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

CHAIR (Verge): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I want to welcome you to the meeting where we will be hearing the Estimates for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council; the Rural Secretariat; and the Status of Women.

Before we start, I will ask members of the Committee, on my right, if they would introduce themselves, please.

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, Labrador West.

MR. DAVIS: Paul Davis, Topsail.

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

MR. BRAZIL: David Brazil, Conception Bay East-Bell Island.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS FARRELL: Natasha Farrell, Researcher, Liberal Caucus.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Shortly, one of my researchers, Susan Williams, will be to my right.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The order in which we will be hearing the different departments this morning, my understanding is that we will be starting with the Women's Policy Office. We will do the Rural Secretariat, the Research and Development Council, and then INTRD. I understand Francophone Affairs is not –

MS SULLIVAN: Francophone Affairs is under the Department of Finance.

CHAIR: Okay.

In a second, I will ask the Clerk to call the subhead and the minister has fifteen minutes to start, to introduce your officials and to talk about your department, then we will go to some members of the Committee for questions after that.

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely.

CHAIR: The Clerk.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin, first of all, by welcoming everyone here this morning. I know it has been a difficult and long process for some who have to come to many of these particular hearings with regard to Estimates, so I understand that it has been long and tedious for some people and we will try to make our answers this morning as clear as we possibly can to try to help facilitate the process of Estimates, which, of course, is a very valuable piece of the work that we do as elected officials, for sure.

I would like to begin by introducing my staff, but I think I will do that in a safer fashion by asking them to introduce themselves. I am known for not necessarily putting the first and last name on the right person, so I am going to allow my staff to introduce themselves. I will start here with my deputy, with Brent, and we will just go around so you can have a sense of who is in the room with us this morning.

CHAIR: I might add to your officials if you would watch for the light on the front there and when you speak, if the minister asks you to fill in some questions later on, before you start, if you could say your name for the purpose of Hansard.

Thank you.

MR. MEADE: Brent Meade, Deputy Minister, Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. HOGAN: Dennis Hogan, ADM for Innovation; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MS MALONE: Rita Malone, Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Economic Development.

MS HEARN: Judith Hearn, Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade and Export Development.

MR. AU: Peter Au, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Industries and Business Development.

MS SMITH: Michelle Smith, Director of Violence Prevention, Women's Policy Office.

MR. GILBERT: Bruce Gilbert, ADM, Rural Secretariat.

MR. JANES: Glenn Janes, CEO, Research and Development Corporation.

MS EVANS: Beverley Evans, CFO of the Research and Development Corporation.

MS VAUGHAN: Linda Vaughan, Departmental Comptroller for Executive Council.

MR. JONES: Scott Jones, Departmental Comptroller, INTRD.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the minister.

MR. BARFOOT: Scott Barfoot, Director of Communications, Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MS ABBOTT: Shelley Abbott, Executive Assistant to the hon. Minister Sullivan.

MS SULLIVAN: That is all we brought.

We are going to start this morning with Women's Policy. I understand, Mr. Chair, we are good to go?

CHAIR: We are good to go.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

Thank you all for being here. I just want to start with some very brief introductory comments. The total budget for advancing the Status of Women in the Province is approximately $4.9 million, which is increased from last year's budget of about $4.7 million. Over half of the funding in Budget 2011 will include investments in many of the Province's organizations to assist with enhanced delivery and improved access to community services particularly, as well as increasing awareness on our key issues, violence prevention being one of those key issues and the Respect Women campaign being another one of those key issues. We feel we have come a long way in terms of raising the profile here in the Province on the issues that are being addressed by the Status of Women, but we also know we still have a fair bit of work to do.

What I will do, I think, is simply turn now to the Estimates. We will take a look at those and then we will see what we can do about answering any questions you have.

CHAIR: For the purpose of the rest of the Committee, the Women's Policy Office Estimates in your Estimates book is found on page 21. So we can entertain questions now.

Ms Jones, do you want to start?

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for your brief comments. I certainly welcome you and your staff this morning. Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. I will just be doing the Estimates on the Women's Policy Office and my colleague, Mr. Dean, will be along to do the rest of your department.

Starting with the Estimates on 2.7.01, Women's Policy Office, I notice this year the salaries have increased a little bit. I do not know if it was a new position created or if it was just routine increases or step increases over the current year.

MS SULLIVAN: That is attributed just to the 4 per cent salary increase adjustment.

MS JONES: Okay.

I also notice that last year you spent $118,000 less than you had budgeted for salaries in that division. What was the reason for that?

MS SULLIVAN: That was delayed recruitment of a couple of positions there within the department.

MS JONES: Can you tell me what positions it was?

MS SULLIVAN: In terms of those delayed, I am not sure which ones. Michelle, can you fill in which ones it took us awhile to recruit for last year?

MS SMITH: Yes, absolutely. These are positions related to economic and social policy.

MS JONES: What are the titles of positions?

MS SMITH: The positions are still awaiting classification and that has been part of the delay. The positions are expected to be classified shortly.

MS JONES: So nobody has been hired?

MS SMITH: No, nobody has been hired in those positions. Again, the savings are due to the delayed recruitment because the positions have been awaiting classification.

MS JONES: Okay, so it is two positions that you have not yet been able to classify and they still have not been filled?

MS SMITH: Absolutely.

MS JONES: Why has it taken a whole year and you have not been able to fill two positions?

MS SMITH: The Women's Policy Office has undergone an organizational review. That review process has been approved; however, the review took longer than anticipated. Once approved, in terms of the positions –

MS JONES: I cannot hear you. Can you talk a little louder, please?

MS SULLIVAN: I find it difficult to hear on the other side as well this morning. I do not know if the mikes are down or –

MS JONES: Maybe I could use my headphones.

CHAIR: The mikes, they just turned them up.

MS SULLIVAN: I think it is everybody who is having difficultly, so hopefully they are going to turn them up for us.

CHAIR: I think they just did.

MS JONES: I am sorry, Michelle, could you continue?

MS SMITH: It took some time for our organizational review process to be underway and then to finally be approved. The positions were approved in that review process; however, as I said, that took some time and now that the positions have been approved, they still have to be classified. So that has taken longer than anticipated by our office; however, that classification review process is expected to be finalized very shortly and then recruitment will proceed.

MS JONES: Okay. The organization review is all completed now, is it?

MS SMITH: Yes.

MS JONES: What was the purpose of the review?

MS SMITH: It was an organizational review in terms of –

MS JONES: I am just trying to figure out what changes you made in the department, what needed to be changed.

MS SMITH: - making sure that our workforce plan for the office meets the requirements of the office in terms of the workload demands, in terms of meeting our lines of business.

MS JONES: Okay. Thank you for your answer.

Also, in that year you had budgeted $125,000 more in Transportation and Communications that did not get spent. Was that intended for any particular campaign last year that did not get on the way or what was that money allocated for?

MS SULLIVAN: Essentially, what was happening there was that our need to hire external contractors and consultants was not as high as it once was. For example, there was an FRP that was prepared to hire a company to develop and design a Web site for the respect for aging campaign, I believe, respect aging project; that was not issued, as we found that we had the capacity within our own department to be able to do that particular Web site design. So, within house we were able to find some savings there.

The other piece that I think is significant to note, with regard to that, is that a decision was made early in the year to reallocate some of those funds, $54,000, in fact, to a grant to one of our Community Youth Networks. That was for a project associated with women at risk, and that was approved by Treasury Board. We took that to Treasury Board and said we would like to reallocate it here, we think it can be well managed, and Treasury Board had no problem with that. Also, early on in the year it was decided that we would reallocate some of the monies in this particular line item to support the Respect Women and the Purple Ribbon Campaigns.

MS JONES: The youth centre project you referred to, women at risk, what youth centre sponsored that project and how much was that?

MS SULLIVAN: I am not sure the exact name of it. Michelle, it is the Harbour Breton centre, but I cannot remember the name of the community youth centre.

MS SMITH: No, that is the Community Youth Network.

MS SULLIVAN: It was Harbour Breton, though?

MS SMITH: I believe it is the St. John's Community Youth Network.

MS SULLIVAN: Was it? Okay, it was the St. John's one, the Harbour Breton one was another.

MS JONES: Yes, how much money would have been spent for that?

MS SULLIVAN: $54,000.

MS JONES: Again, under Professional Services, you spent $167,800 less than you had intended. Can you tell me what that money was originally budgeted for?

MS SULLIVAN: The $167,000 less was spent, but it was reallocated in other areas - and you are asking what the original intent of that money was? I am assuming that from last year's budget to this they probably plugged in the same numbers, but I do not have that information with me. I can get that for you - Michelle, unless you know?

MS SMITH: This original figure was based on last year's figure and it was anticipated that we would be contracting more external contractors, for example, to develop Web sites and that sort of thing. We did, because now we go through a more rigorous process in terms of how we advance our RFPs in-house and we do a more thorough vetting now to ensure, first of all, that we have capacity in-house between our various departments and agency. For some of that type of work that previously we had to go external for, we now have the capacity to do that in-house within government.

