Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis, replaces Darin King, MHA for Grand Bank.

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

CHAIR (Hutchings): Order please!

Good morning everybody. I would like to welcome everybody here this morning for the Estimates for the Social Services Committee. This morning we are doing the Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs.

First off, if I could, I would just like to do a couple of housekeeping rules. Normally, what we have done: Minister, I will go to you after the Committee is introduced. You will have fifteen minutes to make any comments if you wish to make any. I will ask at that time if your staff could be introduced. Then, on the other side of the Committee, fifteen minutes to respond and then we go back and forth about ten minutes with the Committee, if that is okay with the Committee.

Witnesses giving information, I will ask that you identify yourself each time you speak for the benefit of Hansard.

We will start to my immediate right and I will ask the Committee members to introduce themselves.

MR. COLLINS: Felix Collins, MHA for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

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

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Kevin Parsons, MHA for the District of Cape St. Francis.

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

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, MHA for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

WITNESS: Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP Office.

CHAIR: Okay.

We have some staffers here.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

With that, Minister, I will go to you and you can make any opening comments. As well, your staff can introduce themselves.

MS WHALEN: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Estimates Committee.

I am certainly pleased to here this morning to present the Estimates for the Department of Municipal Affairs. I look forward, as does my staff, to answering your questions.

First of all, I am going to introduce my staff to you: Baxter Rose, my Deputy Minister; Cluney Mercer, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Engineering; Lori Anne Companion, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Support and Policy; Bill Duggan, Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment Support; Scott Jones, Director of Financial Operations; Paul Forristall, Manager of Financial Operations; Suzanne Hillier, Director of Communications; and Mac Blundon, Manager of DFAA.

I will begin my remarks by saying that one of my department's main goals is to make our community stronger by investing in infrastructure that matters to people in everyday lives. We strive to make services more affordable for municipalities.

In 2008, the Province increased its infrastructure budget by $34.4 million annually for a total of $84.3 million per year. This means a provincial investment in municipal infrastructure of $252.9 million for 2008-2011, an annual increase of 69 per cent.

In addition, we introduced improved cost sharing ratios last year. We recognize that communities face challenges with their fiscal capacity and differ in their ability to cost share. These improved ratios have streamlined and simplified access to capital works funding. Smaller communities will benefit from access to better cost shared arrangements with the provincial government and allow a greater opportunity to move forward with otherwise unaffordable infrastructure projects. For example, in the past the Province would have sold about 65 per cent of the provincial-municipal share of a project. We have now introduced a 90-10 split for populations fewer than 3,000; 80-20 for a population between 3,000 and 7,000; and 70-30 for a population greater than 7,000.

I am also pleased to say we have implemented many process improvements in municipal financing. Municipalities no longer have to submit different funding applications to the various available capital infrastructure programs. Towns now only have to make one application and the department then determines what program will be the most appropriate fit. This improvement has significantly streamlined the application process and we have received very positive feedback.

We have also made strides in improving the capital works process beyond the application stage. In the past municipalities financed 100 per cent of the total projected costs and were reimbursed for the provincial portion upon completion of the project. This resulted in municipalities incurring interest while the project was underway. Today, cash advances are made to municipalities. This avoids the accumulation of interest on the provincial portion and significant increased cost savings, a measure that has saved the Province about $7 million per year, money that is now spent on roads and water and sewer instead of being spent on interest.

The application review process has been accelerated to ensure commitments are made early in the year to take advantage of the construction season. As well, an engineering design initiative was recently introduced that enables the primary design work on projects to start while the environmental assessments and the federal approval process are ongoing. I have also moved towards making more multi year project commitments. This permits larger projects to proceed in accordance with the construction schedule. I am pleased to say that the municipal operating grants are now issued twice annually as opposed to four times a year. This means municipalities will receive their MOGs earlier. In fact there will be a one-year increase of 13 per cent in municipal operating grants this year as a result of this change.

Under Budget 2009-2010, the Department of Municipal Affairs will continue to increase funding for infrastructure investment to make services more affordable for residents and implement the provincial waste management strategy.

Significant investments were made in modern waste systems in 2008-2009 primarily at the Robin Hood Bay. The continued investment under Budget 2009 will see Robin Hood Bay substantially retrofitted to provide modern waste management for the greater Avalon region. Major investments will also be made this year in the Central region of the Province with an aim to consolidate waste for the entire region by 2011.

The annual investment of $4 million under the Capital Works Program towards the appropriate handling of waste water access across the Province will continue. The provincial government will work to upgrade existing untreated sewer outfalls and use updated systems and technology to ensure waste water is treated before being released into the environment. This will help ensure that the discharge does not interfere with our growing agriculture and tourist industries.

We are also investing some $6 million per year in drinking water initiatives to ensure that the residents of this Province have access to good quality drinking water. This investment will go towards the development of innovative methods of providing quality drinking water, especially to residents of small rural communities that may not have the fiscal or human capacity to manage a large scale water treatment plant.

Regional co-operation is the key initiative within our department. We will continue to invest $1 million under Budget 2009-2010 to eliminate barriers to regional co-operation, such as the disproportionate debt loads and to dedicate resources to facilitate discussions and negotiations.

Many municipalities in rural areas are finding it a serious challenge to provide quality services to residents. Issues such as out-migration, old infrastructure, and declining and aging populations are causing councils and residents to consider merging their efforts, expertise, and resources to improve their overall community well being.

Finally, I would like to point out that there will be a municipal election this year and we will be developing a communications campaign to signal a new era of municipal government. We need leaders with vision and innovative thinking to help shape the future of our communities. We also need to convince more people overall to realize that simply by voting they are making a difference. As well, we will be providing incentives and strategic supports such as training and skills development to assist councilors and administrators with their role on council.

I hope that this introduction gives you a broad overview of our direction in our larger efforts to help make our communities vibrant and productive places to live and to raise our families. I welcome your questions and your comments.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I will now turn to our Committee.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

First of all, Minister, I would like to welcome you and your staff for giving us this opportunity to go through, I guess, the highlights of the line by lines as well as some what we classify as probing. I do not know if they are probing or not, but questions.

I am going to begin this morning with the headings, the 1.1.01. Some of them are only minor I know, but we do have a few questions.

The very first one, Minister's Office, under Salaries, there was a slight decrease there from what was budgeted to the revised. I was just wondering: Was that a loss of a position or a partial position?

MS WHALEN: No. Actually, that decrease reflects lower than anticipated (inaudible) for the minister's gas and the car allowance. It is a decrease because of that.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 1.2.01, Executive Support, there was a decrease there as well of $77,300 under 01, Salaries.

MS WHALEN: That decrease reflects the savings due to the ADM's position vacant for part of the year plus lower than anticipated temporary salaries.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 1.2.02, Administrative Support, there was an estimated decrease of $113,700.

MS WHALEN: That reflects the increase for the (inaudible) conference registration and the membership fees.

MR. BUTLER: Professional services, under 05: There was nothing budgeted, it was revised to $30,800, and then there is nothing in the Estimates again this year. I was just wondering if you could give an explanation on that one.

MS WHALEN: Would you repeat that one again, please?

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry. Subhead 1.2.02, under 05, Professional Services, there was nothing budgeted, it was revised at $30,800, and then there is nothing estimated again for this year. I was just wondering if you could give a brief explanation on that.

MS WHALEN: That was the increases due to the unanticipated consultant costs for the department concerning the Afghan War Memorial plagues and the job description writings.

MR. BUTLER: Under 07, the budget was $17,500, and it was revised to $73,200. That is under Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

MS WHALEN: That was an increase due to unanticipated costs for the fourth floor, the reception desk and the fourth floor board room equipment and the first floor registry filing system.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Where it lists there Revenue, 02, I know you budgeted $5,000 but $19,100 came in. I was just wondering: What is that revenue from?

MS WHALEN: That increase was due to the unanticipated refunds of travel advances and impresses.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 2.1.01, Regional Support - I guess probably most of the answers are the same. The same thing under Salaries there: there was a decrease in salaries last year of $68,400.

MS WHALEN: That decrease would reflect the saving due to an unfilled vacant position and a delay in filing the vacant positions.

MR. BUTLER: I guess, where the increase is showing this year of $290,000 those vacancies will be filled, is that right?

MS WHALEN: That increase is due to the 4 per cent salary increase and the 4 per cent increase for the twenty-seventh pay period.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, 03, Transportation and Communications, you estimated this year an increase of $63,000. I was just wondering if you could give a brief explanation on that.

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects the increased funding for the regional cooperation initiatives.

MR. BUTLER: Under 06, Purchased Services, last year I think you spent over $100,000 less approximately.

MS WHALEN: That is the increase reflected for funding for the regional cooperation – that is a decrease. It reflects the forecasted reduction of the 90 ks for the 2008-2009 regional cooperation initiatives and the reduction of identified funding related to recruitment. Advertising has been transferred to the PSC as per government wide initiatives, a 25.8 k.

