who say, can we have some official come out and talk to us. We will do that. We will help them out. The issue here is: Can some assistance be done? Yes, but it is not at all costs. There has to be a certain amount of cutoff. We just cannot give it to a limit that is beyond. There has to be some consideration given. Debt servicing would be one. I think there was $1 million put in to help with that servicing cost. We can help out with other things, but sometimes people's asks are way beyond the means and it will fall apart. I know your colleague next to you was shaking her head and she knows exactly what I am talking about. The ask becomes beyond what is doable.

There is some assistance but I do not want to go into all of the details, because everyone will be different. Everyone will come forward with certain plans, everyone will come forward with certain idiosyncrasies that they have and the things that are prevalent to them and that will all be taken into the equation.

MR. KING: Sure.

Can I conclude?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. KING: Just a comment more than a question. I appreciate your answer on that. I think that is a good approach. From my perspective, I have only been elected since October, I do not know if I am allowed to say names but I will. You can correct me if I am out of line. Dan Noseworthy was, I do not know if he still is, I will call it your point person for my district. We have engaged him, since I have been elected, on a number of occasions to come down and talk to municipalities about all kinds of issues. Some of them are very simple but they just need someone to talk to.

I am envisioning that same kind of approach where Keith or someone can come in and talk to them about it. In my brief experiences I have to say, from what I have seen from Dan on behalf of your department, it has been very positive and municipalities have appreciated even a thirty minute meeting to be able to ask eight or ten questions. For you guys they are probably simple answers, for the officials, but for someone in Point May or Grand Bank it is not always that simple, or they do not perceive it to be.

I compliment you on the process and certainly will share that with my district.

Thank you.

MR. DENINE: Thanks, Darin.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

A lot of what I have had here, you will be glad to know, has been covered in questions, especially from Roland. That is why I jumped in a couple of times to make sure we did not have to revisit issues, but I still have a few others.

You mentioned the Municipal Debt Servicing, subhead 3.1.01. I am just curious as to why each year - not each year - the budget for 2007-2008 was $23,854,000.

MR. DENINE: Which one are we on?

CHAIR: Ms Michael, could you repeat the heading again?

MS MICHAEL: Sorry, subhead 3.1.01., Municipal Debt Servicing. It went down from the budget to the revision in 2007-2008. and now the grants are down to $16,550,100 in this budget. Why down so much?

MR. DENINE: Okay, you are talking about subhead 10?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. DENINE: Okay.

The decrease in that - for the $16,550,100 one?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. DENINE: Okay.

The decrease reflects the lower anticipated cost of debt servicing due to lower overall debt that is in municipalities, a better projection and debt reducing in addition to new debt. That is part of that, but I am going to defer this, Lorraine, to the deputy minister and he will explain it in more detail to you.

MS MICHAEL: Sure.

MR. ROSE: I will give you the detailed technical explanation and try not to bore you.

MS MICHAEL: I can handle it, I think.

MR. ROSE: Historically, all of the Province's investment in municipal capital works was on borrowed monies. We went to the bank or the Newfoundland Municipal Finance Corporation and borrowed the Province's share of capital works projects. When those projects went on repayment, the interest portion of that amortization was budgeted in our accounts as well as the capital under another subhead and $23,854,000 is the interest payments on existing debt.

Over the past few years we have done a couple of things. One is, we no longer bank finance our capital works infrastructure. We pay cash as we go, so there is no new debt being added in here. These mortgages – I will call them mortgages; they are loans – are being paid out over time, so you have seen a reduction there from $23,854,000 down to $19,554,000.

Another measure we have implemented last year and it will be fully in effect this year is when we approve projects for municipalities. Even up until last year the municipalities used to go out and borrow the provincial share while the project was under construction, and then at completion the Province would pay it out in total. As of now, municipalities borrow nothing on behalf of the Province, so we are seeing a significant reduction caused by two things: one, a natural maturity of these loans; and, secondly, we are no longer interim financing our capital works projects.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

That is great. In actual fact, yesterday morning when we were with the Department of Finance we got a real good explanation around the whole thing of the difference now that we are paying cash for so much stuff and not having to borrow in order to take care of needs.