MS JONES: So, what you are telling me is that the excess money that did not get spent in Communications and what did not get spent in Professional Services was all budgeted for Web site design? That would be $280,000. I am in the wrong business.

MS SMITH: I believe there has actually been an error. I think that in terms of your earlier question about Transportation and Communications – Minister, may I interject here?

MS SULLIVAN: Go ahead.

MS SMITH: The first question you had asked was about Transportation and Communications, is that correct, Ms Jones?

MS JONES: Yes, it is.

MS SMITH: The savings in Transportation and Communications were due to three factors. One was that we have a respect aging project which is to deliver education and training to a number of target audiences for the prevention of Violence Against Older Persons. Originally, that project was going to consist only of front-line delivery, train-the-trainer methods. We have reoriented the project in conjunction with our advisory committee members on that project to now include electronic methods such as CD and Web site delivery for that project.

As a result of that, we have taken longer with the development of that project to make it available in the electronic formats. As a result, instead of going out and doing the delivery in all of the regions of the Province, as we had anticipated originally this year, because we expanded the training methods to include the other formats, development time took longer and we brought our advisory committees to St. John's to test the training content that we had developed and to determine how the Web site and the CD and the materials would work. So, we had some savings in terms of our transportation costs there associated with that project.

Our office had also achieved some reductions in the Transportation and Communications area as a result of efficiencies in our travel and using the most economic travel routes available to use. For example, we have more people driving, where it is more economical, instead of flying. We have more people carpooling to come to events and things like that. As well, a portion of the savings under Transportation and Communications was reallocated into the Respect Women Campaign. So that is where the savings was in Transportation and Communications.

What Minister Sullivan has outlined in terms of Professional Services was that our need to hire external contractors is not as high as it once was where we have the capacity to do more work internal to government such as with Web site development. Under Professional Services, as the minister has already said, a decision was made early in the year to reallocate the $540,000 to the Community Youth Network for the grant associated with the project with women at risk. Funds were also reallocated from Professional Services to support the Respect Women and the Purple Ribbon Campaigns.

I hope that clarifies.

MS JONES: Yes. Thank you.

Subhead 06 Purchased Services, you budgeted $280,900, you spent $272,600 more. I am asking if you can give me an outline of what that money was spent on.

MS SULLIVAN: Primarily in the area of VPI, the Violence Prevention Initiative, for additional advertising, for additional education and awareness, programs for additional training, and for meetings and accommodations. As well, the work under Purchased Services also reflects increased costs in our work to support Aboriginal Women.

MS JONES: Can you tell me why those things were not originally budgeted for at the amount that is there?

MS SULLIVAN: I think it is more to do with as the year unfolded and being able to see better ways and areas in which monies were needed to be spent, I think we saw that. Our Violence Prevention Initiative, which is a six-year initiative, as you know, was gaining some momentum and we were able to see some successes for the work we were doing there so we decided to continue to do the work in that area and to, in fact, step it up.

As well, there was a need that was identified in the sense of more support for Aboriginal women. Where we see need, we put money, especially when we are able to see opportunity to move money from one area to another to be able to accommodate those needs.

MS JONES: You are obviously anticipating a smaller campaign this year or something on a different level because you are budgeting about half the amount.

MS SULLIVAN: Many of the resources we have developed, now we can see that we do not need to redevelop. We do not need to put money into the development of the resources for those particular campaigns now. In fact, we have lots that we can use again in out years.

MS JONES: Okay.

Under Grants and Subsidies, can you give me an outline of where the $2.3 million was spent last year and where the increase in the grant is coming from this year, where it is going?

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, go ahead.

CHAIR: While the minister is preparing that answer, usually we allow about fifteen minutes for the first responder and then if – I am okay, if it is all right with Ms Michael, if you are on a schedule, Ms Jones, to allow you to finish up your questions on Women's Policy. It seems to be okay with Ms Michael.

MS JONES: No, no, I will just get the answer to the grants and subsidies. I am happy to move on to Lorraine and let her ask her questions. I do have some more but we can come back to that.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS SULLIVAN: Under Grants and Subsidies, it reflects the transfer of the $54,000 that we talked about. Grants have increased as well to $156,000 in the following areas. We have $100,000 to increase the grant for each of the ten regional co-ordinating committees; we have a $10,000 increase to the annual grant to the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre; and $46,000, which reflects the 5 per cent increase to each of the women's centres. I do not know if you want a listing of them in the sense of the women's centres and the names of the centres and so on.

MS JONES: Maybe what would be best, if you could just send us a copy of all the grants and subsidies, it might be easier?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, that is not a problem, it is right here. Michelle, would you make a note to make sure we send that listing over as well? Ms Michael would like that as well.

MS JONES: Yes, and I will turn it over to Lorraine.

CHAIR: Okay.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Every question that I might have had on 2.7.01 has been asked, so I will not repeat. I would like to ask a general question with regard to the violence prevention initiative, just some detail on how your plan for last year went. What were the goals and did you meet them, and what your plans are for this year in the VPI? Are we in year four or -

MS SULLIVAN: Six.

MS MICHAEL: Six now?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. We have been able to determine a fair bit of success on our campaigns, both the violence prevention and the Respect Women campaigns through attitudinal surveys that we have been doing particularly. That was our number one strategic priority that was listed in the violence prevention initiative action plan, was to increase public awareness, particularly around violence, violence prevention, and to change attitudes around violence as well. Our social marketing plan, we believe has helped us to achieve those particular objectives.

As part of the VPI commitment to collecting effective evidence-based research, that pre-evaluation plan was put in place and was conducted in the spring of 2009. I am sure we would have reported on that last year, but 85 per cent of individuals' surveyed identified physical violence as the main type of violence. Obviously we know that physical violence, while it is a serious form of violence against women, is certainly only one among many types of violence. We were able to see that there is still a fair bit of work that needs to be done there.

The Respect Women campaign, of course, aired between July 10 and third, 2009, and it is still airing. We are starting to see some response from our respondents now that are showing some changes in attitude that we are fairly happy with. If you want, there is a whole list of statistics that we can send over to you in terms of things we were able to find out there.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I would very much like to receive that.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. Michelle, would you make a note of that as well.

Essentially, we know that violence is rooted in inequality. We still have work to do, we are still continuing to do work, but we are seeing some success in the areas in which we have targeted our monies. We are pleased with some of that. The pre-evaluation and post-evaluation results speak for themselves. When you see them, there are several pages of results there that show us there is, unfortunately, still work to be done.

MS MICHAEL: Minister, does the statistical information include statistics with regard to the reports of the violence against women and the difference between year one and the end of year five of the VPI?

MS SULLIVAN: No, we do not have information that is that specific at this point in time, but we do hope to be able to garner that. The information in terms of subtopics, public awareness of the campaign, overall public knowledge of violence against women, prevention of male violence against women, those were the targets – knowledge of services and resources. Those are the topics and then they are broken down into some other subtopics there as well.

MS MICHAEL: There was a period there where there were some public expressions of people's dissatisfaction with the Respect for Women. I have to say, I have heard a lot of that, too. How did the Women's Policy Office respond to that?

MS SULLIVAN: We did receive some letters. I cannot say there was an overwhelming response. If anything, the response we received was overwhelming on the other side of that, in that there were a lot of people who commended our campaign and a lot of people who were very supportive, particularly people who have been victims.

There were a number of editorials that were written and there were a number of letters that were received in my department. We started to see repeat. People who would write would write continuously. We saw a bit of that. We responded to all of those letters, and again responding in the sense that this was not meant to target men in the sense of saying that this was an all-out front against men. This was a prevention campaign, and prevention begins with understanding. Prevention begins with understanding how violence itself happens. Using men as role models for their sons, we believe to have been a good approach.

We had letters back thanking us, in fact, for how we explained the process to people. Generally speaking, I think the responses were positive in the end. It is a matter of education and while we understand the sensitivities of it, we also cannot ignore the fact that men need to be role models for their sons.

MS MICHAEL: I share this for the sake of part of your evaluation. There was one comment that came to me a number of times. It was: In the ad, the words "violence against women" actually is not heard. If you watch it on television, you see it. The same oral text is used on radio, and radio, therefore, you do not even see violence against women. For anybody who was just listening, there was no connection between the ad and the reason for the ad, which is violence against women. I put that out as something for reflection.

MS SULLIVAN: Fair comment. Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: You have spoken a couple of times in response to other questions about having put more money into programming for Aboriginal women. Could you speak a bit about how the programming for Aboriginal women was strengthened this year and if there were new pieces add, what were they?

MS SULLIVAN: That is a piece that Michelle has worked on and I think she can do a really good job of giving a total answer to that. Michelle, if you would.

MS SMITH: Absolutely.

Of course, one of our priority areas with both the Status of Women office overall and with the Violence Prevention Initiative is advancing the status of Aboriginal women and preventing violence against Aboriginal women and girls.