MR. BUTLER: Under 10 of the same heading, Grants and Subsidies, I was just wondering if you would give a breakdown of what Grants and Subsidies that would entail; the $79,500.

MS WHALEN: That reflects the grants to the MNL and MDC.

MR. BUTLER: Subhead 2.2.01, Policy and Strategic Planning, under Salaries there was an increase estimated for this year of $132,600. Is that a new position?

MS WHALEN: That reflects the increase and the amortization of the salary for the Manager of Information Services and a position, plus the 4 per cent salary increase and the 4 per cent increase for the twenty-seventh pay period.

MR. BUTLER: You say there is a position?

MS WHALEN: Yes, there is a Manager of Information Services.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 2.3.01,01, under Salaries, there was a decrease of approximately $203,000 last year and an estimated increase this year of $322,000. I guess that is probably the increase in Salaries again.

MS WHALEN: Yes, that one decrease reflects the savings due to vacant positions and the delay in filling our vacant positions.

MR. BUTLER: Do you have many vacant positions? Are they being filled now?

MS WHALEN: It is hard to tell you how many we have because when we turn over one another one turns over. When there is one filled there is another one that comes up vacant. Usually people apply for those positions and that sets off a chain reaction.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, Professional Services, I was wondering what services are entailed there? The budget was a little over $3 million last year. Would that be for engineering?

MS WHALEN: That was reflected due to the increase in engineering consultants.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 02, Revenue - Provincial, under 2.3.01, the Budget was $441,000 and Revised is $302,000. I was just wondering: What was the reason that revenue is a little lower?

MS WHALEN: That decrease reflects the lower than anticipated revenue from the Nunavut Government through building on a fees for service basis.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

2.3.02, Industrial Water Services: I was wondering how many communities in the Province have industrial water systems right now?

MS WHALEN: We have five industrial water supply systems.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS WHALEN: We are about to turn over one right now to a town that is taking it over.

MR. BUTLER: Would you be able to name them? I am not aware of what they are, but it doesn't really matter, I suppose.

MS WHALEN: Fermeuse, Catalina, Burnt Islands and New Harbour. Catalina is being turned over to the town.

MR. BUTLER: Under that same heading, 2.3.02, under Salaries, there was a decrease last year of $39,700. I was just wondering if you could give an explanation on that one.

MS WHALEN: Yes, that was a decrease reflective of unfilled vacant positions.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 06, Purchased Services, there was an increase last year of $70,000 and a further increase this year of $343,000.

MS WHALEN: Yes, that increase reflects higher than anticipated electricity, repair and water treatment chemicals.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The same heading 02, Revenues: I know you Budgeted $684,000 but it went to $900,000.

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects higher than anticipated revenues there.

MR. BUTLER: I am going to leave those now and just go to some of the other questions I have, if I can find them. Those are probably all over the place, Minister. I do not have a set pattern.

MS WHALEN: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering: What is the status of the project at Robin Hood Bay now, if you could just give a brief explanation on how that is progressing?

MS WHALEN: I guess, Baxter, you can answer that one.

MR. ROSE: The project at Robin Hood Bay: we have committed the funds to do the retrofit on Robin Hood Bay. A number of contracts have been let. Work is proceeding to carry out the retrofit to (inaudible) collection treatment processes to establish covered material or a cover program for the daily waste. The project will see a reduction in the operating face down at Robin Hood Bay. Rather than a big open waste site it will be confined to a much smaller operating face and there will be daily cover provided at that facility.

In addition, the Avalon Waste Management Committee is proceeding with the construction of the waste diversion recycling material recovery facility. That project is on schedule to be fully operational by 2010.

MR. BUTLER: I know I attended the municipalities convention last fall in Corner Brook and there were reports given on the various regional waste management strategies and that. I guess they are still progressing as they were last year and I was wondering if there is a cost associated with how much has gone into those up to this point in time.

MR ROSE: How much is invested to date?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, to assist with the regional waste management strategies.

MR. ROSE: We are committed right now for about $80 million.

MR. BUTLER: Eighty million?

MR. ROSE: Eight million dollars for the retrofit of Robin Hood Bay and for the development of a new facility in Central Newfoundland.

MR. BUTLER: I know this question, Minister, has to do with the closing of it, with Environment and Conservation, and that is the teepee incinerators around the Province, but whether they are local service districts or small town councils, I was just wondering: Have you had any consultation with your colleague within that department? Like I said, I know it is another department, but I am wondering how many are still operating, if any, since the original closure date which was set for December 31, 2008?

MS WHALEN: I would not be able to answer that for you. The Minister of Environment and Conservation would have those stats, but if you want them I can certainly approach her and get the stats for you.

MR. BUTLER: No, I can ask her in the estimates, I guess, when that time comes.

MS WHALEN: I do not think she has gone through her estimates yet.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I thought, where those same towns come under your jurisdiction for other reasons, you might have known if there was anyone still operating.

Is it in the plans? Because we know that waste management - I think everyone in the Province understands that. Even though we hear complaints about the cost of it, we all know what has to be done and what is coming down the road. Are there any plans, like when they are taking about the new ferries? Some areas of our Province which are isolated, if they do not have their teepee incinerators or cannot have their own old-fashioned landfill sites, are there any plans with the new ferries, or in the future, as to how they can transport their waste from a particular site to a location that would be sufficient?

MS WHALEN: I would say that is something that the boards would have to work out when they are looking at how they are going to transport the waste from the communities. I do know that most of the regional boards on the Island here are up and running and there is study underway for Labrador, isolated communities in Labrador, to see how we can deal with their waste.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

You mentioned in your opening statement, Minister, that this is an election year. I know, listening to the media in its various forms we hear that there is very little interest. I know you would not have an answer on this, but are you hearing anything that is more encouraging now, that there are more people coming forward? I do not know what the reason is.

MS WHALEN: Actually, I am anticipating, as I said in my remarks, having a campaign. We are working now with getting a campaign underway. I am hoping to be on the road and be in regions talking to the various municipal leaders there and also to people who would have an interest to serve their communities. I think one of the most rewarding things you can do for personal satisfaction is to serve on your community councils. We will be stepping up a campaign to get other people involved, as well as the people who have been there for a number of years. We certainly value their contributions, and hopefully some of them will be offering themselves for re-election in September.

MR. BUTLER: Just a couple of other questions, Mr. Chair, and I will turn it over to my colleague then.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: With regards to the unfortunate incident with Daniel's Harbour, and we know the issues that happened there, I am just wondering: Are there any outstanding issues of concern now and if you would be able to provide what the cost would have been in dealing with that situation up to this present time?

MS WHALEN: Okay.

I am going to pass that question over to my ADM, Mike Samson.

MR. SAMSON: From the fire and emergency services disaster response perspective expenditures in Daniel's Harbour to date are in the area of $2 million. Most of the work associated with the recovery from the original slide is complete. There is a small project, I think, from our perspective, that remains to be completed. As well, I understand that Transportation and Works will be completing the work on the diversion of the highway this year, and the cost associated with that is in the order of $7 million.

MR. BUTLER: I am not asking those questions because you people do not follow through. I know how well everything worked out from an unfortunate incident when we had that storm Katrina back a couple of years ago. I think it will be two years in August. Your department did a masterful job in dealing with the individuals as well as businesses and so on.

The other one I have a question on- I was wondering: What is the status of the unfortunate incident in Gambo? I know there were households there that had to be taken care of, and I was wondering what would be the cost associated with that particular incident?

MR. SAMSON: The cost associated with last summer's series of events, over a period of a couple of occurrences in Gambo, are in the order of about $1.7 million. Virtually all of that work is now complete. Certainly all of the personal property and small business claims have been settled. I believe we are in the process of completing recovery work on one residence. That is a matter of letting contracts and getting contractors in to get the work done. It is virtually complete.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

Okay, Ms Michael.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Ms Michael

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

Good morning, Minister, and good morning to all your staff. It is nice to be here with you again. I recognize faces, of course, from last year. The minister is sitting in a different committee this time.

I have line by line questions, but I have a general question first and I thought maybe we could deal with that. If there is a general answer then I will not have to hit the same question in every single section.

I am noticing in some cases a big difference and in other cases small, between the amount for salaries that is listed in the estimates and the amount of money for permanent employees. Now, in some cases it is quite minor and in other cases it is quite a difference. I am wondering what is the best way for you to answer. I will just take one and then it will give you an idea.

For example, in section 1.2.02, Administrative Support, the estimate says that salaries for this year's estimate is $736,300 but when I go over to the section in permanent staff complement in the staff complement book the total activity for that section is $690,929. I am wondering what the discrepancy is. Obviously, it must be temporary positions, but in some cases it is quite high. Could I just have some sense of the permanent and temporary positions within the department?

MS WHALEN: Some of it you are noticing because of the temporary and contractual positions, but that particular one you referenced there is a decrease that reflects the transfer of two positions from Municipal Affairs to the other departments; a WPEO position to INTRD and a Clerk II position to Government Services, plus the planned savings.