MR. ROSE: It saves a significant amount of money. On the capital works budget of $60 million or $80 million per year, 6 per cent of that, you are talking $3 million to $4 million just in interim financing interest.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Thank you. That is really helpful.

We took care of the MOGs. This is more for my information, under 3.1.03., two heads down, Special Assistance. What exactly do these grants cover, under Special Assistance? As I say, this is for my information; I have no idea.

MR. DENINE: Well, the grants there in number 10., $2.7 million, that covers special assistance for grants to municipalities for different things that they might come up with, they might have trouble with, and we will give them a special assistance grant to help offset some costs, and that is sort of a one-time grant.

Then also, too, there is special assistance - like the closure of the mill in Stephenville, there was money given for that, so it varies, but the special assistance has to be done to whatever municipal services they have to deliver, and that has to be the focus. It cannot be outside of municipal service (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Are there criteria besides that?

MR. DENINE: Baxter, do you want to…?

MR. ROSE: The grants that are typically provided would be small amounts of money. It could be for capital works projects, it could be for firefighting equipment, it could be for bunker suits, it could be relatively small amounts of money for other municipal services, the provincial affairs side of things, support for the Beaumont Hamel Pilgrimage, and those types of things. It is primarily municipal infrastructure or supports that wouldn't fit under our capital works program or it wouldn't justify setting up loans (inaudible).

MR. DENINE: It wouldn't be large amounts of money. It would be very small portions of money.

MS MICHAEL: Does the minister have to approve those grants?

MR. DENINE: Yes, it goes to a committee of my department and then it comes to me to approve it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under head 3.1.04., Community Enhancement, I think a lot of this is communities that have been affected by closures in the fishery. Last year, $4.5 million was the budget and it had to be revised up to $6 million. What was the main reason for that bump up? I know you can't anticipate what is going to happen in a year.

MR. DENINE: That increase, the amount of enhancement programs that we had on our list to do, we needed more money to help offset those costs, so basically there was more additional Community Enhancement Programs approved last year. Basically, it went from $4.5 million; we needed another $1.5 million to help because there was a need there.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. DENINE: So we needed extra money in that.

MS MICHAEL: How many communities were covered under the Community Enhancement last year? How many received assistance?

MR. DENINE: Bill, do you want to…?

MR. DUGGAN: The number of projects overall, I think, was 380, just under 400. Not necessarily 380 communities, 380 projects. Some communities might have had several projects, particularly if it was larger towns affected by fish processing and that type of thing.

It employed about 1,800 people through the regular CEP program and about another 350 under the funds that are voted in fishing industry renewal in Fisheries and Aquaculture, so a total of about 2,150 people or 2,200 people.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you. That is helpful.

Under 4.1.02., the Fire Commissioner's Office -

MR. DENINE: Under 4.1.02?

MS MICHAEL: The Fire Commissioner's Office.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: No new money – basically, it is the same budget - yet we have raised concerns, concerns have been raised in the House, with regard to inspection in particular. I don't have to remind you, that issue has come up a number of times.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: One of the issues that did concern me was the realization of the degree to which some fire inspection does have to be done by volunteer firefighters. Knowing that was actually a bit disturbing for me because I don't think this should be in the hands, actually, of volunteer firefighters. Not because they can't do it, but because of the nature of the fact that they are volunteers and they have full-time jobs, a lot of them, besides being volunteer firefighters.

I don't see any new money here that would say that you are looking at having fire inspection, having more people hired through the commissioner's office to do fire inspection, and this is a concern, so I would like for you to speak to us a bit about that.

MR. DENINE: Again, Lorraine, as I said in the House, in terms of the inspections, the review that we are going to do, that is going to be put in place. I don't want to go out and say, here are five or six more people. I have to find out what way we are going to handle it from now on in. In order to throw money at it, it is not necessarily what I am looking at right now. I want to develop a solid policy in how it happens, to make sure that everything is done. So it is kind of premature for me to say, well, let's throw fifteen more officers there so we get it all done.

I am going to wait and see, and then come back with the recommendations, but over the last number of years in FES we had an 87 per cent increase in funding towards that program. This was an initiative taken on by this government to put things in the forefront. Normally, the Fire Commissioner's Office was put back into Municipal Affairs and it was just put away there, but now it is in front, it is up in FES-NL, the disaster is there, so we have basically taken out major components and put it into an agency, so the commitment is there.

