Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Bob Ridgley, MHA for St. John's North replaces Terry French, MHA for Conception Bay South.

The Committee met at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Dining Room.

CHAIR (Ridgley): Okay. We will probably get under way then, Mr. Minister, if you are ready?

MR. HEDDERSON: I am ready.

CHAIR: Just a couple of notes from the gentleman doing the sound and stuff like that. My mike will stay on. I think, Mr. Minister, they want yours to stay on as well, all the time. Maybe Kelvin, I guess you will be doing - so it is just as well to leave it on. Will you be able to handle the three of them being on okay?

MR. PARSONS: Sure, it is fine.

CHAIR: The other members of the committee then, or the minister's staff, if you would just activate when you are speaking, and of course, as per usual, identify yourself before you speak.

I am substituting for Terry French, whose mother is just out of hospital today. So he is home looking after her.

Bob Ridgley, the Member for St. John's North.

I will ask the minister to introduce himself and his staff first before we get underway.

MR. HEDDERSON: Tom Hedderson, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Voluntary Non-Profit.

I will just start off and ask the individuals to identify themselves.

MS JANES: Colleen Janes, Assistant Deputy Minister with IGA.

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Andrew Tobin, Executive Assistant to the Minister.

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

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA, Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. S. REID: Scott Reid, researcher with the Opposition Office.

MS E. MARSHALL: Beth Marshall, MHA, Topsail.

MR. VERGE: Wade Verge, MHA, Lewisporte District.

MR. DINN: John Dinn, MHA, Kilbride District.

MR. FORSEY: Clayton Forsey, Exploits.

CHAIR: Okay.

We are on page 16 of the Estimates book, as I understand. Under Intergovernmental Affairs there are four subheads, from 2.3.01. up to 2.3.04. Then over on page twenty-one, 2.8.01., which is the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat, as well. So we will do those.

I would ask the Clerk to call the first subhead, please.

CLERK: Subhead 2.3.01.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 2.3.01. carry?

Minister, we will turn it over to you and open debate for fifteen minutes, if you need, and then we will go to Mr. Parsons.

MR. HEDDERSON: First of all, Mr. Chair, I would like to welcome everyone here tonight to the Estimates, and just a few minutes to introduce my department and their roles within government. Of course, IGA is responsible for monitoring and analyzing intergovernmental dimensions of constitutional, social, fiscal, economic, and resource policy matters in order to formulate and provide policy advice on the development of government's intergovernmental strategy and agenda.

I guess we are focused on a number of different things. Creation, coordination, and review of policy affects the Province's interest in intergovernmental matters. That we are involved in all intergovernmental agreements, signing and negotiation, and I guess that we act, as well, as the point of entry for federal government, where no other provincial department exist - as in defence. As a result, for example, we are the lead on the 5 Wing Goose Bay file. Of course, the department, as well, supports the Premier and fellow Cabinet ministers in meetings with the federal government and other provinces and territories as well.

With regard to Intergovernmental Affairs; my colleague, the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, manages the Province's relationship with the Nunatsiavut government, while, of course, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for municipal governments. Again, we are promoting the interests of the Province, both provincially and nationally, and I guess internationally as well. We try to make sure that we represent the Province and the Province's positions on matters of importance to the Province at intergovernmental meetings, conferences and the like. As well, we assist all departments in their participation in anything intergovernmental with regard to meetings, negotiations and so forth. Of course, one of the biggest issues that we look at is the federal presence in our Province. We try very hard and are very diligent to ensure that we are certainly getting a fair share of what the federal government has to offer throughout the nation.

With regard to the new portfolio that was created after the election in October, that being the Voluntary Non-Profit Secretariat, I was appointed to that position in November, 2007 and a deputy minister followed in December, 2007. This is our first budget allocation, to the tune of $650,000 in Budget 2008, and of course with those dollars we will be moving forward.

The Secretariat, which we are, will work with volunteers and non-profit groups to set priorities to help the sector to be more effective in its dealings with government, maintain the capacity to meet their goals, play an increasing role in the lives of our communities and contribute to the well-being of our people. As well, of course, we will be working within government, with government departments, to support the third sector, to encourage volunteerism within the public service and ensure greater accountability and transparency in the relationship with this particular sector. In co-operation with the volunteer non-profit groups, a scope of work document will be developed to accomplish these goals and a policy framework will be formalized to support the sector and encourage social enterprise.