MS MICHAEL: I am missing something. Wouldn't the salary here be the same, I mean in the two books, under that position? You are talking about a transfer to another department?

MS WHALEN: Yes. We have had actually two positions transferred from Municipal Affairs to INTRD and to Government Services.

MS MICHAEL: Then why would they still be showing up under 1.2.02? I am looking at the difference between the Salaries in the Estimates and the Salaries listed in the salary book and there is a difference, in some cases a big difference, between the amount for all Salaries under one section and the permanent employees. It looks like there is a lot of temporary work going on and that is what I am trying to get a handle on. In some cases it is several hundred thousand actually.

MS WHALEN: There are a number of temporary positions associated with our federal programs. We do have a number of temporary people working on those projects.

MS MICHAEL: I see. That would be true all the way through, for example, under 2.1.01, Regional Support.

MS WHALEN: I am going to get my deputy minister to elaborate a little bit more for you.

MS MICHAEL: Sure. If I could do that one just to give another example. Under 2.1.01, Regional Support, the Salaries are $2,120,900, but the permanent employees are only $1,794,686. As I go through each one some have big differences, some less. I do not want to go through every one if I do not have to, if you can give me an explanation.

Thank you very much.

MR. ROSE: The department is currently administering some programs and initiatives on behalf of the federal government. For example, the Gas Tax Program, while it is a federal program we are mandated to deliver that program on behalf of the federal government. It is a federal initiative. What we do is we charge off a portion of the cost of administration of that program against the actual program. We cannot create permanent positions because these are not permanent programs.

We have initiatives underway with the gas tax program, with the integrated community sustainability planning process, with the public sector accounting board standards that we have to implement, so we have a number of temporary positions that are within the department that would be funded from federal revenues or federal revenue sources that are temporary in nature. Once the programs are fully implemented then those positions and those salary dollars will be coming out of our estimates.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Well then a follow-up question to that, because generally speaking when that kind of thing happens we see under revenue an amount coming in either from the Province, because monies come from somewhere else, or federally. Your having said that I now look through and I do not see any place anything indicating federal revenues which, from what you are saying, should be showing up here then.

MR. ROSE: They will be charged off against the federal program costs, not necessarily revenue.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, but still it gets listed as revenue. I see that distinctly under 3.2.02, for example. Under 3.2.02 it is very clear that a lot of money there is coming in from the federal. It is $58,658,100. The same way in 3.2.03; there is where I see what you are talking about, in those two categories and in the next category as well, the last three categories of the Estimates, of that section. I can see what you are talking about but then I do not understand where it fits earlier on. Where would that show up? I mean, it has to show up somewhere, the difference between what is listed here and what is listed as permanent employees. For the other section, for the other categories, where would it show up?

MR. ROSE: Page 179 would show you the reconciliation between the permanent and temporary salaries in the salary details.

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry, I missed that one. Right.

Again, the question still becomes: Why so many? In some areas it is obviously more than in others. The answer you gave me about the federal is clear. I can see where that happens.

Under engineering services, for example - and I understand engineering is very particular and $310,400 may not be a lot, because I know engineering services are probably expensive, but that shows up under Salary and that is different, I take it, from just buying professional engineering services. Can you tell me the difference, because you do have other places where you buy the services and you have some where it is temporary? Do they come on staff? What is the difference between the buying of the engineering professional services and the temporary, for example, engineering services?

MR. ROSE: Temporary engineering services would be staff that we would have within our operations. They would be employees of the department who will be providing engineering services to the department in an oversight capacity. Consultants who would be hired for municipal projects, for example, the design and administration, they would not be on staff. Their cost would be part of the capital projects. Those consultants would be working on a contractual basis for the municipality and their services would be built in as part of the capital cost. For example, 3.2.02.10, $79 million, that would be the capital cost plus the cost of engineering consultants hired by the municipalities.

MS MICHAEL: That is helpful. Thank you very much.

Now we will go to some of the line by line questions that I have. I would like to start with section 1.2.01, Purchased Services. Last year you seemed to have an expense that was not expected. Can you just tell us what that was? You had budgeted $4,000 and spent $22,000.

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects the higher advertising, the promotional. The printing costs vary from year to year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Would there have been any special campaign or something, because you have $4,000 again for this year?

MS WHALEN: Yes, because the municipal elections are coming up and we will be doing a campaign. We will be spending some funds on that campaign to do some advertising.

MS MICHAEL: What I am pointing out is that last year you spent $22,000. This year the budget is back down to $4,000.

MS WHALEN: We had some new promotional material printed last year. That was the cost there.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Again, under subhead 1.2.02.05, Professional Services, you did not seem to expect to have an expense there under Professional Services but you revised to $30,800.

MS WHALEN: That was an increase due to the anticipated consultant costs for the department concerning the Afghan War Memorial Plaques.

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry, that question was already asked. I did not check off on my thing that it had been asked. I try not to repeat. I am sorry but I did that time.

Under 07 in the same section, budgeted $17,500, revised $73,200 – oh, you answered that one.

MS WHALEN: Yes I did.

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry. I remember your answer to that. I thought I had been checking but I have been doing two things at one time, so I did not get everything checked off.

Under 2.1.02 - if you have answered this one forgive me but I do not have it marked as having been answered - your Salaries there, the budget was $323,800 and it then went up to $402,000 revised. Did you have an unexpected new position put in there or something of that nature?

MS WHALEN: Yes, we did. We had unanticipated salary for our PSAB staff, a PSAB manager and a PSAB coordinator.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 03 in the same section, Transportation and Communications, $3,500 was budgeted and it was revised to $22,500 last year. Again, that must have been something unexpected. Could you tell us?

MS WHALEN: Yes, that reflects higher than anticipated travel and the communications cost related to the PSAB training sessions.

MS MICHAEL: So the travel and costs related to the training sessions?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Which will not be happening this year, I guess, so that is why you are back down to $7,800. The $7,800 is slightly up but you are not anticipating as much.

MS WHALEN: I think we have had a decrease in (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under the same section, 04, you had Supplies anticipated at $1,500 and revised up to $11,000. What would those supplies have been and why would they have been unexpected?

MS WHALEN: That was related to the training sessions and there is food and supplies in that number.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 06, Purchased Services, again a revision from $1,000 to $29,000.

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects higher than anticipated costs related to our PSAB training sessions, room and equipment rentals, and printing costs and job ads.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Since so much money was spent on the PSAB training sessions, how did they go?

MR. ROSE: The PSAB training sessions went really well. The vast majority of our municipalities have been through the training. There is some training left to be done this year but it is minimal in the amount. We expect all municipalities to be PSAB compliant by March 31, 2010.

MS MICHAEL: Great. Thank you very much.

Subhead 2.2.01, Policy and Strategic Planning, you answered one of those. Transportation and Communications, I do not think that is a major thing, you spent less than anticipated last year.

MS WHALEN: Yes. That reflects the lower than anticipated travel and communications costs.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Under Professional Services you budgeted $20,000 last year, you went down to $10,000, but you are still going back up to $20,000 this year.

MS WHALEN: That decrease reflects lower than anticipated external consultant costs in relation to the policy and strategic planning issues related to the department's mandate.

MS MICHAEL: Right, but does past history show that it is better to keep the $20,000 because it very often does go up that high? Thank you, Mr. Rose. I see you nodding, so thank you very much.

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: The same section, I think. Yes, under 06 you budgeted $3,500 but it was revised to $15,000.

MS WHALEN: That was an increase that reflects the higher equipment rentals, the printing, and the advertising costs.

MS MICHAEL: Higher than anticipated?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Okay, 2.3.01, Engineering Services: This is more curiosity. I mean, it is professional curiosity, querying. Under 2.3.01, Engineering Services, the Professional Services is quite high. It is $3 million and I can understand that. Is it more efficient to be buying those professional services than to have them in-house, is my question?

MS WHALEN: In some cases it is. For the most part, we have this policy where you go out to consultants as opposed to having to factor in the cost when you have them in the department, the benefits and all of that, where you can go out and get it straight, similar to when you are contracting out in a municipality, like snow clearing. Sometimes it is better to contract out than to have staff in-house.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

I would imagine in some cases it would be speciality areas that you might not be using all of the time if you had somebody in-house and you have a speciality area.

MS WHALEN: We use our in-house engineering consultants regularly, but we do need to go outside in some cases with the nature of the projects that we are undertaking.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

It would not be efficient to keep somebody on staff if you are not using that information or that expertise all of the time.

MS WHALEN: That is right. Thank you.

Subhead 2.3.01: In this one I am just interested in the Revenue section, 02. The provincial revenue, where does that come from under here and why was it down last year from what you anticipated, and it is going back up again this year?

MS WHALEN: That decrease reflected a lower than anticipated revenue from the Nunavut Government through billing on a fee-for-service basis.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

That is to the Nunavut Government totally?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

How come it went down last year? You did not get what you expected? Do you understand? Because you are putting it back up to $441,800 this year?