To say how the inspections will be done in the future, until I get the policy review I cannot tell you that right now.

MS MICHAEL: Has the policy review started, Dave?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: It has.

Can you give an update of the status of that, and how you are doing the review?

MR. DENINE: Not to any great detail, to be quite honest with you.

MS MICHAEL: Who will you be involving? In doing that review, who are the stakeholders who will be involved?

MR. DENINE: For example, when we talked about the health care facilities: the health care boards, the facility managers, the fire services area, the volunteer firefighters - anyone who has a stake in safety - the alarm companies, sprinkler system companies.

Also, too, I forgot to mention, Lorraine, there is a lot of training that goes on. As a matter of fact, at the end of this month there is a five-day training session out in Central Newfoundland that goes into a lot of the things. One of those components in that school is the facility inspections. So there is a significant amount of training, and when the Fire Commissioner's Office or the FES-NL sees a need for it, it is put on.

I don't know if anyone else wants to comment on that.

Marilyn?

MS McCORMACK: Yes, there are two fire schools and I do know that other staff in the agency is involved in the review or an assessment of all of the fire services. So it is recognized, I think, in the agency that there is some work to be done in this area and we are hoping that the review will identify the best approaches to addressing some of those concerns.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I think that is adequate.

It is not important for me to see the positions in place. It is important for me to know what is being done to really look at this issue; and, not seeing any new money at all, obviously what you are doing right now, you are saying can be done within the budget that you have here.

MR. DENINE: If - and I say if - extra money is decided, then we can come back and look for it.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. DENINE: You can see where I am coming from. I don't want to - here is $10 million here - not knowing where I am going to spend it.

MS MICHAEL: No, I understand that, but my concern is that, if you determine in two or three months' time that yes, indeed, we do need more people in the Fire Commissioner's Office, and that is the route to go, then I don't want to see us waiting until the Budget of 2009-2010 for that to happen -

MR. DENINE: I agree.

MS MICHAEL: - because we are dealing with something that is a serious issue.

MR. DENINE: I hear what you are saying.

MS MICHAEL: That is where I am coming from.

MR. DENINE: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 4.1.01., these are just a couple of line things here, not general questions but just a couple of line issues. Executive Support, under Fire and Emergency Services Agency, first of all Salaries, you must be planning new personnel because the Salaries are going up considerably. Are they vacancies that have not been filled or are they new positions?

MR. DENINE: The increase reflects the Business Continuity Plan Secretariat for a full year instead of six months, and a senior manager dedicated to work with the federal claim recovery process and develop a provincial DFA aid program. That is what that would be for.

MS MICHAEL: What was that second one again, Dave?

MR. DENINE: Did I read too fast?

MS MICHAEL: You read too fast, yes.

MR. DENINE: I am sorry. And a dedicated senior manager to work with the federal claim recovery process and develop a provincial DFA aid program.

MS MICHAEL: Got it. Okay, thank you.

MR. DENINE: Okay. Sorry about that.

MS MICHAEL: Subhead 03., Transportation and Communications. Budgeted $170,000, revised down to $34,500 and then up this year to $100,000. What is the basis of going back up to $100,000 if you only spent $34,500?

MR. DENINE: Basically, from $170,000 down to $34,000, there was less anticipated travel. Basically, what happened there Lorraine is we are moving into getting out of the infancy stage at the FES-NL, so there is going to be a more significant amount of travel that is going to happen and there are going to be much more things. If we stayed at $34,000, I know we certainly would not be able to leave it at that; $170,000 was a bit too high, so we shut it off in terms of that. Given our consultations, there is going to be a lot of travelling throughout the Province. We are going to be focused on that.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Then under subhead 05., is that the same reasoning there with regard to the $250,000 and only spending $20,000 last year? Is it again because you are just getting into things?

MR. DENINE: Yes, the same thing.

MS MICHAEL: What would the Professional Services be that you would be enlisting?

MR. DENINE: You are talking about 05., right?

MS MICHAEL: 05., yes.