One of the key pieces of work that the Women's Policy Office is doing is an Inuit Women's Capacity Building Program with women in Inuit communities on the North Coast. We actually have a woman who is working on it with our staff; a Women's Policy Office staff person situated in Hopedale who is providing programming in the North Coast Nunatsiavut area doing workshops, self-esteem building, networking, social media networking with Inuit women all along the North Coast to try to enhance their capacity on the ground to build programming and networks and connections to try to break down the barriers of the isolation, the lack of access, the lack of networks that they have, to try to improve their capacity in their own communities, in their own ways, that are culturally sensitive and appropriate, with a gender lens, to help improve their status in their own communities. So, that is one of the major pieces of work that we have been taking on over the last year.

We have also had the Aboriginal Women's Conference, as we do every year. That was held in St. John's this year. Some of the other work that is ongoing, of course, we have the Aboriginal Women's Violence Prevention Grants Program. The funds are with the Women's Policy Office side of the budget, but we also administer that through the Violence Prevention Initiative, and it is an action under the VPI plan of action. That program is so successful, at this point in time, that we have 100 per cent take up of all of our grants. So, we actually have more applications coming in now than we are able to fulfill. We actually have more requests for money than we actually have available in the fund. So, that program has been so successful.

Of course, we continue our work with all Aboriginal women's organizations, Aboriginal communities, and Aboriginal governments in the Province. Some of that work ties into specific projects that we have, whether it would be the respect aging project that I have already mentioned this morning. We actually have established an Aboriginal advisory committee for that project, and we have representation from nearly every Aboriginal government and organization in the Province on that project. Those are some of the big pieces of work that we have been doing but, specifically, the Inuit Women's Capacity Building Program.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Minister, I am assuming that the grants that Ms Smith has referred to would be included in the listings that we would be getting.

MS SMITH: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely.

MS MICHAEL: Great, thank you.

I am wondering: With regard to Aboriginal women and the justice system, is there any work going on between the Women's Policy Office and the Department of Justice with regard to Aboriginal women?

MS SULLIVAN: There is constant consultation - constant consultation.

MS MICHAEL: Could you give us some idea, the areas in which you have been consulting on?

MS SULLIVAN: Michelle, do you want to outline those because I am not sure exactly of the last little bit of time, but I know there have been several areas of consultation that have taken place with Don Burrage and his shop, so if you could just outline those?

MS SMITH: Absolutely.

MS SULLIVAN: Just giving a listing of them.

MS SMITH: In fact, I just came from a meeting yesterday about just such an issue with justice and the women's community.

There are many issues, of course, facing Aboriginal women in the justice system. We work with women in our Aboriginal communities and governments on the issue. We work with our Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. We work with our women's centres. We work with our regional co-ordinating committees. Part of the work that we do there is working directly with the women where they are as they are and in consultation and collaboration, of course, with women in the community. We work very closely with the Department of Justice in trying to do this in partnership with all of us to try to advance the issues forward because we all want the same thing.

Some of the issues that have been brought to us are around sentencing, not just in terms of length of sentencing but also where offenders serve sentences. We are doing some work around that. There has been some work that is happening with respect to training for judges that is being looked at and also some work with the corrections system.

MS MICHAEL: May I just ask specifically what exactly the work with the correctional system is, with whom in the correction system? Is it training in the correctional system?

MS. SMITH: Training in the correctional system has been one area that we have worked at and, certainly, advancing women into senior positions, not just within the justice system but overall. Of course you know that is one of the pieces of work that we do as the Women's Policy Office but, specifically, within this system as well. That would be another aspect.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can pass it back to you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Are there any further questions on the Women's Policy Office?

Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Yes, I do actually – no, not on the Women's Policy Office, I think they are all covered.

CHAIR: We are finished questioning the Women's Policy Office?

MS JONES: The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, I have some questions on that. They receive a grant every year from government, right? When they receive the grant, do they submit a full budget to government of a breakdown of where they are going to spend the money, what they are going to use it for and so on?

MS SULLIVAN: I can give you a listing of that.

MS JONES: 2.7.02.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Yes, we have community events, council meetings, council meeting travel, council meeting expenses, telephone, general office, postage, and printing. There is a full list that has been prepared.

MS JONES: Okay.

How many people actually work in the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women now?

MS SULLIVAN: Four.

MS JONES: There are four employees?

MS SULLIVAN: Four staff.

MS JONES: Can you give me a breakdown of their budget? Are you able to provide that to me?

MS SULLIVAN: In terms of the $462,000 that is listed there, that is what you are looking for?

MS JONES: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: I can in the sense of the revenue and expenses. I am not sure exactly what it is you are looking for.

MS JONES: Yes, that is all I am looking for: what their revenue and expenses are, how much is paid for salaries, how much is paid for transportation and communication. I do not know what other categories they have there; maybe you could read them off to me?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

So, you want me to go down through the full list of this? Salaries, for example, are $259,000; if you want that in terms of EI expenses, CPP expenses, do you want all of that?

MS JONES: No.

MS SULLIVAN: So, the $259,000 is fine there. Then, the other would be in the sense of operational expenses, so we are looking at council and staff travel, there is about $3,992, that is metro travel; IT support and software is about $8,000; equipment lease and maintenance, $3,000; subscription resource materials, $900; printing, $2,900; postage, $1,500; general office expenses of $8,000; telephone, both regular PDC, about $7,800; insurance and security, $900; outreach, $18,000; council meetings and expenses, $22,000 for travel, per diems around $11,000; and community events, $2,600.

MS JONES: The additional money that you approved this year, what is that being used for?

MS SULLIVAN: The additional money was the 4 per cent increase adjustment for salaries.

MS JONES: Where would their legal costs fall, under what heading?

MS SULLIVAN: I would have to check on that and get back to you. I am not seeing it listed specifically in a line item here, so I can check and see under which of these headings.

MS JONES: Okay.

I would like to know what their legal budget is each year, and if you could give me that or let me know what heading it falls under and break it out, that would be great.

MS SULLIVAN: We will get that for you.

MS JONES: The other thing is, for example, in the course of a year, if the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women decided to take legal action on a particular case, do they have to get prior approval from the department to do that, or are they completely on their own, and if they go over budget, how is that accommodated?

MS SULLIVAN: There is legal counsel within house that can provide that kind of counsel to them.

MS JONES: Within the Status of Women, within the Women's Policy Office, or Department of Justice, how does that work?

MS SULLIVAN: I am assuming that would be with the Department of Justice.

MS JONES: Okay.

If they are using an outside firm, how does that work?

MS SULLIVAN: I will get you the exact details of how their legal handlings are pursued.

MS JONES: Okay.

Again, my other question is: If they were to take legal action and they were using an outside firm to do that and they were going over their budgeted amount, how is that accommodated for? Is there prior approval needed from government, how does that work?

MS SULLIVAN: Ms Jones, I will get that information for you. To my knowledge, that has not happened. So, therefore, it is a speculative piece of information that you would be looking for, but I will get the information in terms of how their legal contracts are pursued, and I will certainly make that available to you.

MS JONES: Well, I am just assuming for anything in their budget, if they wanted to do anything in their budget, whether it was legal action, whether it was a new campaign, whether it was something else, if it is outside of that $462,000 –

MS SULLIVAN: That is right.

MS JONES: – does it have to have prior approval from government before the action can be taken?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS JONES: It does, okay.

Could I get that information relatively quickly in the next few days, if that is possible?

MS SULLIVAN: Sure, if I can do that, I certainly will.

MS JONES: Okay, thank you.

I want to thank you, Minister, and your officials. I am going to take my leave and my colleague is here now. Those are all of my questions on that section.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions on the Women's Policy Office and the Status of Women?

We would normally vote that right now but the Clerk has stepped out to check on the Francophone Affairs piece for me, so what we will do is move into the Rural Secretariat, Minister; is that a good place?

MS SULLIVAN: That is good, yes.

CHAIR: We will move into the Rural Secretariat and make note that Mr. Dean is now filling the chair that Ms Jones just vacated.

The Clerk is here, so we can indeed vote the Estimates for the Women's Policy Office.

I will ask the Clerk to call the subhead, please.

CLERK: Subhead 2.7.01.

CHAIR: Shall 2.7.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.7.01 carried.

CLERK: Subhead 2.7.02.

CHAIR: Shall 2.7.02 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.7.02 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Status of Women and Women's Policy Office, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of the Status of Women and Women's Policy Office carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Status of Women and Women's Policy Office carried without amendment.

CHAIR: We will now move into the Rural Secretariat. Are there any questions on the Rural Secretariat from any members?

Mr. Dean, do you have questions on the Rural Secretariat?

MR. DEAN: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, you can go, sir.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

A couple of things on line items, Minister, first of all. On 2.6.01, line 5, Professional Services, we are increasing from $80,000 to $150,000 this year. Can you give us an explanation for that, please?