MR. ROSE: We have a contract with the Nunatsiavut Government to provide the engineering support services to them in their municipal capital works projects. They receive funding from the land claims and from the federal government. From year to year the amount of municipal infrastructure work that they carry out fluctuates. Last year, the volume of work was down but we anticipate it will be up again this year.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

If we can move to 2.3.02: You may have answered all of those questions. Just let me check mine. Subhead 2.3.02.06, Purchased Services, your budget last year was $454,500, but in actual fact it was revised up to $624,500. You are going up again this year. Could you tell me what the Purchased Services in this area are about and why they continue to go up here?

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects the additional funding of $343,000 to assist with the anticipated increase in electricity repairs and the water treatment chemicals for the five remaining water treatment plants.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

The revision up last year, was that because you had unanticipated expenses in that area?

MS WHALEN: Pardon me?

MS MICHAEL: Last year the budget was revised up from $454,000 to $624,000. Was that unexpected expenses in that area or was that something else?

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects higher than anticipated electricity repair and the water chemicals.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Again here there is a provincial revenue that seems to be fluctuating. What would this provincial revenue be?

MS WHALEN: The increase reflects high than anticipated revenues here.

MS MICHAEL: What are the revenues here, these provincial revenues?

MS WHALEN: The sale of water is the revenues.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Because I do not know, can you explain to me a bit about the sale of water, or your DM or somebody?

MS WHALEN: I will turn that over to the deputy minister.

MR. ROSE: The industrial water systems that the Province operate provide water to industrial users such as fish plants as well as the municipalities or the local service districts where those systems are located.

The Province has a water rate policy whereby we charge $1.48 per thousand gallons of water, so depending upon the year, depending upon the volumes of water that are consumed, our revenues will fluctuate from year to year based on the water consumption. Then our costs on the other side will fluctuate, the more water that is consumed, the more electricity, the more chemicals and what not that we have to use.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

That is why I like these Estimates meetings, I learn something new all the time about what our government does.

In 2.3.03, under Salaries, last year it got revised up from $379,300 to $453,100. Was that an unexpected new position?

MS WHALEN: No, that increase reflects higher than anticipated salaries for our contract staff.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 05, Professional Services, that got revised up from $17,000 to $33,000.

MS WHALEN: That was an increase to reflect higher than anticipated consultant and board member costs with regard to work on the Corner Brook Humber Valley RPAA. We put a new Chair in place there.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I think I would like to take a break just for the sake of my voice.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Sure. Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: I have more questions.

CHAIR: Yes.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I am just going to backtrack a little. I asked a question on 2.3.01 a little while ago, under 05, Professional Services. I know you gave me the answer there, but I was wondering: Can a list of the firms that had to do with engineering work be provided?

MS WHALEN: Yes. I do not have them available right now, but I certainly can provide you with one.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

Basically, the same thing under 2.3.02: Your Deputy just mentioned about the sale of water, about $1.48 for 1,000 gallons, I think it was. I was just wondering: How does that compare, what it was eight or ten years ago as versus what it is today? The amount, or cost, has it increased that much?

MR. ROSE: We are operating our industrial water systems, or we try to operate them, on a break even basis, so the rates of water consumption are based on the estimated cost of actually producing and providing that water. This year, in the Budget, because one of the profitable industrial water systems was being transferred out to the municipality we were looking at having to substantially increase the water rates. So the Province subsidized to the tune of $343,000, put a subsidy into the department's budget so that we can maintain the rates at $1.48 per thousand gallons. If you were to go back half-a dozen years ago the water rates were probably 50 cents per 1,000 gallons.

MR. BUTLER: Subhead 3.1.01, Municipal Debt Servicing, 10, Grants and Subsidies, certainly that is the only one that is there. The amount spent last year was $18,280,000, which was more than budgeted. It was $16,550,100. I was wondering: Why was this the case?

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects higher than anticipated debt servicing costs as a result of the departmental loans which were not included in our 2008-2009 budget calculations, omitted loans discovered during the 2008-2009 department audit by the OAG. All loans now have been accounted for.

MR. BUTLER: I wonder if you could explain - the decrease this year is $2.9 million approximately.

MS WHALEN: The decrease reflects lower debt servicing expenses due to the declining debt balances, better projection and debt reducing in addition to no new debt.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 3.1.02, the MOGs: I want to go back, Minister, because I heard what you said initially, I think it was in your opening remarks.

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I never caught the first part of it but I know you referenced something about a 13 per cent increase. I was just wondering if you could –

MS WHALEN: That resulted in where we went down from four to two now. Where we gave out the grants four times a year, we are doing it twice now. It is a bit of an overrun, I guess, with the final payment of MOGs when we get our last allotment given to the towns. That resulted in a 13 per cent saving, so we gave them that 13 per cent.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Like you said, that is a one-year –

MS WHALEN: One time only.

MR. BUTLER: That covers everybody, I guess, who are receiving MOGs.

MS WHALEN: Okay.

I am going to ask my Deputy Minister to give you more detail on it, how we did it.

MR. ROSE: The change in the MOG payment process has resulted in a unique situation where the municipalities will gain 13 per cent on their MOGs because of the difference between their fiscal year and our fiscal year. The municipalities operate on a January to December fiscal year, whereas the Province runs from April to March. The old formula for MOG payments provide a 29 per cent MOG in April, 29 per cent in July, 29 per cent in October, and 13 per cent in January. Effective January 1 of this year municipalities received 13 per cent of their MOG. With this new budget and the change in our process we are going to issue the payments twice per year, in April and in October.

Municipalities, this year, as a one-time event, received 13 per cent in January, they will receive 50 per cent of their MOG in April, and they will receive 50 per cent again in October. For the municipal fiscal year of 2009 they will receive 113 per cent of their normal MOG. In 2010 they will get 50 in April and 50 per cent in October. They will be back on their normal schedule of MOGs. It is an anomaly this year, but it gives them 13 per cent more money.

MR. BUTLER: As my colleague said, they will be happy with that I am sure. During the Budget consultations, I think, everywhere the Minister of Finance went – then, through the Official Opposition we sent a questionnaire out to all municipalities with just a few questions on it and it was amazing how many came back requesting an increase in MOGs. Probably that is not what they are talking about here, the 13 per cent and the way this is coming about. I doubt that, but is there any consideration being given to it?

The Minister of Finance, with all due respect, tried to explain the 90-10. There is no one out there complaining about the 90-10 program but some people cannot avail of the 10 per cent even. Beyond that, even if they did have the money to take part in the 90-10 the same issues cannot be dealt with, with the funding there, as what they used to do with the MOGs. I know this reduction started years ago, so I am not just blaming this Administration for it or anything like that, but I was just wondering: Has it ever surfaced within your department that you might consider the MOGs at some time. I know it is not now. Your 13 per cent is a different thing. Just a general question.

MS WHALEN: While it is good that they have this 13 per cent increase and it is a one time only, we are in our fiscal framework looking at ways and means that municipalities can generate revenue. That is a piece of work that I will probably be bringing forward next year in the budget. That is something that we are going to be looking at and we have had discussions with a number of municipalities and we know that is a concern, their MOG grants. There are others than that too. There are ways they want to be able to generate revenue so our fiscal framework will address that.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 3.1.03, Special Assistance: I am just wondering, under Grants and Subsidies again, what kinds of grants and subsidies are involved here, and can we get a breakdown on how this funding was allocated and to where? I know you might not be able to provide that now but –

MS WHALEN: No, I do not have that now but I certainly can look at it and get that for you.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

I guess the other thing there; if I am looking at it correctly you are estimating $415,000 less for this coming year. Could you explain why that would be?

MS WHALEN: That is the transfer of money to Fire and Emergency Services.

MR. BUTLER: So there would be less under the Special Assistance grant this year but it is just being transferred into another-

MS WHALEN: No, it is not less, it is just being transferred.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

What I am saying is, that $415,000 will go for different programming than what people could avail of under the Special Assistance program, is that correct?

MR. ROSE: Under the Special Assistance program municipalities could apply for emergency assistance types of initiatives that would be too small, for example, for a Capital Works Program or they could apply for funding for fire fighting equipment, bunker suits and the like. What we have done this year is we have transferred a portion of our budget into Fire and Emergency Services. So it is still within the department, within the minister's purview, but the funding for fire and emergency services is with Fire and Emergency Services. The overall budget stays the same.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 3.1.04, one of the best programs on the go, Community Enhancement: I guess the first question there, 01, there was an increase, I think, in Salaries last year. I guess that was an extra position or something to assist with the programming?

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects higher than anticipated temporary staff requirements.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under 10, Grants and Subsidies, there was an extra million dollars in Grants and Subsidies last year. I was wondering if we can get another detailed breakdown later on, on how those funds were spent by provincial districts. I know you cannot provide that now, but I was wondering if we could receive that.