MR. DENINE: What happened here was delayed recruitment of staff and resulting in delays of initiation projects, such as the Business Continuity Plan, the policy development.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. DENINE: There are a lot of things that are going to happen with the Business Continuity Plan. There is a lot of work to be done and that would reflect the cost of that.

MS MICHAEL: What would be the nature though of the Professional Services?

MR. DENINE: Marilyn, do you want to -

MS McCORMACK: Basically, it would be things like training of the staff that are involved in providing the information. We are coordinating the twenty-one government departments and two agencies now and they require training in how to establish a Business Continuity Plan.

MS MICHAEL: Right. So you will be hiring people to help with that training.

MS McCORMACK: Well, we have our staff complement, but we will be working in rolling this out with all of the departments. They have working groups and we will be training them and leading them though each step of the Business Continuity Plan and when all of the departments have their plans done, that will be rolled up into a provincial plan for government.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I am sure 06. is the same answer so I will not even ask the question, although you have come down in Purchased Services, subhead 06. The budget initially was $275,000 and the estimate for this year is only $150,000. What was the basis for bringing that down so much from the $275,000?

MR. DENINE: That reflects (inaudible) so it came down from $275,000 to $150,000.

MS MICHAEL: Of course. Okay, thank you.

There is a question I would like to bring up, if I may do one more, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: A broader question came out of one of the heads but it is a broader question. It has to do with municipal transit infrastructure. I know it is difficult in this Province, we have such small communities, et cetera, but is there any talking going on inside of the department or with municipalities about any possibilities on this Province for improving public transportation? Especially now with the way the cost of gas is going up, we are so dependent on cars rurally in this Province. I am just wondering, are there any discussions going on at all around public transportation?

MR. DENINE: Well, there are two areas here Lorraine that comes into mind. One is the Corner Brook area and one is St. John's. Let's deal with the St. John's area first, in terms of what is happening. I know for a fact that there have been talks with Paradise and I know there have been talks with CBS in terms of extending the Metrobus system out there. Right now, that is the only transportation that municipalities can avail of and they do it on a per kilometre basis.

What happens, as the sprawl moves and as - for example, let me give you an example. Southlands, I hate to mention that name but I will mention it anyhow. Remember a year ago the Metrobus decided that they wanted to put a bus service in Southlands because they were isolated from St. John's, which they are, but what happened was, is that as they move out then it becomes closer to another place. For example, the bus now comes down Brookfield Road, so that can service part of Mount Pearl, the Brookfield Road area that it did not service before. So, you are picking up people there.

Also, too, when you move out to Donovan's, Mount Pearl put the bus services in Donovan's, now there is only a little small stretch to go to Paradise. So as you move it out, you will get more people. They are looking at it in terms of the ridership. Again, I was thinking, last night on TV -and you are right, in the Toronto area the number of people going by the transit system is a significant improvement, and the price of gas is probably fuelling that, pardon the pun. There are discussions going on that I know of, because I talked to the mayors and they are looking at it, and one of these days when it can happen, depending on the usage.

For example, I know in Mount Pearl we subsidize it, $3 dollars for every dollar that is put in. It is not like a cost recovery thing. It is not like: Okay, we are putting on a bus. It is going to cost you $20,000 and you are getting $20,000 back. Obviously, you will probably only get a $5,000 return and you have to put the rest in yourself. So, the cost of providing that service is a factor which municipalities have to look at. Again, factors will come into play as we move down the road.

The other part is in Corner Brook. That bus service is not like St. John's in terms of the extensive part of it. It is sort of on an hourly - certain hours it will operate during the day and then it is cut off. St. John's goes a little bit longer. Then they were provided with money in the gas tax, in terms of being able to assist their transportation system. It is moving, but how fast it is going to go I cannot tell you. I know that, especially on the Avalon area, the urban sprawl is happening, you can see the connect. As you move forward there will be a connect happening - bring it this close, why not bring it another 100 feet and be out there? That type of thing will evolve over time. So that is where it is, but I do know that discussions have been ongoing.

MS MICHAEL: Right. I just encourage more discussion on the provincial level because I think the municipalities need the support federally and provincially to make this happen and I think it is more than a municipal responsibility, that is why I raise it. You talk about what you do not want to mention - well, this gives my age away, but I can remember when we could hop on the train and go out to Seal Cove.