MS SULLIVAN: There is a $70,000 increase there to support public engagement processes that we wish to undertake, some community-based research and as well collaborative-related work with partners and councils.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

How many years have we had the Rural Secretariat now? Is this eight, seven or eight years?

MS SULLIVAN: Bruce, eight years, the Rural Secretariat?

MR. GILBERT: I believe it is more like between five and six.

MR. DEAN: Okay, I thought it might have been longer, but that is good.

Can we talk generally about it, in terms of what its mandate is, what it is achieving? Because I have to be honest, it appears to be a little bit silent, if that is the right way to say it, in a lot of ways. I just wonder if –

MS SULLIVAN: In terms of the Rural Secretariat, it is fairly unique and I think it is innovative for this provincial government. It is an entity that basically strives to advance the sustainability of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we do this in a number of ways, primarily by engaging citizens, and we do that in respectful dialogue. We think it is important to be able to ensure that the opinions of people in various regions of the Province are known and heard. Through engaging citizens, through collaborating with them, we think we are more effectively able to determine issues that they face in their day-to-day lives. So that would be part of the mandate of the Secretariat.

As well, I think it is fair to say that working with the regional and provincial partners we are able to put together some fairly good research. We can conduct that research, at which in turn then can help inform government policy, government input into decision making and so on. The ten citizen-based advisory councils that we have out there, whose primary goal is to develop that policy advice for us, we find that to be very helpful.

MR. DEAN: Okay. When we talk about engaging citizens, how are we engaging the general populous into decision making for different parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS SULLIVAN: Perhaps what I will do in a second is I will ask Bruce to give an example of one particular engagement that has happened –

MR. DEAN: Sure.

MS SULLIVAN: - but we do have ten planners out there and we have staff in various offices and so on, six staff who are located here in the provincial building at our headquarters. When a topic is identified by a council then they will engage with - and the council of course is made up of citizens of the region, then they will engage with particular entities and stakeholders and shareholders in a region. I know, for example, out in my own area now there is a particular issue that has been highlighted, and it does not have to be highlighted by a council. Somebody can come to a council as well and say we would like to have your input; we would like to have your help in facilitating dialogue around this particular issue.

In Grand Falls-Windsor, I know Central Health has come forward and said we have a particular issue and we would like to engage your help in this particular health care issue in the sense of helping to discern opinion and so on. That is one of the ways that particular mandate can be fulfilled.

Bruce, perhaps if you could just briefly give a sense of some of the public engagements that do take place and how they help to inform policy, I think it might be helpful by way of example to better understand the process.

MR. GILBERT: I guess, generally, we involve ourselves in public engagements from three different entry points. As the minister has accurately stated, sometimes we are approached by one of our ten councils. They have an issue they want to explore; they want to capture the views of citizens or stakeholder groups. That is one entry point.

Another is from departments; various departments, more and more frequently, are contacting the Rural Secretariat and asking us if we could help bring our expertise and our speciality in a creative, public engagement design to their table. We work with them, often behind the scenes, to help them design something different, something that goes beyond public consultation sessions that we all know so well.

Another entry point is that we ourselves, through our own people on the ground, may identify an issue that is emerging and no one is talking about it or there is no organized collection of voices talking about it. We will try and interest partners to perhaps get together, think about it, dialogue on it and when it is appropriate for them and that group, we will work with them to broaden the circle of voices. All of this is about bringing good ideas and policy decision-making ideas into the system where appropriate. It is also about getting groups and entities working together. I will give you three examples of effective public engagement from my perspective, and I do believe it is innovative and creative.

Right now on the Cape Shore we have a low-powered FM radio transmitter, all approved by the regulators. We have three transmitters, one in Point Lance, one in Branch, and one in St. Bride's. They are doing three days of community run, community led or sub-regional led, you could say, programming related to the future of the Cape Shore. Its dialogue, its interviews, its discussion tables around farming and agriculture and what can we do to improve it, but also, underlying all of that work, is that it is actually collaborative in nature. The committee is the mayor of Point Lance, the mayor of Branch, the mayor of St. Bride's. We did a similar thing recently on Bell Island, where we actually worked with a host of players there. It was their show and we worked behind the scenes to help them figure out how to have good, effective dialogue that is actually collaborative in nature.

The Central Health example is very important as well; that was last week. I was the facilitator in that session. There were over 100 people in a room in Gander deliberating effectively and sensibly in a very well orchestrated, planned and respectful process about how to change the image of long-term care in the region, how to harness what they knew and try and make long-term care a place people would want to work and make it more effective. It was a very fruitful discussion. It is not our issue; we were there to help them. Those are three examples.

MR. DEAN: Okay. Thank you.

There is a pilot project on the go on the Northern Peninsula too, I believe, by the Rural Secretariat, is that correct? Can you tell us something about that?

MS SULLIVAN: There is a pilot project happening on the Northern Peninsula. It is a ministerial committee, and it is supported by the deputy minister and a number of other officials. It is managed by the Rural Secretariat with support from INTRD.

Through the pilot, it is anticipated that regional leaders and officials will work together to create an innovative way of involving stakeholders in regional decision making. It is anticipated that they will provide advice to the decision makers, re how to better invest funds in pilot regions, work together to identify regional development initiatives and priorities and provide advice regarding how best to develop and support innovative regional collaboration across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Bruce, if you would like to add any detail there with regard to that particular pilot I think it might be helpful.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Minister.

The pilot was initially an INTRD activity. The Rural Secretariat was a partner. There were four departments as key players: Transportation and Works; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; INTRD itself, and Municipal Affairs. It was structured to be two years, and upon assessment a potential extension. We have just finished the two-year mark. We are moving into an assessment period now. I have been talking to various players, my colleagues, about a developmental evaluation, a participatory evaluation to look at what worked and what did not. It was meant to be a pilot, and the key learning, I think, will be: What can we learn from this process that will inform future efforts by this or any government to engage respectfully the leaders in a particular region on decision making, general decisions and budget decisions? There was a lot of learning there. Of course it was not perfect, it was never meant to be. It was also organic, it evolved over time. We have reached the two-year mark, and now recently, at a deputy minister's meeting, we discussed the assessment.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

The rural lens, which is a part of the Rural Secretariat – I do not know if that is the right way to say it or not: a part of. Is that effective? Is it being utilized? Is it kind of open ended in terms of government policy going through?

MS SULLIVAN: I can tell you that on every Cabinet paper we view, the rural lens is applied. There is the odd paper where it would not be applicable, but not very many. The rural lens is certainly applied and it is a very important piece of our consideration. Certainly, in terms of making major policy or changing policy, it is exceptionally important.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

It is not pertaining to this year's budget, necessarily, but where I want to go with this is the major change that was made on the Northern Peninsula with the air ambulance. I do not think that ever went through the rural lens or Rural Secretariat, I do not think there was ever any involvement and so on.

I was involved in the first Rural Secretariat when it started. I do not know how long ago it was; I thought it was a bit longer than six years.

MS SULLIVAN: We all have memories like that.

MR. DEAN: Yes, the memory is not working properly any more.

I followed it with interest along the years and I know some of the players who began the program and so on. I am not sure that I am seeing it – perhaps it is just not showing its face the way it needs to or something in the region. That might be a fair comment.

The removal of the air ambulance by the government was a major decision, obviously, and something that had a major impact in a part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly our area. The Rural Secretariat-rural lens had no participation in that at all, so I have to question the effectiveness of it in terms of government policy making. If everything is going through Cabinet, that certainly was one that did not. How does Cabinet pick and choose if they go there or if they do not go there?

MS SULLIVAN: I am not going to defend the air ambulance decision or any of the Cabinet decisions that we make here, but I will tell you that the Rural Secretariat is very important. The work of the Secretariat is very important. The policy directions, the advice documents that we receive and the lens that is applied, all of those pieces are exceptionally important to how we evaluate any of our decisions.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Mr. Chair, I give Lorraine an opportunity.

CHAIR: Any other questions on the Rural Secretariat?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Just a little bit more specifics with regard to the regional collaboration pilot, and I do look forward to hearing about the assessment of that pilot. I am just wondering, from the perspective of the regional community representation, if we could have an idea of the breadth, not in terms of the individuals but who was represented in terms of the breadth of the face of the community?

MS SULLIVAN: You are talking about who the actual representation –

MS MICHAEL: Not necessarily the individuals.

MS SULLIVAN: Not the names.

MS MICHAEL: No, but the sectors from which the representation came from the community.

MS SULLIVAN: What we are looking at there, we are talking about varied backgrounds to the respective councils. Many are familiar and they would have had extensive track records in areas such as economic development, certainly, social development, cultural heritage, arts, environment. We are looking for community leadership, people who might have had involvement in education, health care; a variety of backgrounds.