The Secretariat is not intended to be another layer of bureaucracy, a source of project core funding, an advocate for any groups with other departments of government, or an appeals body for a redress from departmental decisions. The Secretariat will strengthen the relationship between government and the voluntary and non-profit sector.

So, in a nutshell, I am just trying to give you a sense of what both aspects of my portfolio and the responsibilities are.

Mr. Chair, I will just turn it back to you to continue the debate.

CHAIR: Thank you, minister.

We will turn it over to you Mr. Parsons. I know you spent a bit of time on this in the House but I know you are not exhausted with your questions. So, we will turn it over to you and maybe after fifteen minutes I will ask some of the other members if they have questions and if not, we will go back to you.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Kelvin Parsons, MHA, Burgeo.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for the sandwich. I gave him a bit of a rough time in the House and he threatened to take it back. He is a man of his word and he did give it to me after.

Minister, I do not have a lot on the actual line by line stuff in the budget. Most of it is of a policy nature, just a couple of quick things.

First of all, under 2.3 on page 11 - I am looking at the staff complement booklet now as opposed to the estimates, when it talks about - on page 16 it says $226,300 in the Estimates book for salaries in your office. Then page 11 of the detail book shows the actual positions that make up your office and it looks like - I take it the difference between the $226,000 there and the $188,900 that is showing in the details, because that just shows the permanent staff in the details. There is some allowance there for temporary work or overtime or whatever, is that correct?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, it is.

MR. PARSONS: I just wondered too, for the record: Is the secretary to the minister referenced there if that is your constituency assistant?

MR. HEDDERSON: It would be, yes. I am thinking about my minister's secretary, no.

MR. PARSONS: Right, because I have asked -

MR. HEDDERSON: My constituency falls within the department, is what you are asking, is it?

MR. PARSONS: Yes. How long has that been the case that the constituency assistant for the minister has been paid for by the department?

The reason I ask that is I sit on the Management Committee of the House and it was my understanding, as Ms Marshall's understanding, that all constituency assistants were paid for from the House budget because every MHA, all forty-eight, has a constituency assistant. Therefore, it should properly be paid for by the House. That was my understanding. Anyway, I understand now that is not the case; that every minister's constituency assistant is actually paid for from their department. I just wondered if you might know why that was the case?

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, it seems that Ms Marshall is anxious to get in on it. Would you rather that or go to the minister?

MR. HEDDERSON: I am just saying that I thought it was the norm. I am referring to my deputy just to clarify that, if he would.

MR. DUTTON: As far as I understand, this has been the practice for the last two or three years, if I am not mistaken.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, that was my understanding. Again, I stand to be -

MS E. MARSHALL: No, this issue came up at our last Estimates Committee. I was of the same understanding as Mr. Parsons, but right after the meeting I did go out and check with Mr. Jones in Ms Lambe's office and he has confirmed that: No, it is just the private members who have their constituency assistants in the House of Assembly, that the others - but I don't know how long. I don't know if that was always the case.

MR. PARSONS: Okay. I guess the most appropriate place to raise it would be in the House where we are doing the House Estimates, because at least then –

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, it was my assumption that it was the norm. This being not my first time as a minister, and even before, I just assumed that it was continued on but I stand corrected.

MR. PARSONS: I was just trying to follow the logic. I did not understand why everybody has a constituency assistant and minister's get paid for it out of their departments. I did not understand the logic of it, especially where Justice Green is talking about openness and transparency. I just wondered where those twenty-five - because parliamentary secretaries as well, I think, go through the department.

Minister, first of all, on the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat, page 21, 2.8.01. - I realize this is the first time for this, and the first budget allotment is this year for this new sector that you have there. I am just wondering, there are no details given in the salary detail booklet for the salaries outlined there of $277,000, or I could not find it anyway. I am just wondering, what is the status of that? What are your plans regarding how many staff you are going to have in the office there and that kind of thing?

MR. HEDDERSON: I will defer to my deputy minister.

MR. R. REID: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Parsons, that anticipates a deputy minister, two analysts and a support person. That is not an annualized figure. That is recognizing that it is going to take some period to get going. The annual figure is about $315,000 a year. It is a deputy minister, two analysts - one more senior than the other - and a support staff person.