MR. DENINE: Yes, I have been on that one.

MS MICHAEL: You think, wow, if we only still had the tracks, because a train would be a wonderful way to bring commuters into St. John's from CBS, and we used to do it.

MR. DENINE: They do it in Toronto now, don't they?

MS MICHAEL: That is right, exactly.

MR. DENINE: The same thing, the GO Train.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that's right. So let's not give up on that thought, by the way.

I think that is all, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: A few one-liners again, Minister.

Under 2.2.01., Policy and Planning, 01. Salaries; I noticed last year the budget was $372,000 and it went to $504,000, and then it is down again this year. I was just wondering, was that additional positions? I was wondering if they are temporary or permanent, and why the decrease again this year?

MR. DENINE: The increase there reflects the inclusion of a permanent salary for a Director of Policy and Strategic Planning position; that was added in 2006-2007. Also, in that was retirement and severance package payouts to people who retired, and there were less than anticipated.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I guess the same is for 2.2.02. under Urban and Rural Planning, the same thing, basically?

MR. DENINE: Yes, the same thing.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

I know my hon. colleague asked questions about the special assistance grants, and you mentioned about some of that money might have been earmarked for the closure of a mill. I was just wondering if you could elaborate on that. If they are going to close, I was wondering why you are going to give them grant money?

MR. DENINE: No, that came under the Grants and Subsidies part of that. When the Stephenville mill closed down they were given money, because when the mill was operating they had a grant from - you know the process, in terms of the mill would pay an operating grant to the community, they lost that. Also, too, they lost a significant amount of people moving out of the area, and that was basically for a transition time.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

So, similar to what would have been done through a large community enhancement program type of thing, or just additional money, or for a different purpose? Do you know what I am trying to say?

MR. DENINE: Well, basically, when the grant was given from Abitibi, that was given into the town revenue. This is similar to that. They use it to help - because what happens is that they were - the grant that they would have received from the mill was significantly reduced, and this would help pay - basically, give them a chance to get over the hump.

MR. BUTLER: It says under the heading there, 3.1.03. Special Assistance, it is for special assistance grants to municipalities and other entities. I was wondering, I know you listed some earlier - those would go outside the jurisdiction of municipalities, the other entities as noted there?

MR. DENINE: I am not sure -

MR. BUTLER: Or would all the funding have to go through a municipality to be a –

MR. DENINE: All would have to go through a municipality.

MR. BUTLER: All through municipalities. So that would include recreation –

MR. DENINE: Wait now.

MR. ROSE: Some of the special assistance grants would go to organizations that would be supported by the Province, such as the Legion, the Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters, grants for the Combined Councils of Labrador.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. That is why I was asking that question. Would that be just through the Newfoundland Command of the Royal Canadian Legion or to individual Legions out in the districts?

MR. DENINE: No, the grant to Beaumont Hamel, which we give, that goes to the Royal Command. That is money to help assist people to go every year, a number of veterans to go to Beaumont Hamel services in France. I was not sure of what you meant in terms of that. Yes, grants will go out to different places.

MR. BUTLER: Just the local Royal Canadian Legion for something they want to do around their facilities would not qualify under this? They would have to be considered under the Community Enhancement Program?

MR. DENINE: It depends. In terms of that -

MR. BUTLER: I know one of the Legions in my area got rejected. So that is why -

MR. DENINE: Well, we have not done very many, to be honest with you, in terms of that but, basically, the funding did go to the Command. That is the most money I gave away, $45,000.

MR. BUTLER: Why I was asking that, I know at different times -

MR. DENINE: Yes, and it is a difficult thing to do.

MR. BUTLER: - people with recreation, Royal Canadian Legions, have applied and gotten rejected. Probably rightly so, but I am just wondering what the criteria is or what can a Legion apply for that may be considered? Then, when you mentioned Beaumont Hamel, I thought it was just through the main chain of events.