MS WHALEN: I will have to get you a breakdown on that.

MR. BUTLER: My main question and concern is: Why is it estimated $1.35 million less this year than last year in that particular programming?

MS WHALEN: That decrease reflects a forecasted budget reduction of $350,000; the carryover from the previous year.

MR. BUTLER: Could you explain that again, because I was listening to your first comments?

MR. ROSE: In last year's Budget we had a number of projects that were carried over from the previous year. This year's number of $4,572,000 does not reflect carryover from last year.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I was wondering, under the Community Enhancement program, I know this is based on applications that will come in and so on, but we know the serious situation that they are going through in the Central Region this year. Is there any consideration given to that a lot of this funding might go to that area this year because of what is happening in that particular region?

MS WHALEN: We are certainly looking at that area, but that will come under the task force and what we will be doing. We are doing an analysis right now about grants and subsidies for that particular area. That information is not really available right now.

MR. BUTLER: Basically, the Community Enhancement program would be done similar to what it was last year, we will say, on a provincial basis, rather than a chunk taken our for one particular area type thing.

MS WHALEN: The same as last year.

MR. BUTLER: Now, let's go to a few other questions.

Regional governments, Minister: I know you have stated from time to time there is nobody going to be forced into regionalization or, the bad word that used to be around years ago, amalgamation. A couple of questions around that - I am wondering: How is the process started now? I know there are some areas where officials from your department go out and meet with, say, two or three or fours towns that are thinking about coming together. That is not prompted through your department, they have to make an initial contact, all of them or one of them.

MS WHALEN: Well, actually, the communities will contact the department and say that they are interested in looking at regionalization. What we would do then is, we have an individual on staff there who would go out and make contact with them and explain the process to them about the feasibility study and that sort of thing, and then they will make up their minds of what they want to do. If they suggest that they would like to come together, we would do a feasibility study for them and from there they would decide what they wanted to do.

Just recently we had Bide Arm and Roddickton come together as a new town and they have received some benefits by coming together. They have gotten water and sewer systems, improvement in their roads, and they have a stronger local voice. Those municipalities are certainly finding it challenging, so by coming together like that they have anticipated they can deliver quality services to their citizens.

MR. BUTLER: Does the department appointment committee members to oversee this regionalization or amalgamation process, or do they do that one their own? Do they form a committee?

MS WHALEN: What happened in Roddickton and Bide Arm is that the councilors came together and talked about it and then one of the individuals from my department went out and had dialogue with them and from there they started the process and came together.

MR. BUTLER: Is there usually a committee put in place to oversee it per se?

MS WHALEN: Yes, they have a committee of members.

MR. BUTLER: And they do they on their own. It is not a committee appointed by government.

MS WHALEN: They do it with the help of our department. People in our department also sit with them.

MR. BUTLER: If there is a committee in place and for some unforeseen circumstances some of them or all of them should resign, is the opportunity given for another committee to be put in place? How does that work?

MS WHALEN: It has not happened up to that point. We have not seen a case of that yet. Usually when they come together they are pretty serious about completing this work.

MR. BUTLER: So there is not a case in this Province today where they was a committee and they resigned and they are not given an opportunity to do it again?

MS WHALEN: Not that I am aware of.

MR. BUTLER: I guess this has to do with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire Fighters. I know they had some concerns about the insurance and so on. I am wondering: Has that issue been resolved or what is the status on that?

MS WHALEN: I will ask my Assistance Deputy Minister to answer that question for you.

MR. SAMSON: Mr. Butler, we, about two years ago after the original establishment of Fire and Emergency Services, entered into discussion with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services on a variety of issues. Insurance was one of them. I think it was just about two years ago now we were able to secure an authority to double the accidental death coverage benefit that is provided to the approximately 6,200 volunteer firefighters. I think $125,000 was the maximum benefit for a firefighter who might have, you know, had an accidental death while in service, and that has been increased I believe to $250,000. That is the payout at this point.

We continue to discuss a variety of issues with them but we have made some progress certainly on insurance coverage.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

With regard to firefighters, and I know there are quite a few of them in our Province, when it comes to training, does government put any funding in to help train firefighters? I know out our way now they have their own training facility and things like that, but say if they had to go somewhere for additional training, do they cover that on their own costs through the municipality and their own association or does the provincial government help in any way?

MR. SAMSON: The way the training program works is, Fire and Emergency Services provides training to all the volunteer fire services in Newfoundland and Labrador. We provide the training through a mechanism - we have moved to a new model in the last couple of years. We do have two annual Fire and Emergency Services schools which move around the Province. The last one I believe was in Marystown in the fall. The one prior to that was in Grand Falls-Windsor in the spring. We provide the training, the equipment, the consumables, the instruction, and all of that stuff is provided by Fire and Emergency Services at no charge to volunteer fire departments or municipalities. Municipalities are responsible, and the volunteer fire departments by association are responsible, for taking on costs that relate to travel to and from the training opportunities, and out of pocket per diem type of expenses that occur during training. The internationally accredited training which is provided free of charge is just that, free of charge.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I know I asked the question about the funding there and a list of the community enhancement programs and I have to say, over the years I think that is one of the better programs. Now, I am not talking about major capital projects like water and sewer or anything like that, but I think it is one of the best programs that I see in my particular area and I am sure that a lot of the other MHAs can say the same thing. Still we hear a lot of people talking about them: We do not think we are getting the right bang for our buck because of what you are doing in the district. I can honestly say, and I said this to the minister one time before, I think, I do not mind taking anyone to the district. As a matter of fact, I think the pamphlet that went out had the Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue story on it, the facility that they have out there. The greater percentage of that facility was done through this program. It may be no big dollars, $6,000 or $7,000 this year and $10,000 or $12,000 next year.

I bring this up every year. I think, because the District of Port de Grave is so closely knit together - I cannot say it is being discriminated against because that is not fair. I get my fair dollars when it comes to the area overall. But, with this program you go to Carbonear or Harbour Grace - this same thing happened when there were other members in those districts. It has nothing to do with the political part of it. Then you go to Harbour Main on the other side. We are all closely knit together, but the other districts could see $150,000 or $160,000, each one of them, and the one in the middle, $50,000 to $60,000. It is not that there weren't other projects there and the projects were just as good as on the other side. I am just wondering: Has anything been done to look at that?

The same thing, probably, throughout the Province, but I could never understand it when you have three districts so close together and you see a need in the ones on both ends to get $160,000 and the other one was down to $55,000 or $60,000, when there are good projects there that you did not have enough money to give them anything that particular year.

MR. DUGGAN: The pattern for expenditures for the CEP was established when it was originally set up. It was based on the sense, at that point in time, of where the greatest need for short-term employment is relative to one community to another. What we tend to do every year is look at what the pattern was the previous year on a percentage basis, district by district, and carry it forward to whatever the new year's budget is, with some room to tweak it from year to year if there are events happening in a particular region of the Province where maybe the economy is taking a bit of a hit, that type of thing.

The assumption there, Mr. Butler, would be that the communities in the district in the middle probably have a stronger local labour market than the ones on either side. That is the assumption that is built into it.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

That is good news, I know that, but I could never see that big a difference in some of the areas. I just bring it up every year hoping something is going to change.

The Fire Commissioner's office: I was just wondering how many staff are currently under the Fire Commissioner's office. I will ask the other question with it. Is all the staff located in the city or is there possibly staff in some other area of the Province?

MR. SAMSON: I believe there are nine people, full-time permanent, associated with the Office of the Fire Commissioner, but, no, those are not all located within the city. The Fire Commissioner, himself, is here in the city. There is a fire protection officer here in the city, and some clerical and administrative support for that operation.

The Office of the Fire Commissioner also operates from Clarenville, Grand Falls-Windsor, and Deer Lake on the West Coast. Of course, as was announced in this year's Budget, we will, in the current fiscal year, be establishing an office in Labrador and hiring a full-time fire protection officer to staff and provide that service in Labrador.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I know, Minister, you have noted this before, and I know Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, it came up at their convention last year, and I think they have already met with you on it. I am just asking a question now: Do you think legislation will come through, not altogether in this sitting but probably in the fall, on the definition of a car wreck. I think they are looking for some strength in that, and I think it is through your department it has to be done.

The complaint that was coming at the convention with regard to cleaning up car wrecks in their municipalities was, the power is not there, because you can have the worst kind of a wreck and as long as she got four tires on her, you cannot go in and clean it up; even though there is nothing there worth looking at, and it is just an eyesore in the municipalities. I think they are wondering if that legislation can be brought forward soon.

MS WHALEN: Yes, they have discussed this issue with me and I am looking at it, but there is power there to take a wreck out of a community. I actually did it in my municipality in Paradise. If that vehicle is not operating, if it is up on blocks and has the tires off it, in my case I consider that a wreck.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, yes.

MS WHALEN: We have taken wrecks out of our community, because we do have the power, under the Municipalities Act, to remove wrecks.