MR. PARSONS: Okay. I had a brief discussion on this privately with a minister one day in the House but for the purposes of the record, a lot of people in the Province were under the impression that there might be grants and subsidies, and allowances and whatever coming out of this office. People often say: How do we get in touch with the minister to get money for our volunteer organization? Maybe, just for the record, you could clarify for people what this Secretariat is going to do, that it is not a slush fund type of setup where people are going to come looking for money off you.

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly appreciate your question. I would say that we are a policy office more so than a funding. We are to develop a framework, which is the relationship that government has with the third sector, and henceforth our analyst research that we need to carry out to go forward with that. The funding streams will remain in the line departments that they are in right now.

Again the job, and as we were mandated to do following the Blue Book commitment that we made, is about recognition. It is about making sure that we are out there and looking at the challenges that these volunteer and non-profit groups are going through. It is about recruitment and retention. It is about, basically, working with the sector to find ways to build a better capacity, but more along the lines of policy, more along the lines of support to the sector itself, but not into the funding mechanisms that are in the line departments. That is where they will stay.

MR. PARSONS: I am just wondering, from an organizational point of view, why, in the Estimates books – I realize they don't have your department set up as a separate department. In fact, they call it the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, and you are responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat, but they don't even have it together in the book. Is there some reason why they are not organized better than this?

MR. HEDDERSON: What it is, of course, is that it is much like the Status of Women, the Women's Policy Office; it is an office. There are connections between Intergovernmental Affairs and volunteer and non-profit, but not in the lines of business or activity. Of course, it was given to me as a responsibility solely to deal with volunteer and non-profit, not necessarily to attach it to anything else.

It has been a policy office. It is not a bureaucracy that we are building, or whatever. It is about engaging with the sector, and I guess this is a good fit for a minister in a sense with regard to workload and so on.

MR. PARSONS: Moving on to another topic, we had a fairly extensive discussion about Dr. Fitzgerald in the House this afternoon, and your Ottawa office. I heard the comments as well of the Government House Leader saying why it was justified and so on. Notwithstanding my comments, and his, I guess, Minister, there seem to be some questions raised of value for money. We have $360-odd thousand, I believe it is, allotted this year for the Ottawa office. Does this person file any reports or anything? I mean, there are more reports go into the House of Assembly than you can shake a stick at these days, but it seems like there is nothing at all that we have heard from - I have never seen a press release from the gentleman; I don't know what he does. A lot of people don't know what he does. Do you intend to have any kind of reporting mechanism, or does he have a report mechanism? How does he operate?

MR. HEDDERSON: Basically, there are two aspects of Dr. Fitzgerald's role, I guess, with regard to government. First of all, he is a public servant that is set up in an office in Ottawa. With regard to his activities, he reports directly to the Premier's office, through the Chief of Staff. For my role in it, of course, he falls under my department for basically budget consideration, so the accountability to my department rests largely with the financial aspect of running his office. So that accountability, I guess, I am responsible for as a minister. Of course, performance-wise and otherwise he is responsible to the Premier's office.

Just to elaborate a little bit on it, he does play a significant role in making sure that our government is represented in Ottawa, and he joins with, I believe, eight other jurisdictions that have similar offices up there. His duties are to, I guess, liaise with the federal government – and not only the federal government but the players that are up in Ottawa, which are the MPs, the senators - to monitor, to gather intelligence, to co-ordinate with other Intergovernmental Affairs offices in finding out what exactly is going on, and reporting back to the Premier, and using that kind of intelligence. I guess the Premier's office can find out direction or at least get some sense of direction that they go with regard to our relationship with the federal government.

MR. PARSONS: Does he play any role in negotiating federal-provincial agreements? There are all kinds of those, of course. Does he play any role there?

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, he does, I guess, play some role - and the intelligence part is what I am referring to - in making contact, reporting back on specific information, but again that type of information would come from the Premier's office in laying out what is required.

Of course, any time that any of us, as ministers, or any MHAs, on either side of the House, are in Ottawa, they get an opportunity to avail of his office, and whatever issues are on the go, or whatever activities or meetings, he can do the research and the fact-finding that is necessary for them to perhaps carry out their business.

MR. PARSONS: In that regard, at least, automatically, I guess, through the discussion of the federal-provincial relations, how effective can our emissary be, Mr. Fitzgerald, given the chill - I guess, is a polite word to use - which appears to exist between our Premier and the Prime Minister?