MR. DENINE: No. I am looking at a policy on how we fund those because they have come across my desk a number of times.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

From that I will go to the Community Enhancement Program. Minister, anything I ask you here I can tell you is in no way against the program because I think it is one of better programs that can help any constituency, a lot of the smaller organizations and groups, even though they only may get $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 or $10,000. I know in my area I can take you out and show you some facilities that you would not believe it if you saw the picture before and after. It is almost like the show we see on television, Extreme Makeover, or whatever you want to call it. Through that program, and I know you said - I think that is done, a committee in place of different departments who put the criteria in place, if I am not mistaken, how it is derived at. There are four classes, I think, of how you grade them for the community enhancement.

MR. DUGGAN: There are four layers of priority outlined in the program guidelines. The applications come in. They are reviewed by two management staff from Municipal Affairs, and primarily a management person in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Those are the three people who largely try and assess the applications in relation to the four levels of priority. We also tend to put certain applications out, say, to the Department of Environment if it looks like there are environmental implications and Tourism, if there is an application for trails. So, we will solicit input where we need it. We will get input from the Women's Policy Office sometimes, particularly if it is a kind of project that we have not seen before and they have not reviewed before. We will bring all that together and then we will make some recommendations to the minister in relation to the four levels of priority.

MR. BUTLER: I know there are different districts; it is not divided up by forty-eight and you balance out your money. I understand that, because it is based on helping people who have not received their insurable earnings. Hopefully we will be able to help those people as well as do some good infrastructure work in the districts. I understand that many of the districts around the Province receive a lot more money than I would receive and I can understand that, but it puzzles me when both members – and this was prior to the members changing in the Carbonear–Harbour Grace district. My colleagues on my own side of the House – I could see those fellows getting anywhere from $150,000, $120,000, $130,000. I go on the other side of my district, the same thing. I think both of those districts are just as well off when it comes to anything in regards to the economy as what mine was. I was down to $50,000. I was just wondering how that is determined.

MR. DENINE: I guess the factors of the availability – if you go around the Province, yes, there is a discrepancy in terms of –

MR. BUTLER: Oh yes, no doubt.

MR. DENINE: But also there is a discrepancy in the amount of people who need the hours too, so when you equate both there are some there. My experience was the availability of work in terms of being able to get your hours. Sometimes in communities there is just no way to get them. There is just no possibility. Once a plant goes down, there is no availability for work and so on. That is a major criterion which we look at.

I do not know, Bill, if you want to answer more to that.

MR. DUGGAN: Over the last two years, Mr. Butler, the Auditor General has questioned the evidence upon which we based the district allocation decisions, and the reality is that the district allocation decisions were initially made about twelve or fifteen years ago and then tweaked a little bit every year in response to the kind of events Minister Denine referred to. Basically what we do every year is we take the proportion of the funding last year applied to each district and roll it forward this year and then tweak it a little more. The Auditor General basically said he thought probably we should have something a little more objective.

We made a commitment two years ago to try and develop an evidence-based allocation system and we confirmed for the AG this year that we would pilot that this fall. We do not have the formula completed yet but what we are hoping to do is to take a very small number of the most significant descriptive statistics, probably local unemployment rates, local employment rates, and use them to come up with some kind of a tiered allocation formula per capita which would lead to a more evidence-based and defensible allocation across districts. We will pilot that this fall and we will see how it works is what I will say.

MR. BUTLER: I mean I totally agree with you, and I do not mean to pick on any other districts in the Province but I know issues on the Northern Peninsula and some other areas are far different from what they are in the Port de Grave district, and I acknowledge that.

I know you people have nothing to do what I am going to say now, but personally I think the Auditor General is tweaking too much in too many places.

MR. DENINE: Can I quote you on that one?

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem.

MS MICHAEL: It is on the record now.

MR. BUTLER: It is on the record.

MR. DENINE: Oh, you are quoted now is right.

MR. BUTLER: Over a period of time he is going to hear about it too, I guess.

I mean, when you see such good projects happening and when you look at an area and say, well, everything is fine in the Port de Grave district, and not only my district, it could be here in the city, it could be in Mount Pearl, but there are groups who apply with legitimate - I used to say, I cannot understand it because they are just as well off in Carbonear and Harbour Main as they are in our area. That is the part I used to look at. I accept your explanation.

Back to the Fire Commissioner's Office: it is not under any heading, I was just wondering how many staff and where are they all located with the Fire Commissioner's Office? They are still over on Merrymeeting Road, is it? How many staff are there and are they looking for additional staff?