I will look at that issue with the federation, and look at defining the definition really down to what they consider a wreck, but there are powers there to take wrecks out of your community.

MR. BUTLER: I think you hit the nail on the head when you said if it is jacked up and the tires are off it, but if it is there sitting and it has old tires on it and they are flat and everything else, I think in the legislation they cannot be forced. Some municipalities took it to court and could not deal with it.

MS WHALEN: I know it is difficult, but I think in some cases there are incentives put in. Some people do not like to pay that cost to get rid of the wreck. Particularly in the municipality that I was a mayor of, we had an incentive where we would pay half of the removal of the wrecks. So there are ways and means to remove wrecks but there is the odd individual, I will call them, who does not like to take away what they consider their cars, but I am going to look at that and redefine the definition of a wreck.

MR. BUTLER: The other one, Minister, is, I guess, in conjunction with another department of government, Environment and Conservation again, and that is the one where a lot of municipalities are asking that Crown lands within their boundaries be transferred to them so they can, I guess, further develop and expand, and try to entice industry to come to their towns.

I am wondering: What consultations have you had with that department on the issue of Crown lands coming over to municipalities or towns that are under your jurisdiction?

MS WHALEN: Well, Crown land can come over to municipalities. There is a policy in place of this government now that you can purchase Crown land at a market value. It is a people's asset, so there are ways and means for municipalities to purchase Crown land, but I think some municipalities would like to have no cost attached to it.

MR. BUTLER: That is right; that is where they are coming from.

MS WHALEN: That will always be an issue for discussion, I am sure.

MR. BUTLER: I know for a fact that one of the towns in my district went that route, and the dollars that were involved in it, they just forgot about it. Because, by the time they got it and passed that along to the guy who wanted to bring the business there, they were not interested. I think, like you said, what they are looking for is: Can it just be transferred over and, you know?

A resolution that came up at the Municipalities Convention in 2007 was to establish a minimum municipal tax for the entire Province. Apparently the minister at the time, last year - this came up in last year's Estimates - Minister Denine, said there was a committee being set up of MNL, municipal administrators, his department and ministerial officials, to look into this whole fiscal framework of municipalities, and it would be reported on in the fall of 2008. Maybe there was something released, I do not know, but I have not seen it or have overlooked it, and I was wondering: What is the status of that to date?

MS WHALEN: Actually, it has not been released; we are still working on that. Like I said in my answer earlier to a question you asked me, that is something that I will be looking forward to bringing forward in next year's budget, the work from that Committee.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I did not realize this was an issue, but it was brought up and there was another resolution passed, and it dealt with all departments of government: the response to correspondence that they send to various departments, and the time frame before they got a response back to their issues. I did not realize that until this year.

I have to say, Minister, I give you credit for it, you responded fairly quickly to it, but there was a group in my area who applied for funding - it happened to be the Bay Arena - twelve months and they never got a reply back saying no, you do not qualify for it, or maybe you qualify, or yes, you have the money. I know I wrote you a letter in conjunction with their correspondence.

I am wondering: Does that happen fairly often or is that just one incident that fell through the cracks? Because the municipalities brought it up; it was a major concern for them at their convention last year.

MS WHALEN: As far as I know, in my department, responses are very quickly responded to, the people who make requests of our department, but sometimes it takes a while to get the information back to them. As you can appreciate, we have to go to other departments sometimes and look for information.

For the most part, I would say our department responds very well to requests.

MR. BUTLER: Possibly that one is something that just fell through the cracks. Twelve months is a bit –

MS WHALEN: I am not aware of that one, but it is possible that by the time they got the information from the various departments they had to go through, probably it took longer than usual.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, you are aware of it now because I wrote you and you responded.

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: You gave them your answer within a week, I can tell you that.

MS WHALEN: Yes. I was not aware that it took twelve months, though, just the same.

MR. BUTLER: The correspondence was included with it.

The other one, Minister, not being personal or anything like that, but I was just wondering - and I ask this to all departments when I go to them – how much travel the minister had outside the Province last year.

MS WHALEN: Very little. I do not go unless I absolutely have to.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

Is there any polling done within your department that will be paid for by your department, whether on issues of interest in the municipalities, or any polling done for any reason within your department?

MS WHALEN: Not that I am aware of. I have not done any.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Media training, is there very much media training done through your department? If so, what would the cost be associated with that?

MS WHALEN: No, I have no media training.

MR. BUTLER: Good.

Besides you communications director, are there any other communication positions within your department?

MS WHALEN: No, I just have the communications director.

MR. BUTLER: That is it for me for now, Sir.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will do some line by lines and then I have some general questions. I might get through everything at this point.

Under 3.2.01, Municipal Infrastructure, it is good to see that money going up, and I am sure the municipalities are pleased with that.

The big jump this year, was that part of the economic stimulus package – I am just curious – or was this part of your ongoing planning? Because the budget last year was revised up a fair bit, by $11 million, and then revised up – not revised, but the new Estimate this year is up substantially again.

I mean, it is good; I am just wondering, was it –

MS WHALEN: No, you are absolutely right, it is our stimulus package and it is the accelerating of programs.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

Are their plans to keep that happening in further budgets?

MS WHALEN: Yes, I would hope so. It is a good thing if we can keep that up.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it would be great if you can keep it up. I know the municipalities would be delighted.

Just with regard to section 3.1, the Assistance and Infrastructure, would we be able to have a –

MS WHALEN: Section 3.1?

MS MICHAEL: The whole section, 3.1 and 2 and 3, where we have grants and subsidies to the municipalities, and wherever we do have grants and subsidies to the municipalities, is it possible to get a breakdown of how that money is distributed to the different municipalities?

MR. ROSE: We would have difficulty providing you with a list today –

MS MICHAEL: Today, yes.

MR. ROSE: – because, what you have here in the Estimates are the estimated cash flows on projects that have been approved, plus our planned activity.

In a lot of cases, for example, we have authorized early engineering design of projects but the projects themselves have not been approved, but the funding to allow those projects to go ahead is included here.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. ROSE: If we were to give you a list today it would show the carry-over of cash flows on commitments that were made last year, but it would not show you the commitments for this year.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. ROSE: Not yet.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I would be interested in showing how last year went. I can understand why you cannot do this year, but it would give an idea of how money is being distributed to the municipalities and that would be very helpful.

MS WHALEN: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Chair, could I make a request that, when one member of the Committee asks for some information, can it be assumed that information would be good for all Committee members to receive, not just the person who asked the questions?

CHAIR: Certainly. Yes, we will distribute it to everybody.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, because it has not happened consistently. I think you did last year, but not all – so that would be great. Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Because I do not want to repeat requests that were by Mr. Butler.

CHAIR: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Under 3.2.02, Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Programs, under Grants and Subsidies, section 10, the budget started at $31 million, was revised down to $19 million, and now this year is up to $79 million. Are those changes because of not getting the federal monies? What is the reason for that?

MS WHALEN: That is the MRIF, the CNIP and the CSIF programs. They did not generate the anticipated cash flow, and funding was transferred to the community enhancement. Per the TBA 2009-124 there was $10.281 million to municipal infrastructure, and there was capital there of $9.151 million, and the municipal debt servicing of $990,000, and the industrial water services at $140,000.

MS MICHAEL: So there a transfer of money from the budget.

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: But this year you are anticipating a much higher budget. Why is that?

MS WHALEN: That is because of the accelerated programs that we are putting forward in the stimulus package.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Okay, thank you.

Could you explain a bit for me – showing my ignorance – a bit about the Gas Tax Program and how that works?

MR. ROSE: The Federal Gas Tax Program this year, in 2009-2010, the federal transfer to the Province will amount to about $32 million per year as a revenue source, $32.9 million. About $10.5 million annually is taken off that gas tax revenue on behalf of municipalities for investment in the Waste Management Strategy. The balance of the funds is allocated to the individual municipalities. There is a formula in place which provides a 10 per cent base amount of funding that gets divided equally amongst all municipalities, and then the balance of the fund is allocated on a per capita basis. So every municipality gets a share of the gas tax monies, around $22 million.

MS MICHAEL: Then – I am sorry, you were going to speak again.

MR. ROSE: Those funds would be available to the municipalities to invest in environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure projects. The municipalities themselves, when they receive the gas tax money, have three different options with respect to how they spend it. They can spend the money as they receive it on an annual basis; they can save it up and spend it two, three or fours years into the program; or, they can borrow money today in anticipation of a revenue stream two or three years out and do the capital works today.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. ROSE: What we have done within our Estimates is we have provided - the Province is front-loading some of the gas tax revenues, because the cash flow stream associated with the implementation of the waste management system differs from the gas tax inflows, so the Province is actually front-loading those expenditures from provincial sources with a receivable being set up for the gas tax revenues down the road. So the numbers will not be in sync with the actual cash flows.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

How are the municipalities accountable to your department, to ensure that is how the money is being used?