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, I look at it in a different way, in the sense that when we look at the need for representation in Ottawa, I would say that if indeed the relations are chilled perhaps we need a representative in Ottawa more than ever to make sure that we are getting the understanding, getting the research, getting the information that we need as a government to again try to understand what is happening on the Hill, and to be able to take that information and to incorporate it into our strategy, our approach, to use it to our best advantage to make sure, just to use a cliché, that we are in the loop in Ottawa, that we are understanding what is going on, on the ground up there.

Like I said, it is not only with regard to the government. As you know, there are all sorts of different opportunities in Ottawa to find out and to liaise with, for example, a lot of the diplomatic corps that are in Ottawa as well. As you know, we have relations with other countries and, again, seeing what the provinces are doing and what other jurisdictions are doing.

MR. PARSONS: It is my understanding – in fact, I spoke to the regional minister, Minister Hearn, recently. I gather from his comments that it is pretty well non-productive in a lot of cases, and that it is just the absolute stone walls and closed roads when it comes to trying to get stuff done now between the feds and the Province.

MR. HEDDERSON: I know from Intergovernmental Affairs we have been very successful in – one of the areas that we are involved in is agreements. I think I will just refer to my deputy minister: How many agreements over the last year?

MR. DUTTON: Agreements with the federal government, last year we had forty-seven.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, and that is, would you say, the norm?

MR. DUTTON: I would say that is about average. I am not sure that diminished in any way despite the concerns over that issue.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: We certainly could, but what I am saying is that, from my perspective, obviously, there are a couple of things. One is the agreements between the feds and here, and there are a number of those that have come down, forty-some-odd. As well, the federal presence and trying to again keep the federal government's feet to the fire on a lot of issues, and 5-Wing Goose is one of those. I could go on to a few more.

Like I said, there are challenges, but I think that we must continue to keep the pressure on. Other Administrations have struggled with the same thing, but we have been successful. There have been successes, and we must continue to strive for success. Despite if there are chilled relations or not, we still have to do due diligence to make sure – and the big thing, I would say, is that there is a fair share that is owing to us and we must ensure, through these agreements, through the allocations and that, that we do get the fair share. Like I said, there have been successes.

MR. PARSONS: Just to touch on a few of the issues, Minister, first of all, the early retirement in the fishing industry, that was one of the issues that the Premier raised with the Prime Minister during the last federal election, to have a cost-shared agreement, seventy-thirty, the feds-the Province. What is the latest on that?

MR. HEDDERSON: With regard to that, again I refer to my deputy just to get into the details of that because I guess we are looking at – well, the community trust just came down, as you know, and part of that was the federal government's attempt to help communities that lost an industry and so on, and that obviously we would see it earmarked in Newfoundland and Labrador to the forestry, to the fishery, but again it was something like $23 million, or $24.3 million, I am sorry, was it?

MR. DUTTON: It was $23.4 million.

MR. HEDDERSON: It was $23.4 million, okay. I reversed the numbers.

Again, when we looked at how it compared to our numbers of what we put into Stephenville and so on, it is certainly not coming close to addressing the need.

MR. PARSONS: No, but are you suggesting that the community trust fund is replacing the earlier proposal to have a retirement package (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: No, no, I never said that. What I said was that the federal government has come out with the community trust to try to assist with regard to the economic downturns in various jurisdictions brought about by probably factors in the forestry, fisheries or whatever. Basically, we have taken that and looked at moving forward; but, on the other one, I again refer to my deputy minister just to fill us in on some.

MR. DUTTON: Sure.

Well, just in terms of early retirement, last winter the Fishing Industry Renewal announcement was made. I believe it was in April, if I am not mistaken, of 2007. Early retirement was not a component of that strategy that was announced last year. The government, as you mentioned, has maintained that we are still open to participating in a program on a seventy-thirty basis. That was reiterated in the Blueprint. The federal government has not made the decision to come forward. I am not sure that they have closed the door to it, but it is still something that is being actively pursued, and their provincial and federal Fisheries Departments still interact on the implementation of Fishing Industry Renewal, so there is still an opportunity for further dialogue.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, if you are done that topic, I will go to one of the other members. If you are not, then you can certainly finish up that topic.

MR. PARSONS: Go ahead.

CHAIR: Are you done with that particular one?

MR. PARSONS: Well –

CHAIR: Or you can follow-up on that.

MR. PARSONS: Well, it is part of it, actually; there is another one that is part of that early retirement package.

CHAIR: Okay.

Well, you go ahead and then we will go back to it.