MR. DENINE: Everyone is always looking for additional staff. The Fire Emergency Services is up on the fifth floor over in the West Block. That is part of it and then we have over on-

OFFICIAL: Parade Street.

MR. DENINE: Parade Street. I was born in St. John's and I forgot Parade Street. I know where the old university was at. They are in that, and Clarenville, Grand Falls, Deer Lake, there are offices there. We are spread out. The thing is we are looking at trying to get under one roof.

MR. BUTLER: In the past the Fire Commissioner used to be here to answer questions and I am sure I am looking forward to seeing the guy from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing tonight. The Commissioner, there is no reason that he is not here today, is there?

MR. DENINE: No, (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I know in the past when you had-

MR. DENINE: I never knew about the past. I am on a go-forward basis.

MR. BUTLER: I was expecting that answer.

Minister, the other day in conjunction with another department you made an announcement about changes to water quality in our Province and that.

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I know that is a good thing, and I think in Question Period I did bring it up at one time. I understand the situation. This is not with your department, the inspections are through somebody else. When all that broke about the water quality last year and the chlorine was not up to a standard, it was not certified or whatever the terminology would want to be, I checked with municipalities in my area. I am not saying this comes back to your department but then again it is a municipality type thing. If something went wrong I am sure it would be all tied together, like the two of you are coming out with a policy now on water quality. I checked with some of the municipalities in my area and, yes, the water was tested - you go for instance up on Merrymeeting Road and get a sample, and on Water Street there is another one - and the samples came out pretty good. When I questioned them, do they inspect the actual facility where this chlorine enters the system, one town manager told me it has been eight years he was there and nobody ever came for a key - he has the only key to it - and nobody inspected what was going in the system. If that was happening, and it has nothing to do with your department-

MR. DENINE: No, that is right.

MR. BUTLER: It all comes back to roost with municipalities and everything. If that was happening properly before with this uncertified, if they were inspecting the facilities as well, they probably would have seen the containers there, that it was not certified and would have detected it before it went into the main stream. Do you know what I am saying?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: That bothers me to some degree, I suppose, knowing that something was in the water, even though it was only at a minor amount. You would think the inspection would go right to that facility. I mean, you are inspecting the homes for the fire sprinklers or what have you. You cannot check them out in the backyard, you have to go into the building to see it. This was the concern I had with testing the water. I guess I am only bringing it up now, hopefully in conjunction with the two groups, that maybe your department can bring it forward because it is municipalities even though the governance and the inspections are done through another department.

MR. DENINE: Again, that is another reason why we are moving the water quality thing forward. You are right, that part of the inspection deals with environment and not municipal affairs. Sometimes when you do interdepartmental jurisdictional it is so tight you wonder why one has it over another. You know our goal is to make sure that everyone has potable drinking water and safe drinking water and that is what the initiative was all about. You know, these will be smaller communities, less than 500, who cannot go into a $4 million or $5 million facility or cannot put that much money into ground. They will be able to go to their communities and fill up their container and bring back good drinking water. Now, they have water probably going to their house but to put in a sophisticated system might be just too expensive for them. Basically, it is to make sure that everyone has good drinking water, and part of that would be training because they are hiring on more people.

I am going to leave that to Baxter in terms of talking on the training part of it.

MR. ROSE: On that issue, last year there were actually two events that occurred with the chlorine. One was: there was a batch of contaminated chlorine that wound up in the hands of some municipal operators. There was a scent on the chlorine and it got into some of the water supplies.

The second event was: there is a standard for the handling of this chlorine, and the company that was manufacturing the chlorine was manufacturing the chlorine in large containers and the system and the process that they were using met this national standard. The problem that occurred is that the process for getting from the large containers down to the small containers had not been certified. As a consequence, the smaller containers of chlorine didn't meet the same standard that had been applied to the large container. It didn't mean that there was anything wrong with the chlorine. Those small containers and that process are acceptable in a number of provinces in Canada. It is just that Newfoundland and Labrador has the higher standard. There was nothing wrong with the chlorine. It is just that the process from getting it from the big containers to the small ones had not been certified.