MS MICHAEL: If they came from an organization, did the organization choose the person or was it –

MS SULLIVAN: Are you talking specifically about the pilot?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Oh, I am sorry. For that one, then we had fifteen reps from the Nordic RED Board, the Red Ochre RED Board as well, St. Anthony-Port au Choix Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat, the Northern Peninsula Waste Management Authority. The Great Northern Peninsula Joint Council had membership there. There were three ADMs and five other senior officials, as well as the constituency assistant for the minister of the day.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

In the general listing you did initially, you mentioned cultural heritage, for example, in that group, who would have brought in, say, the cultural piece. Do you have any idea what organization?

MS SULLIVAN: Well, when I made reference to the cultural piece, I was talking in the sense of the organization itself and the membership on the various regional councils. On that particular one, I would not know – Bruce, I do not know if you would know of anyone on that particular pilot who had cultural background?

MR. GILBERT: Sure. Well, there are two RED Boards that are within the pilot region and there are two reps from each RED Board. RED Boards generally have a lot to do with culture and heritage in their area, but specifically, one of the reps representing the Rural Secretariat, I believe, is Joan Simmonds from Conche, who is with the French organization there, and she has been a fabulous member in all respects.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Mentioning Conche, Minister – this is just coming up in my thoughts now because I was so impressed by it – the tremendous project that was done with regard to the heritage on the French Shore, that basically sort of had to happen outside of all of the structures that we have in place. I am wondering: Was that brought to the regional councils on the Northern Peninsula to get support? Because I found it very disappointing, it is a tremendous project and I was so impressed, but to see they could not be displayed in The Rooms it has to be the Geo Centre. There does not seem to be a plan for them to have a permanent place for this project, which I think would be wonderful. I am just curious as to whether or not that was brought to regional councils on the Northern Peninsula and if there was no support for it, why not? That would have seemed to me to be something that would have been a tremendous project to be involved in.

MS SULLIVAN: We are not aware of it having been brought to a regional council for any consideration, no.

MS MICHAEL: I see.

I guess I wonder how come they would not even think of doing that.

MS SULLIVAN: That would be the organization itself.

MS MICHAEL: I know and I am wondering why it would not come to them, if the regional councils were so present in the community, why it would not come to them to go to the Rural Secretariat through the council.

MS SULLIVAN: I cannot answer that.

MS MICHAEL: There was no discussion at all?

MS SULLIVAN: Not that I am aware of.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

My final is a request, not a question. On a couple of occasions I have had somebody from a regional council talk to me about the work of regional council, their concerns, et cetera, and they have made reference: Well, we have put these ideas in a paper to the Secretariat. I did, last year, request if there were documents like that, which I was told there were, could we have copies of them, but we have no record of having received any copies. This year, would you have received reports from any of the councils with recommendations, et cetera, and could we have copies of those reports?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. I have received them and it is not a problem. My understanding last year - maybe it was a misunderstanding of what happened last year. I think I was briefed that as a result of these Estimates that documents were not requested specifically, but it was asked if documents could be made available, the answer was yes. I understand that a listing of documents was sent and we understood that people were to get back and say we would like to have these particular documents. We can certainly supply you with whatever documents that you would like in terms of what we have received in the way of advice documents from our councils.

MS MICHAEL: Please, it is hard to know from a list, when you do not know what the content is, to say this is the one that I want because we do not know what is coming in. So, yes, we would like to receive any of the formal reports and advice documents that you get from the regional councils. We would find that really helpful.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

Bruce, if you would make note of that?

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Those are all my questions.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions on the Rural Secretariat?

MR. DEAN: Just one probably, Mr. Chair.

The increase in the Salaries this year, is there another person being added there, Minister?

MS SULLIVAN: Sorry, I did not hear your question.

MR. DEAN: The increase in Salaries, item 1, 2.6.01.

MS SULLIVAN: No, that is the 4 per cent salary increase for 2011-2012.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

That is good.

CHAIR: Okay.

I will ask the Clerk to call the subhead, please.

CLERK: Subhead 2.6.01.

CHAIR: Shall 2.6.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 2.6.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Rural Secretariat, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for the Rural Secretariat carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Rural Secretariat carried without amendment.

CHAIR: We have to also look at the Research & Development Corporation, which we will go to next, but as a point of clarification the Estimates on Francophone Affairs were indeed referred to this Committee. So, as such, we do have to vote those Estimates today. I just want to let you folks know that because we did say something about it at the beginning. There may be some confusion about whether or not it was referred to Finance, but indeed, Finance did not vote those Estimates. We will do them, but we will do them after the Research & Development Corporation.

The Francophone Affairs numbers, for information purposes, are found on page 27 of the Estimates book.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Page 27, it is called the Office of French Services.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I do not have those with me. I am not prepared to ask questions on it.

CHAIR: It was referred to this Committee, Ms Michael; it is in Hansard when different departments were referred to this particular Committee. Francophone Affairs was indeed listed, so it is our duty to do that today.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

CHAIR: We will go to Research & Development Corporation now. I think that is on page 23 of the Estimates book.

Mr. Dean, do you want to start us off there?

MR. DEAN: Sure.

I guess, Minister, there is not much detail in this particular section but a lot of money. The questions are more general in nature, I guess, and it would obviously talk about the Grants and Subsidies.

First of all, can you give us the current status of the corporation and what they are doing?

MS SULLIVAN: That is a pretty open-ended question.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Well, in terms of the Research & Development Corporation, it was established in 2008. There are four key words I like to use when talking about the R&D Corporation. It is to strengthen the focus around quantity, quality, and relevance of the R&D, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador. They had, in Budget Speech 2009, been given a $25 million budget to operate and support.

They were formally incorporated in December, 2009. They have developed a suite of programs to direct and strengthen that R&D capacity here in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in terms of industry, academia, and in terms of our provincial government department clients as well. They operate in various sectors. Energy and ocean technology are particular sectors that come to mind when I think of some of the work we have been doing lately.

In Budget 2010, they had an allocated budget of $25.2 million. Their annual allocation is provided as a grant because of the fact that the RDC is – their status is considered to be as a Crown corporation. They deliver on many multi-year commitments.

I do not know if that answers your question in terms of whom they are and what they do.

MR. DEAN: No, that is fine. That is a good starting point.

In terms of funding, who makes a decision on that? Is it subject to the approval of the minister or does it go to Cabinet?

MS SULLIVAN: Depending on the amounts of money that are to be voted, there are various ways. Glenn, you can give the specifics with regard to monies that are allocated in terms of when it needs to come to the ministerial level and beyond and when we require a Cabinet paper. It depends on the particular project.

Glenn, if you could just give some specifics around that.

MR. JANES: The board is the governing body for the RDC. There is a government appointed board of highly competent, capable individuals as specified by the legislation who have specific skills, either with regard to research and development, business, or other ties in relation to R&D, and some R&D performers. As such, the decisions for the approvals for how the monies are expended are the responsibility of the board to adjudicate on and make those decisions.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

What groups received funding in this past year of the $25 million? Can you provide us with a list of them?

MS SULLIVAN: I think about 104 projects that have received funding. Suncor Energy Offshore Research and Development Centre received funding for about $4.8 million. The 2010 Ocean Industries Student Research Awards were funded to the tune of just over $1 million. Fast rescue craft, man overboard, boat offload release hook, which is an industry, was about $45,000. There is proof of concept programs for fibre sensor systems that received some $245,000. LOOKNorth, which is a centre of excellence for commercialization in research, and is something we are extremely proud of, another $1 million. There are a number of different – those are samples of some of the projects.

MR. DEAN: Okay. Can we have a list of those?

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

What guidelines are there in terms of qualifying for funding?

MS SULLIVAN: Depending on the program – again, Glenn, if you could just run through the guidelines that your board puts in place to make those decisions and adheres to in the making of those decisions.

MR. JANES: We administer ten programs that are all specified and are tailor made for specific interventions. As such, the guidelines are developed for those individual programs. For instance, we did an infrastructure call in the past period, and that infrastructure call was released publicly as a competitive call. It was specified within the document what the criteria were to be eligible for the call. It was also specified in the document the evaluation criteria that would be used in the call, and the waiting that would be applied. That will be an approach to the rigour that we put behind something that we put out in a call. We have done that for infrastructure, we have done that for the Student Research Awards, that again was a competitive call, and we do have another current competitive call out for geosciences that touches on mining and oil and gas.

On other programs, there is some where it is client initiated. They come to us with their proposals of what they want to do and we have an evaluation criterion that focuses back to the minister's earlier points. All the evaluation criteria are derived from assessing whether the quality, the quantity, the focus, or the relevance of the R&D will benefit this Province in the long term. There is always an assessment, a criterion that is done and evaluated. There are account managers who evaluate it within our shop. There is an external technical review on most projects that come to us. It is then recommended to approval. The CEO has to then recommend it, and it has to be an approval that would pass the board. The board would either have to approve it or have delegated the authority to approve it.

CHAIR: Okay.

Ms Michael, do you have anything else?

MS MICHAEL: No, Mr. Chair, I think all the questions I would have had have been covered.

Just maybe one; in the list that we get of grants and subsidies, will it be clearly visible in the list which ones are projects from the university?

It will be. Okay. That is it then, I will be satisfied to wait for that list.