MR. ROSE: Municipalities, as a condition of getting access to gas tax monies, have to develop a capital investment plan to outline what it is they are going to spend their gas tax monies on. That capital investment plan has to be reviewed and approved by the department to ensure that the planned expenditures are in accordance with the agreement and with the federal program guidelines.

Assuming that the capital investment plan matches up with the program guidelines and is supported by a resolution of council, and council signs an agreement with the department, then the funds flow out to the municipality.

On an annual basis the municipality has to report back to the department with an audited annual expenditure report to indicate that they have either held the monies in reserve as per the agreement, they have borrowed and are paying back in accordance with the agreement, or that they have spent their money in accordance with the capital investment plan.

So there is an accountability regime built in. In the event that they do not supply the annual expenditure report, do not provide the audits, or do not provide the budgets, then future payments of gas tax are withheld.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Minister, could you just explain the increase in salaries, what the new positions might be? Because I am presuming there are new positions.

MS WHALEN: The salaries allow for administration expense to cover costs associated with the program delivery, the monitoring, the federal reporting, the compliance and the community sustainability plan under the gas tax agreement 2009-2010. The administrative budget increased from $2,000 to $5,000 to a total of $350,000.

MS MICHAEL: To $350,000? I have $250,000 in the budget.

MS WHALEN: That incorporates the entire section there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS WHALEN: The first one.

MS MICHAEL: I am looking at 3.2.03.

MS WHALEN: What was it, 3.2?

MS MICHAEL: .03

MS WHALEN: What one are you looking at?

MS MICHAEL: The Salaries, 01. It is $250,000. I was just pointing out that it is not $350,000, it is $250,000.

MS WHALEN: Yes, $350,000 is the whole total. Look under Salaries there, $250,000, and down under that you will see from 03 to 06, that amount there adds up to $350,000.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I see what you are doing.

Under 3.2.04, Municipal Transit Infrastructure, Grants and Subsidies, where does that money go? Who is getting that money?

MS WHALEN: St. John's and Corner Brook will be getting that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

This is sort of a general question around municipal transit. Is the department involved with any municipalities - I am thinking of CBS in particular, because this is an issue that has come up there - around any possibilities of other public transit systems municipally?

MS WHALEN: No, not at this time.

MS MICHAEL: So those discussions that have sort of informally happened in CBS have not become formalized in any way?

MS WHALEN: No, not with the department.

MS MICHAEL: And it would have to be up to a municipality to push that with the department, rather than the department looking at potential.

MS WHALEN: Yes, it would.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I have some questions for the Fire and Emergency Services, but I will ask some general questions first. I have a couple of general questions with regard to the whole areas that we have covered.

The first two are for emergency, so I will keep those. With regard to the safe drinking water, I know, Minister, when you opened up your comments you did talk about potable water and what was going to happen this year. I understand that there were 209 boil water advisories in, I think, 143 communities out of 537 public water supply systems. Forget all those figures. There are a lot of figures. We had a lot of boil water advisories, as we know, but we have, I think, 154 communities that need potable water units.

Are all of those going to be covered this year? You did talk about that, but I was not sure that you meant everything was going to get covered.

MS WHALEN: We have actually contacted the municipalities that have water quality initiatives, and we have invested $18 million in the Budget over the next three years to address those issues. We have had thirty-eight applications to date, that are now under review with the department.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

So it is based on their making the applications to the department?

MS WHALEN: Yes, we are making them aware that this fund is available to address their issues.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, but then it would be up to the Department of Environment to be concerned about the boil water issues and, I hope, encouraging municipalities to apply?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

Actually, we think it is that important that the policy of the department is that we will withhold their capital works programs until they address their water quality issues before they get capital works.

MS MICHAEL: Is that a new policy?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Starting just now?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

What is the reaction to that?

MS WHALEN: Actually, they are coming on stream. Like I said, we have thirty-eight applications now that are under review.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Under Waste Management, you gave us a lot of information and that was good but I have just a further question with regard to Robin Hood Bay. Mr. Rose may have said this and I may have missed it. I have a lot of constituents who do call with concerns about the smell from Robin Hood Bay. One of the things that we had talked about - I think last year it may have come up in this conversation or it may have been outside of Estimates – is that the department look at the feasibility with regard to a methane treatment plant to deal with that. What has happened with that in terms of looking at the feasibility of methane treatment?

MR. ROSE: The Department of Environment and Conservation, I believe, have entered into an arrangement with the City of St. John's under the Green Fund to provide some funding to start to address the methane gas issue in the Robin Hood Bay landfill.

MS MICHAEL: I can ask further about that when I do that Estimate. Thank you very much. That is helpful.

I just have a few line by lines for Fire and Emergency, and then a couple of questions.

Subhead 4.1.01.01, under Salaries, I notice that the Salaries have gone down in this year's budget. That is most unusual. I have not seen that yet, I do not think, with any other estimate. Could we have an explanation of why that has happened?

MS WHALEN: That decrease reflects the ending of our business continuity plan secondments hired to complete their report. That is over now.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Subhead 03, Transportation and Communications, $100,000 was budgeted last year and only $42,500 was spent yet $100,000 is budgeted again this year. Was there an anomaly last year and that is why you are still keeping $100,000 as your base?

MS WHALEN: That reflects less than our anticipated communications costs, our travel for the BCP staff and the CEO and the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Council which is yet to be named.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So you do expect to have more travel this year?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 04, Supplies, budgeted $10,000. It is not a big number I know, but you did spend $22,000 more than budgeted last year. Why was that?

MS WHALEN: That increase reflects a higher requirement for our office supplies, our promotional materials for the Emergency Preparedness partnership and food items for the meetings.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under Professional Services: You had $250,000 down for professional services in last year's Budget, revised to $2,100 - that is a major difference - yet back up to $250,000 this year. Could we have an explanation of that?

MS WHALEN: That decrease reflects lower than anticipated consultant costs associated with our E-911 project.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Well then, I am going to stop there because that is one of my questions. Could we have a report on the E-911 project, where things are at the moment?

MS WHALEN: We have actually had thirteen submissions that are being reviewed and the terms of reference are being done up by the committee, so that we will be going out looking for an RFP or a tender, whatever.

MS MICHAEL: Because the submissions were the RFP, weren't they? You put out the call for the RFP and these were the submissions. January was the deadline, wasn't it?

MS WHALEN: I will ask Mike to elaborate a little bit on that.

MR. SAMSON: In 2008, Fire and Emergency sought expressions of interest from qualified consultants. We received thirteen submissions to that process, as the minister has indicated. We have worked our way through those. We are now in the process of finalizing detailed Terms of Reference and we will shortly be taking the decision as to whether to invite proposals from one of the thirteen or to do a public tender call. We anticipate the project getting underway within the next sixty days or so.

MS MICHAEL: That will be great. Hopefully things will move fairly well this year with regard to that.

MR. SAMSON: We remain hopeful, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Under 06, the budget last year for Purchased Services was $150,000, it was revised down to $71,800, and it is going up significantly this year to $378,900. Could we have an explanation of the $229,000 increase?

MS WHALEN: That reflects lower than anticipated costs for office rentals, as the lease was late in signing, and the lower costs for printing, vehicle and equipment rental, and other general purchased services.

MS MICHAEL: Why is it going up so much, though, this year, Minister? It is going up by almost $229,000 over last year.

MS WHALEN: That reflects the costs for the office rental to the house the entire Fire and Emergency Services staff complement in one location, as per our lease agreement.

MS MICHAEL: Is it that there is a new lease? I am trying to figure out why it is going up by so much.

MS WHALEN: Yes, it is a new lease.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so the new lease is higher.

Under 4.1.02.03, Transportation and Communications, I think you will probably have a similar answer to that, why it was revised up from last year, a $29,000 increase last year.

MS WHALEN: That reflects the increased travel costs for the inspections and working with the volunteer client base.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

So you had more than expected?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Under Purchased Services, which is 06, you spent about $48,000 more than budgeted, then going up again this year to $214,000. Are there new Purchased Services or are services just more expensive?

MS WHALEN: That reflects higher than anticipated vehicle and equipment storage lease costs, higher vehicle repair and training costs, and increased insurance premium costs for the volunteer firefighters.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Under the Emergency Services, 4.1.03, again some of the questions are around the same areas. Under 04, Supplies, budgeted $28,500 but the supplies were $68,000. What would those supplies be?

MS WHALEN: That would reflect the increase and higher requirement for office supplies, and fuel costs for the vehicles.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

That large amount: I guess the fuel supply was the big cost.

MS WHALEN: Yes, that would drive that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Professional Services, 05: You had a budget of $59,400 but nothing was spent, it was revised down to zero, and this year it is $19,400. What would the Professional Services in this area be that causes that fluctuation?

MS WHALEN: That reflects phase II of the interoperable initiatives not proceeding.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

You did not have any expense last year, obviously.

Under Purchased Services, you budgeted last year for $40,400, spent $70,900, and this year it is down to $20,400. What was all that about last year?