I am surprised by the comment that the inspectors have not been in to some of those water supply systems to do the testing. It may be possible that community may have been on a boil water advisory for a long term or something. In which case, if the town is on a long-term boil water advisory, that inspection would not have been done unless there was something changed to bring the inspectors back in.

MR. BUTLER: Not that I am aware of, that they were on a boil order.

I just have two or three more items, and hopefully I will have time to clue those up before you move to – I think someone over there might have a question.

Minister, within your department, do you do much polling or is there much media training within a twelve month time frame?

MR. DENINE: Why would you ask that?

In what sense? For me or for whom?

MR. BUTLER: Overall, I guess.

I know they wouldn't want to go to the polls about you. Everyone knows what kind of man you are, right? Just general polling; like, from time to time I know we ask questions of departments and, yes, we have done a certain amount of polling about this or that or the other thing.

MR. DENINE: Like, to get opinions?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. BUTLER: None?

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

MR. DENINE: To be honest with you, the most – my button is not on. Maybe they don't want to record it. I will tell you anyhow. Most of my information comes from my discussions with municipalities.

When I first got elected, I spent three days down at Municipalities Newfoundland – which I was no stranger to, because I knew most of them anyhow, having a background in municipal affairs – and I spoke to literally hundreds of communities. When I went out last weekend in Gander, I spoke to a lot of them. My colleagues here, any time someone wants to speak to me, I am always available.

If you are looking for polling, there is my polling. I talk to the people. That is what I do.

MR. BUTLER: I agree with you, Sir, I have seen that first-hand this year, but I thought you might have done something beyond that.

MR. DENINE: No.

MR. BUTLER: My second-last question goes back to the meetings where you do get your polling done. One of the resolutions that they brought forward this year - and I am not saying I agree with it and I am not saying that you are pushing it or anything like that, but it was brought forward as a resolution – I have to read it word for word, what was in the book: elimination of unincorporated areas, and establishment of minimum municipal taxes for the entire Province.

I was just wondering, with that resolution, has anything developed within your department to go back to them with a response one way or the other?

MR. DENINE: Well, on the unincorporated areas, it is always a challenge, as you know. The other part of it is that, when I spoke to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, I committed to looking at the fiscal framework of municipalities, and how they generate money - where does it come from, what other mechanisms we can use – and do a whole rethinking process in how we deliver this.

We will have a committee set up between MNL, municipal administrators, our department, my officials, and we are going to be looking at the whole fiscal framework of municipalities, and that hopefully to bring forth some time in the fall. So, for that purpose of funding municipalities, that is where that will come from.

I don't know if that answered your question or not, but we will be looking at that, in terms of that; but, as far as the unincorporated areas, no, I have not moved forward on any of that.

MR. BUTLER: My last question, Sir, and I should have asked it earlier when I was on the topic: Is there a list available of all special assistance grants and community enhancement grants that went out last year? Can you actually get a list –

MR. DENINE: I suppose, yes.

MR. BUTLER: - permissible to be passed out, that type of thing?

MR. DENINE: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible) committees?

MR. DENINE: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: They would all like that now, look.

OFFICIAL: I will make a note of that list.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Mr. Chair, I think that is the end of my questioning.

Before it goes to someone else, I want to thank the minister and his staff for appearing and being so straightforward with your responses.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Are there any further questions?

MS MICHAEL: I would also like to say thank you; it has been a good morning.

MR. DENINE: Thank you for your questions.

CHAIR: Anybody else from the Committee?

MS SULLIVAN: The hon. Member for Port de Grave asked my questions with regard to MOGs, and I am happy with those answers. I would thank the minister.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): Subheads 1.1.01. to 4.1.05. inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.1.01. to 4.1.05. carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 4.1.05. carried.

CHAIR: Is that the total?

Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Department of Municipal Affairs, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs carried without amendment.

MR. DENINE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Before we conclude, I would just like to thank the minister and his staff for the Estimates here this morning. As well, thank you to the Committee for the work they have done here this morning.

Just a reminder that the Social Services Committee will meet this evening at 5:30 here in the House to review Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

I will now call for a motion to adjourn.

MR. BUTLER: So moved.

CHAIR: Seconded?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seconded.

CHAIR: Thank you.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.