CHAIR: For the record, I will say the minister did nod her head yes.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay.

I will ask the Clerk to call the subhead, please.

CLERK: Subhead 2.9.01.

CHAIR: Shall 2.9.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subhead 2.9.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Research & Development Corporation, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for the Research & Development Corporation carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Research & Development Corporation carried without amendment.

CHAIR: I will seek advice from the members of the Committee as to whether we would want to go to Francophone Affairs now or do you want to wait until the end? Will we do that now?

MS SULLIVAN: I have also only just been informed this morning with regard to Francophone Affairs. My understanding is that would have been addressed with Finance; however, we have just sent for our director. Once he comes I am sure that we can respond to questions if members opposite would like to pose them.

CHAIR: My suggestion then would be that we go into the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and at the end we can come back to Francophone Affairs.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: I just have a question, Mr. Chair, for clarification. You said it is on page 27 of the Estimates, and the heading is Office of French Services. Is that what we are referring to?

CHAIR: Yes, that is correct.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, just to be clear. It is the Office of French Services, not Francophone Affairs.

CHAIR: Yes, correct.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay.

The Estimates for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development actually begin on page 137 of the Estimates book. I do not know, Minister, if you wanted to make some introductory comments on that, overall.

MS SULLIVAN: Having just looked at the clock I think what we will do, in the essence of time, I think we will just get into the estimates and questions. I think we are fine.

CHAIR: Okay.

Mr. Dean, would you like to start again, sir?

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

I will go to 1.2.04, Strategic Initiatives.

MS SULLIVAN: I am sorry; I did not hear the number.

MR. DEAN: 1.2.04, and line 10, Grants and Subsidies.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. DEAN: We are taking our number back to the same number as last year, although we did not spend it this year. Probably you can give us a little information on that, as to why the difference last year and the need to continue the same number this year?

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

The decrease reflects, for the most part, fewer projects that were approved under the Ireland business partnerships than had been anticipated. As you can imagine, with the economic downturn that was being experienced in Ireland it was certainly a factor in the fact that there were fewer projects approved than we had anticipated there. We do anticipate, given the level of work that we have started to do there again, that we will require that same amount of funding to proceed for next year.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

You see that rebounding, the Ireland business piece?

MS SULLIVAN: We see opportunities in Ireland. There are often opportunities, unfortunately, in downturns as well. So we do see opportunities there, and we will continue to pursue those opportunities with our partner.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

In the next section, Minister, 1.2.05, line item 01, Salaries. We were nearly $212,000 less than what our budget was and we have decreased our budget some. Normally we do not see that, usually it is going the other way. Is someone moving there or is there a position gone?

MS SULLIVAN: In the Estimates, the estimated amount there reflects the removal of a contract position. In terms of the revised, that reflects savings due to a vacant position, or actually some vacant positions and delays in filling some of those positions.

MR. DEAN: We are not expecting to fill them this year?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, we do anticipate filling the vacant positions but there will be the removal of one particular position from that department.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Purchased Services is the other line item that is there, it was $173,000 less than the budget.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

That decrease reflects lower than anticipated printing costs and advertising costs, and general purchase service costs as well. I am seeing as well that there are less organizational development learning costs for the various departments across the resource sector than had been anticipated; therefore, we did not need to spend as much money as we had anticipated we would.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Under 1.2.06, Administrative Support, I am just looking at an overall budget, a total General Administration of $500,000 or less for the year. I guess that is really broken down into some of the items we just looked at anyway, isn't it?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, that is just the accumulative total of everything back here.

MR. DEAN: Yes, that is fine.

Under 2.1.01, Trade and Export Development, we increased our Salaries on line 01 in that particular piece of the department by $167,000 and we want to continue that number more or less, I guess, through this year.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. Well, first of all, there are the 4 per cent salary increases, that would explain some of that. Also, the filling of a vacant position, and with some of the work that we are doing around CEDIA as well, there is some need for a salary position there.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Line 06, Purchased Services is under budget by $400,000 but taking it back up to the same number. It seems to be an even number. I am just wondering – it is $400,000 even, actually.

MS SULLIVAN: Under Purchased Services –

MR. DEAN: Line 06.

MS SULLIVAN: Okay.

The decrease there reflects lower than anticipated IBDA; that is the International Business Development Agreement that we have. It is anticipated that there will be lower costs there in terms of marketing expenses and so on. Basically, what that has to do with, that is an Atlantic Province agreement. When we take the lead on the projects, then we can anticipate that our costs are going to be higher. In this year we did not take the lead on the projects, so that would be the reason.

MR. DEAN: It would give us that even number. I guess there was a particular project that did not go or is that just where the number fell? Because it is $400,000 even, I think, isn't it?

MS SULLIVAN: That is just where it fell; those were the revised numbers. Basically, the decrease would reflect lower than anticipated IBDA funding requests and then lower marketing expenses that would have come with that. Then marketing limited until a broader strategy is developed by the department as well, which we anticipate will be in place for next year.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Just a couple of lines down, item 10, Grants and Subsidies; we have decreased that one significantly for this year.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes. That is the budget rightsizing basically there. There was a $500,000 cost that had been there; it was the NAFTA case. That was the NAFTA one?

OFFICIAL: Yes, NAFTA.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. DEAN: So we knew we were going to have that last year, so we put it in there?

MS SULLIVAN: We do not need it this year.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Ms Michael, do you want to ask a few?

MS MICHAEL: Sure. Is that okay, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Section 3.1.05 - I do not have to go back over any of the others, I had the same questions.

MS SULLIVAN: Sorry, I did not get the number again, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Section 3.1.05. If I am not speaking loudly enough, tell me because I have an earphone in, I have to use it, so my voice can drop and I do not know that it is dropping. So if I speak too lowly, please let me know.

Under subhead 05, Professional Services, it was revised this year up to $350,000. What was that about?

MS SULLIVAN: I think I am looking at the wrong section again.

MS MICHAEL: 3.1.05.

MS SULLIVAN: I have subheads 08 and 10, only.

MS MICHAEL: That is funny. I am looking at the wrong thing then.

Section 3.1.05, page 144, Business Analysis.

MS SULLIVAN: 3.1.01.

CHAIR: Are you looking at 144, Ms Michael, the Business Analysis section, 3.1.01?

MS MICHAEL: That is what I am looking at.

CHAIR: Okay, I think you were saying 3.1.05.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, I am so sorry. I was looking at subsection 05. I am sorry about that. Section 3.1.01 –

MS SULLIVAN: Okay, now I got you.

MS MICHAEL: - subsection 05, Professional Services -

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: - it was revised upward to $350,000. Obviously, something happened there that is not going to happen this year. What was that?

MS SULLIVAN: We certainly hope it is not going to happen this year. This was the increase that reflected the higher consultants cost for the Marystown remediation piece of work that, actually, we just completed. So $260,000 of that was originally allocated in grants for that and the EDGE Program evaluation, as well, was about $50,000.

MS MICHAEL: Can you remind me, Minister, of what the Marystown remediation was about?

MS SULLIVAN: Marystown remediation was a result of an environmental indemnity agreement that we had at the time of the sale of the shipyard. So, it was originally to Friede Goldman and then to Kiewit Sons, and that was to look after the remediation of anything that had happened up to the point of the sale. So, there were two pieces of work that were just completed.

MS MICHAEL: Great, thank you very much.

Under Purchased Services, another biggie, revised upwards to $2 million from $4,000. What was that about?

MS SULLIVAN: The same thing. That reflects the higher costs for the Marystown remediation of $1.9 million that was originally allocated in grants, and you see that down below again.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under Grants and Subsidies, which is subhead 10 –

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: – there was $4.9 million, but only $1.9 million was spent, it was revised down to $1.9 million.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, and that one reflects lower than anticipated grants to call centres as a result of lower anticipated employment levels there, but as well as lower remediation expenses for the Marystown piece. So then we moved those up to the two sections that we just referred to.

MS MICHAEL: There was a reallocation of money?

MS SULLIVAN: That is right.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, so that means the reallocation was about $2.3 million?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, fine, thank you.

Then, this year, because of that, the number is down because you do not have the remediation issue?

MS SULLIVAN: Precisely.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much, and sorry about the original confusion there.

MS SULLIVAN: No trouble.

MS MICHAEL: Minister, under subhead 10, what would the money this year, the $1.2 million, be going toward?

MS SULLIVAN: The funding for that one includes grants to call centres of $1.157 million and funding for the EDGE program of $100,000.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Now we can move to 3.1.05. Indeed, there are only two subheads here. Under 08, Loans, Advances, and Investments, there was nothing under that head last year, so what is that about, please?

MS SULLIVAN: That increase is a $500,000 budgeted item for small and medium enterprise for the provision of investments from the department.

MS MICHAEL: Isn't that what the whole expenditures are about anyway? Okay, I see the difference. Before, you had just Grants and Subsidies. Last year there was no money under Loans, Advances and Investments, so now is this the first time money is going in under Loans, Grants and Investments, or did you have loans before?