MS WHALEN: That reflects higher than anticipated costs for advertising, our vehicle repairs, meeting room rentals, and a cost to set up the equipment in the new command trailers.

MS MICHAEL: I am assuming that last one may have been the bigger expense. I see Mr. Samson nodding over there.

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Why then this year do you anticipate that you will have much less with regard to Purchased Services, because it is down to $20,400?

MS WHALEN: That reflects phase II of the inoperable initiatives not proceeding as well. We were not able to get phase II off the ground.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Next year we can expect to see something in there?

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Under subhead 4.1.04, the Joint Emergency Preparedness Projects, last year and this year you have $282,000 for this area but it looks like only $25,000 got spent last year. Is this dependent on municipal organizations coming to you and you have no control over how much money goes out because of that?

MS WHALEN: No. It actually reflects projects approved by Public Safety Canada under our joint federal-provincial emergency preparedness program for emergency equipment and other resources to respond to our emergency situations. The requests have reduced considerably due to a change in the cost share formula.

MS MICHAEL: What was that change, Minister, please?

MR. SAMSON: The Joint Emergency Preparedness: We administer this program on behalf of the Government of Canada so it is cost neutral to the Province but it is based on a 50-50 cost share with municipalities. Given the change in the provincial funding ratio up into the 90-10, 80-20, municipalities are not of the view that it is advantageous to take 50 cent dollars so they tend to choose other program options where they get a more preferential cost share.

MS MICHAEL: I see.

How do you feel about that, may I ask, in your position? Are there concerns?

MR. SAMSON: I think that, obviously, $282,000 could be well used in the Emergency Preparedness regime in Newfoundland, but it is a federal program and it is based on a 50-50 cost share. Most smaller municipalities that would be interested in a program that does these kinds of small projects are simply not in the position to avail of 50-50 funding.

MS MICHAEL: Does it cause concern with regard to emergency response, that there will be some municipalities - or a lot of municipalities, it seems to me - who will not be coming forward and looking for what is covered under this project?

MR. SAMSON: I think it is unfortunate that the 50-50 cost-share is not attractive because, as everyone knows, in their communities there are places where additional investment could be well used, but the 50-50 cost-share makes this an unattractive program.

MS MICHAEL: That is a concern. Thank you.

Under 4.1.05, I guess what I will just do here is a general question with regard to Disaster Assistance. There was a brief report, I think, on Daniel's Harbour, and where things are with Daniel's Harbour, but rather than – yes, I guess I will just ask: Where are we with regard to various claims? I think last year it was reported there were about thirty-five or so outstanding claims with regard to emergencies that had occurred. Where are things now with communities that have had emergencies, because of disasters, with regard to their claims?

MR. SAMSON: Where we are at the moment is that there are only a small number of projects remaining outstanding in respect to events that have occurred, so there is still some minimal work, for example, occurring in Stephenville. There is still one project remaining to be completed, which will then finish up the recovery effort in Stephenville.

We have some continuing work in respect of tropical storm Chantal. I think there is a little bit of work remaining on Daniel's Harbour, and some work up and down the Northern Peninsula that is associated with Storm Surge 2007. Those are infrastructure projects at the municipal and the provincial level.

At this present time, I do not believe we have any personal or small business claims outstanding from any of the events to date, so the focus is always to do the emergency repairs on municipal and provincial infrastructure, get communities back operating, and to focus immediately on providing assistance to individuals and families and citizens whose lives have been disrupted and who need to be able to get back in place. So, at this point, only a limited amount of work in respect of those.

I think the second part of your question related to the number of events that were outstanding over a period of years, and I think there are probably eleven or twelve. We have put a team of people together, led by my colleague, Mr. Blundon, who is working in a focused and methodical fashion through all of the various claims. We began with claims dating back to the year 2000. We have been successful in concluding the Storm Surge 2000 claim. We have concluded the final claim for Hurricane Gabrielle from 2001. We are about to conclude Northeast Coast Flood 2006, and we are working our way through each of these and having some success in generating good revenue returns out of the Government of Canada, so it remains a point of focus but I am certainly comfortable with the progress.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Those are all of my questions, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Anybody else?

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Just to go back to 4.1.02.10, Grants and Subsidies – and it is not a question - I was wondering if we could have a list provided of what those grants and subsidies were, and for where? That is the only thing on that one.

MS WHALEN: Yes, we will provide you with a list for that. *

MR. BUTLER: Okay, thank you.

Under the last heading 4.1.06, the same thing there, under 10, Grants and Subsidies, I was wondering if we could get a list provided. All I have then are three or four general questions.

When you look, your department's budget is increasing this year by I think it is $27 million, or that is the figure I have here. I was wondering how much of that is a carry-over from last year, or is that all new funding?

MR. ROSE: The overall budget reflects the cash flows on our program activity. Last year, because of the change, the increase in the budget for the $34.4 million, as well as the change in the cost-sharing ratios, our program delivery was delayed. We did not make commitments early in the year. Our commitments were not made until probably May and June of last year. As a consequence, there were a number of projects that did not get completed or did not get undertaken last year. The budget this year reflects not only the carry-over of funding from last year but accelerated delivery and commitments this year. It was a combination of both.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

With regard to water quality – and, Minister, if you have answered this already during a one-liner that is fine - I was just wondering how many boil orders are in the Province at the present time. I know you are investing money for water quality, and I was just wondering if you could explain briefly what plan of attack, I guess, you are using with water quality issues in our Province.

MS WHALEN: I think right now there are approximately a little over 200 that are in existence, but we have right now written all of the municipalities, as I said earlier, and informed them about the program that we have to address their water quality issues, and to this date we have thirty-eight applications that we are reviewing now. We have also informed them that they will not be getting their capital works funding until they address this issue. That is a new policy of our department.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

You mentioned, with regard to the 911 service, I think there were a certain number of proposals that came in and so on.

MS WHALEN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Is that Province-wide or is that only a regional thing for certain areas?

MS WHALEN: That came as a result of our Expression of Interest that we put out last year, and we had thirteen submissions. I am not sure if there are any out of Province. Are there any out of Province?

MR. BUTLER: I am sorry, you misunderstood me. I am not wondering where the proposals came from. I am wondering, the system, if it goes ahead, is that a provincial thing for 911?

MS WHALEN: Yes, that would be Province-wide, and an (inaudible) 911 is being looked at as well.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I am wondering if you can give me the information of how many fire inspections took place last year, and if there is a breakdown on whether they were in schools or wherever, and what particular areas that may have taken place?

MR. SAMSON: We can generate a list of the inspections that were done. I would note, however, as you are aware, that most of the fire inspections that are done in the Province are done by local fire departments pursuant to the Fire Chief Regulations in the Municipalities Act.

I can certainly undertake to provide you with a list of fire inspections done by staff of Fire and Emergency Services, just to be clear that is what you are asking for.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, that is what I should have asked you for.

My last question is: Minister, last year you brought in a good piece of legislation, and I might not have the right name for it now, the provincial emergency plan and so on throughout the Province. I know there are quite a few municipalities who are coming on stream, and others were given certain deadlines to fit into the program. I am wondering if you can give me a status report or an update on that today. Have there been any major changes bringing people together?

I know in our area I think everything is coming together fairly good, but I am wondering throughout some far-reaching areas of the Province how the full plan is coming in place at the present time.

MR. SAMSON: The new Emergency Services Act passed in the fall session of the Legislature. It is scheduled to be proclaimed into law at or about May 1, 2009. Our staff is working with communities, groups of communities, all around the Province in an effort to get a jump-start on the three-year municipal planning requirement.

The reception has been very positive, honestly, in most areas, and we are particularly encouraged by what we see as willingness or a desire of groups of communities to come together and to plan on a regional basis. That, of course, is something that we have undertaken to promote big time.

As I said, we are encouraged at what we see at this stage of the game, given that it is early in the three year time frame.

MR. BUTLER: That is it for me.

Minister, I want to thank you and your staff for your wonderful responses this morning, and your co-operation.

MS WHALEN: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Do we have anything else from the Committee?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Just to say thank you, as well, to the minister and her staff for the very helpful discussion we have had.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Ready to call?

CLERK: Yes, 1.1.01 to 4.1.06 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 4.1.06 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.1.06 carried.

CLERK: The total.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

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

CHAIR: As well, the Committee, I do believe, has the minutes of the Social Services Committee, Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, from April 6, 2009. I would ask for a motion to adopt those minutes.

MR. BUTLER: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

Thank you very much.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Again, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to extend a thank you to you, Minister, and your staff, for participating here this morning. Once again, thank you very much to your staff and to you.

For the benefit of the Committee, I would like to advise that the Social Services Committee will sit again this evening at 6:00 to hear the Estimates of Health and Community Services.

I think that is it, and we will ask for a motion to adjourn.

MR. COLLINS: So moved.

MR. CORNECT: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Collins and Mr. Cornect.

Thank you very much.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.