MS SULLIVAN: No, it would have happened previously as well.

MS MICHAEL: But not last year?

MS SULLIVAN: But not last year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

What are the terms of those loans, advances and investments? If there are loans, I would presume that there is a term for payment, et cetera.

MS SULLIVAN: Rita, do you want to handle that question in terms of the terms?

MS MALONE: Those terms and conditions can vary depending on the opportunities that are put forward. You are right, Ms Michael, in terms of term loans they are generally interest-bearing security based in some repayments. If they are an equity position, they are generally shares: share the risk, share the return.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Could we have a list, under subhead 10, of the grants and subsidies that were granted last year?

MS MALONE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Subhead 3.2.01, I do not have questions for there, but, once again under subhead 10, could we have a list of grants and subsidies?

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Section 4.1.01, which is the Regional Economic Development Services, I have to say I continue to not be clear about the relationship between the Rural Secretariat and the Regional Economic Development. I would like to ask that question: Is there any practical or actual way in which the Regional Economic Development Boards do connect with the Rural Secretariat? I do think I remember Mr. Gilbert mentioning the RED Boards being part of the pilot project on the Northern Peninsula.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Are there other ways for other areas, where pilot projects have not been done, where they do really connect with the Rural Secretariat?

MS SULLIVAN: It has been my experience in the short time that I have been in the department actually that our REDBs are very much involved and connected with the planners and with the people who work outside in those offices in the various areas of the Province. I know from experience in my own region that there has always been a very good connection, a very good linkage between the two. My understanding is that they often work hand in glove in terms of the advice that is provided. The stakeholders are very often the same stakeholders. So, it is my understanding that there is a very good working relationship between the Secretariat and the councils and the REDBs.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Could we have some practical examples of it, besides the Northern Peninsula?

MS SULLIVAN: Well, the only one I can give off the top of my head has to do with Grand Falls-Windsor for various, obvious reasons. I do know when we lost our mill in Grand Falls-Windsor the RED Boards were very clearly part of the team of people we would have engaged in the sense of trying to figure out how to diversify the economy and how to support the economy that had currently existed. I know there was a fair bit of consultation provided by the Rural Secretariat out there. I know Linda Brett and her team had a number of different engagement sessions that involved our RED Boards in the area, and vice versa. I know that the co-operation existed back and forth there at all times.

MS MICHAEL: Just to use something that came up this morning, the FM station on the Southern Shore with the RED Boards, for example, had been involved with the Rural Secretariat in that project.

MS SULLIVAN: I know the Rural Secretariat is involved. I am not sure, were the RED Boards? Yes. In fact, if we are out of here early enough this morning I am calling in to that FM station. That is my plan for this morning. Yes, there is involvement.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under this section again, we have a subhead of Grants and Subsidies. Could we have a list of that?

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

In 5.1.01, innovation has been program grants to educational institutions and the Ocean Technology Strategy, I think. Under this one, Professional Services 05, last year the line was revised down – not by a lot, just by $5,000 – but this year it is up to $1.6 million. What is anticipated this year under Professional Services?

MS SULLIVAN: Primarily, when we are looking at the revised there, the decrease reflects lower than anticipated expenditures under the Ocean Technology Strategy, and that is primarily due to delays. In the sense of the Estimates, the increase reflects the Budget allocation of $800,000 from Grants and Subsidies for anticipated consultant costs for the ocean technology sector and $150,000 for the Innovation Enhancement Program.

Basically, the funding for 2011-2012 is allocated as follows. We are looking at $1.4 million or $1.5 million for the Polaris ocean observation initiative under the Ocean Technology Strategy; $150,000, as I said, under the Innovation Strategy for new resources, and those would be related to revised funding programs; and about $50,000 for professional services for the division there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. The bulk is for Polaris?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under Purchased Services, again, there is a huge increase there of over $5 million in the Estimates for this year from the Budget and revision of last year. Could we have an explanation of what is happening there?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, I am happy about this one. That increase reflects a Budget increase for GBI, our government broadband, and it is about $5.6 million; and an increase for the Innovation Enhancement Program as well, close to $100,000 for that one.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Now, Minister, maybe we can ask a general question here. The Budget announced ramping up of the broadband of $8 million, so a large bulk is here. Where would the rest of that $8 million be found?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, it is under Commercialization Initiatives as well, and we are going to look at Purchased Services there, but let's just talk about generally what we are looking at there. We need to de-link the two, the RBI strategy that we will have and the GBI strategy that we will have. Essentially, the $8 million will be divvied up within those two pieces of work that we are going to be looking at. I do not know what kind of detail you want around that, but we can talk about that.

In terms of Purchased Services there, you will see under 5.1.02, Commercialization Initiatives, Purchased Services for GBI; we are looking at $2.4 million of that purchased service.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. That is the GBI under 5.1.02 head?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, and up above is the RBI?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I do not want to have a lot of detail; I do not think that is necessary, but just from your perspective. If you are excited about this, what do you see as the outcome of these initiatives this year in this Budget?

MS SULLIVAN: What I would hope is that we are going to see improved services right across the Province in terms of GBI and RBI. We are currently in the process of speaking with our industry partners. Within the coming weeks we can expect to see some sort of a call for proposal from those industry partners.

We are very concerned about broadband, particularly, and how we can get into some of those underserved areas of this Province. We know we have to do that by helping our partners make a better business case. We understand the issues, as I am sure you do, of disperse populations, smaller populations, harder areas to get into because of geography and so on. We are interested in trying to help make those business cases so that we can get into some of those areas that up to this point in time just did not make sense for the industry partners and the providers to go into.

We are hoping that together with the federal government – I would be interested to see what happens today in the sense of the Cabinet appointments that are going to be had, and we will follow up as soon as we know who that particular minister is going to be. We are going to be interested in working with the federal government and with those industry partners to see how we can better serve those underserved and un-served areas of the Province.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So, your main focus is increasing this service, not necessarily quality where service is but increasing –

MS SULLIVAN: Increasing service.

MS MICHAEL: – into the new areas.

MS SULLIVAN: Expanding service is the area that we are looking to.

MS MICHAEL: Expanding, yes. That is great.

MS SULLIVAN: The success that we had with work that we had done before tells us that we should be able to leverage a fair bit of money by investing this amount of money upfront.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much.

Then, under both 5.1.01 and 5.1.02, where there is money that is going out in Grants and Subsidies or Loans, et cetera, could we have, in both cases, a list again?

MS SULLIVAN: Absolutely.

MS MICHAEL: Because you answered my question on the commercialization –

MS SULLIVAN: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: – I do not need to ask any more there.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be happy to pass it over to Mr. Dean.

CHAIR: Mr. Dean, sir, do you have some more questions?

MR. DEAN: Oh yes, there are always more questions.

MS SULLIVAN: Not on broadband?

MR. DEAN: Absolutely not.

Well I do have a question on it, actually. The fibre optic cable between Deer Lake and St. Anthony, according to an article a couple months ago in The Northern Pen, it said basically, I think it was entitled: The Battle for Broadband. It says EastLink has no plans to do anything further, in terms of development. Where is government with that?

MS SULLIVAN: It is part of the ongoing discussions that we have with them. Again, we cannot force any provider out there to go into any area and to develop. At the stage when that particular article was written, EastLink reported that they did not have any plans to go in there. We continue to have dialogue with them. Just as in answering the question with Ms Michael, we continue to try to find ways to help them make the business case that will see them going in there.

MR. DEAN: I guess there is only really one way. It is obviously through a subsidy or an annual grant, or whatever the case is, I suppose. If the business case is not there, from a business perspective that is understood. There is no interest other than if there has to be a commitment, to not only service the big pot but the smaller pot kind of thing, I guess. The irony in it is that you have communities like Hawke's Bay, for example, one that I used in the presentation of the petition a few times, the cable runs through the community, it is there. It is not like trying to take that cable out to Conche somewhere, where it may not be at present, but the cable is actually there. That is what people have a problem understanding and, quite frankly, I do as well.

MS SULLIVAN: I will let Dennis speak to this in more detail, but what I understand is that the last mile is perhaps sometimes the most difficult mile to do and it is exceptionally costly to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I hear this in my own district as well.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MS SULLIVAN: There are communities where they look up and they think all you have to do is attach to that particular piece of equipment there and you can have the service; it is not quite as simple as that. I am going to let Dennis explain that in a little bit more detail because it is a fair question.

MR. HOGAN: The minister is correct in that situations which you may see the fibre optic cable going through the community are not just a simple matter of tying into that particular fibre optic line. There has to be a substation constructed as well. So, the cost, depending on the area of the Province that we are talking about, could range between $300,000 and $500,000 just to drop the fibre optic line, the pole line that the people in the community can see going right by. Then, from there, the signals have to be sent to households and businesses from there. It is a much more expensive proposition than it may appear.

That is one of the challenges we face; however, under the programming that the minister referred to, we are trying to work with industry to help offset some of the costs of these challenges that we face and provide a mechanism to partner with industry so it will improve the business case for some of these providers to expand their services. We are quite excited about doing that.

MR. DEAN: What if a business wanted to do that? Do we know? To expand the service, to come off the main line, to put in a substation to do a community of 150 people or 200 people, what is it they want? Have we had that kind of a discussion?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, those are the discussions that my department has been having and continues to have right now. As I said, we will have some sort of call for proposals - I do not want to say that is what it is going to be, but it will be something similar where we will invite them to tell us what they think they can do out there and what it will cost them. Then, we will evaluate that and see where we can get in there and try to help that process.

MR. DEAN: A more interesting question perhaps, Minister, is: How is government deciding where they are spending their money in terms of we are trying to spread it out and do more broadband, $8 million, how are we going to prioritize that?

MS SULLIVAN: It is a tedious and a difficult process to do. What we are looking at is to see how we can best serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that we have I think 30,000 to 35,000 households now that are underserved in terms of broadband. We are going to look to see, once we get proposals in, how many of those that we can see that we can best serve with this money and the money that will be leveraged as a result of our investment.

MR. DEAN: We are just looking for our RFPs at this point, is that correct?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. DEAN: From all the service providers across the Province? Okay.

How many schools currently do not have high-speed, do you know, or broadband?

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, it might be a better question to ask the Department of Education. I do not know it off the top of my head and I do not think we know. We can see if we can find that information.

MR. DEAN: That is fine, that is fair. I have a couple of questions on the Aerospace and Defence Development Fund.

MS SULLIVAN: That would be the Department of Business.

MR. DEAN: Okay. In that case, I will not ask you. Is that fair?

MS SULLIVAN: Not that I would not answer it.

MR. DEAN: All right. That is good for me, really.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I have just one more, a common theme, under 5.1.03, Ocean Technology Initiatives. Last year the budget was $2 million only and it was revised down to $491,000 and now this year only up to $1 million instead of $2 million. I guess first of all, could we have a list of – well, you can tell us right now because it is not that much money, maybe it went to one place. Where did the $491,200 go last year? Who received that?

MS SULLIVAN: Do I have that list here? Yes, Dennis has the list.

MR. HOGAN: That $491,000 did go to one company called Virtual Marine Technology, VMT –

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry. Could you say that again, Mr. Hogan?

MR. HOGAN: The funding that is allocated there of $491,000 went to one company called Virtual Marine Technology for an innovative new virtual simulation project. That amount was originally in the forecast, our fiscal forecast, to go from $2 million in this year down to $1 million, so that explains the drop into the current fiscal year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

What was the form of that money that went to Virtual Marine Technology? Was it a loan, an advance, did you do equity shares or can you remember the details?

MR. HOGAN: Yes, I believe it was equity shares.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Thank you very much.

That is the end of my questions.

CHAIR: Mr. Dean has another question?

MR. DEAN: A final comment really. I would just like to thank the minister and staff for their time this morning.

CHAIR: Thank you, sir.

I ask the Clerk to call the subheads for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, please.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK: Subhead 1.2.01 to 5.1.03 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.2.01 to 5.1.03 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 5.1.03 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development carried without amendment.

CHAIR: We will go to the last piece of business we have to do here this morning and that is review the Estimates for Francophone Affairs, or as it is listed in the Estimates book: French Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes.

CHAIR: We have a gentleman that joined us. If you will just wave at the camera, sir, and introduce yourself -

MS SULLIVAN: Maybe we can move Jeff down here if that is okay, if we can move the director down.

CHAIR: Actually, we are going to move you down close to the minister.

MS SULLIVAN: Again, just for the sake of clarity here, I want to point out that if you look at page 27 here it is listed under Executive Council, Public Service Secretariat. I am the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs; this is the Office of French Services which is funded under PSS.

CHAIR: Yes, and I apologize if there was any lack of clarity there, Minister. I was just seeking clarification from the Clerk's office. It was listed by the Government House Leader as one of the pieces of business that we were to look at in this committee when we did Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. As such, we are mandated to do that today.

MS SULLIVAN: That is fine.

I will introduce Mr. Jeff Butt, who is the Director of the Office of French Services.

CHAIR: You are Jeff Butt? How do you say that in French?

MR. BUTT: The same way.

[Laughter]

MR. BUTT: I have heard various pronunciations, actually, in French.

CHAIR: Do we have questions from members of the Committee for the Department of French Services?

MR. DEAN: Again, I was not aware either that we were asking questions in this section. There is not a lot there actually. There is a $100,000 increase in salaries. I could ask a question about that I guess.

MR. BUTT: Yes, I can answer that question.

The operations of our office are supported by a federal-provincial agreement on French language services, which is cost-shared fifty-fifty. What has happened over time, the budget has not increased to keep pace with regular salary increases, so we came to a point where we no longer had the salary budgets to fund the positions that we had in our office. This is why we had made a request to increase the salary provisions.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

The Grants and Subsidies, we did not use this year what we had anticipated using. There is a $30,000 discrepancy in the numbers there.

MR. BUTT: Yes, I can explain that as well.

In a given year we would normally only spend the $5,000. Part of that $5,000 is what we pay as our membership in the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie, and the remainder of the money is money that we can use as a grant or subsidy towards a Francophone community project. It is a small amount of money, that $5,000.

Where the other $30,000 comes into play is that under our federal-provincial agreement on French language services there is a special projects provision. This allows us to leverage funding for one-time projects that are not covered under our four-year plan on French language services. We found ourselves in a situation a few years ago whereby we had managed to broker a project between a department and the federal government to support the Francophone community development but we did not have the funds to pay out the revenue that was coming in. What we had done is we created this additional $30,000 as a buffer against any federal revenue that would be coming into provincial coffers to be then paid out towards a community development project.

Really, from one fiscal year to the next it may or may not be spent. This past fiscal year we did not do a special project that would have required us to pay out that amount of money, but we had I believe two years before that. If there is no project then the money is not spent.

MR. DEAN: Okay, that is fine.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

This is not a question on the budget so much, but I noticed this morning, and you noticed, that you will have further training happening in the fall as usual, French language training, and the deadline for applications is June 17. I am curious, how good is the uptake on the training? I know we have had a couple of staff who have been taking it when they can.

MR. BUTT: Yes. The uptake has generally been strong. We normally issue anywhere between eighty to 120 training certificates per year. We have noticed in the past couple of years a slight drop in registration. We did a little survey of some students who had dropped out of the program to find out why. The evidence was that it seemed people found it a bit difficult to bite off thirty-five weeks of training from September to June.

We are trying a pilot project this year whereby we are offering shorter ‘semesterized' training so that someone could do training from September to December and then sit out the winter if the winter is their busy time of the year, or they could sit out the fall and take training in the winter. We are adapting it to people's needs. We fully expect the uptake to be back where it would normally be.

MS MICHAEL: Right. That is really good to hear because it is hard for staff that have to deal with the House of Assembly, for example, when they are House of Assembly staff. Like once we are in here it is hard, staff are so busy.

A question I could ask you outside of Estimates but since you are here sitting in front of me I am going to ask you now. Every now and again when I am preparing for an interview with Radio Canada sometimes I get time to prepare, sometimes it is just in the scrum, and I have a technical term that I do not have at my fingertips. I do have some software on my computer, I can go in and find some things, but if I were really stuck would I be able just to send a quick e-mail or a phone call and get that from you? Are you available for services that quickly to me if I needed it?

MR. BUTT: We do have a translation service that we offer to government.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. BUTT: The translation service, I would like to think, tends to be very timely and very prompt. On any given day it would have to depend on what the volume is and what the urgency around it, other translation requests are.

MS MICHAEL: Right. You would not be upset if I sent you a real quick e-mail and said can I get this, and if you got it you would be able to do it for me?

MR. BUTT: Yes. No, I would not be upset.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

MS SULLIVAN: Or you could ask Mr. Verge there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is all I have.

CHAIR: Merci, Monsieur Butt.

MR. BUTT: You are welcome.

CHAIR: Do I get a certificate for that?

MR. BUTT: I will see what I can do.

[Laughter]

CHAIR: No more questions for the Estimates regarding French Services?

I will ask the Clerk to please call the subhead.

CLERK: 3.1.07.

CHAIR: Shall 3.1.07 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 3.1.07 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Office of French Services, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for the Office of French Services carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Office of French Services carried without amendment.

CHAIR: This concludes the business of the Resource Committee, and this was our last department that we had to hear. I want to thank all members of the Committee, members of the Opposition, the minister and her officials for your participation today.

With that, I would invite a motion to adjourn.

MR. BRAZIL: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Brazil.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Ms Michael. I did neglect to ask that we pass the minutes for the Department of Business. They have been circulated about a half hour or so ago, so I would first of all entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

MR. BAKER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Baker and seconded by Mr. Brazil.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Now I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. BRAZIL: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Brazil, seconded by Mr. Davis.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.