MR. PARSONS: The Prime Minister had said during the election, prior to any commitments being made on the package, he had said there would be a feasibility study done. I am just wondering, where are we in terms of the feasibility? He said a feasibility study would have to be conducted to determine the affordability of an early retirement initiative, as well as a study on the impacts of such an initiative on the labour force as a whole.

I am wondering, have you followed up to see that those studies were indeed done?

MR. DUTTON: Again, the interaction has been primarily between Fisheries and Aquaculture and DFO, so I would have to check with them, but certainly I have not seen a feasibility study to date. We can check with them on the status and report back.

MR. HEDDERSON: We can get back to you on that one.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, lots of times information is not available, we understand that, but there is usually an undertaking provided to the questioners later on.

CHAIR: Indeed.

So if you are done on that particular topic I will just open it to the other members.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

CHAIR: Mr. Dinn.

MR. DINN: I was just going to mention that we were talking about the Ottawa office. I think about a few months ago, I cannot remember when, we were sitting here, myself and Beth Marshall and a couple of others, and Dr. Fitzgerald came over and sat down with us and he indicated to us that he spends a lot of his time dealing with ambassadors from other countries.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MR. DINN: He mentioned some of the countries that he is dealing with, so I would assume, if you have so many countries with ambassadors and embassies in Ottawa, that you would be pretty busy as a representative from here dealing with these people over - it could be trade issues; it could be almost anything.

I just want to make that comment because I had never met the man before. When he came over and sat down, I didn't know but he was Adam.

MR. HEDDERSON: As a response to that, again, I have already mentioned to the other hon. member that the diplomatic corps are based on Ottawa for the most part and we have many dealings, especially with jurisdictions like Ireland, China, and these places. Of course, any time that he is doing research or networking that (inaudible). One of his efforts, of course, was with regard to our MOU with Iceland. He was involved with that through the diplomat from Iceland who was stationed in Ottawa.

CHAIR: Any of the other members want to interject, comment, question?

MS E. MARSHALL: I do not have any questions, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, back to you.

MR. PARSONS: For the record and for the Member for Kilbride, the Government House Leader refers to him as Johnny on the Spot.

Minister, again going back to the Prime Minister regarding the fisheries retirement piece, in my neck of the woods at least, if not inside the overpass certainly outside the overpass, the fisheries retirement piece is a big, big issue. That is why I am asking these questions actually.

The Prime Minister stated his preference for retraining programs for people in the fishing industry as opposed to a retirement, is my understanding, which albeit that might be great if somebody is in their thirties or forties but if you are dealing with people in their fifties or older who have spent thirty years in the fishing industry and the plant it is pretty difficult to go through a retraining exercise.

I am wondering: albeit he held it out there, has anybody in our government pursued that option with him to see, if we cannot hook them on a seventy-thirty can we hook them on some kind of training program? Where has that gone? At least he offered that much.

MR DUTTON: On the training front, there are two programs we are presently negotiating with the federal government. One is a devolved labour market development agreement and that is currently co-managed, so we are looking at organizing a devolved model. We are one of five jurisdictions that up to this year did not have a devolved model. It would be the same funding that has been available previously for EI eligible applicants but it would give the Province more flexibility in terms of the criteria for eligibility.

The second program was announced in federal budget 2007 and it is a labour market agreement or LMA, and that is intended for non EI eligible clients. I think the funding commitment from the federal government is in the range of $7.7 million a year over five years, and that is also again under negotiation. A few jurisdictions have signed on to that program already and we are close to making a decision on whether to go forward with that.

Certainly, fisheries workers and workers in any other sector of the economy would qualify under those programs, depending whether they were EI eligible or not. That would enhance the suite of programs available for retraining.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Minister, my last question on that part of the fisheries: there is a lady in a town called Isle aux Morts on the South West Coast in my district, she is very well known in the fishing industry, Elizabeth Harvey, who has been involved with hundreds and hundreds of fishermen and fisherpersons who sold their licenses years ago. The federal revenue department, as I understand it, forgave some people their capital gains consequences as a result of selling their licenses and gave them a settlement and yet there are still hundreds impacted.

I met with Ms Harvey and the federal minister in Port aux Basques a couple of weeks ago and she was pursuing that issue again. I know Minister Rideout has dealt with the issue in the House and he is on record as trying to get some resolution to the thing. They have a lawyer engaged, Mr. Baker I do believe his name is, Eli Baker.

I am just wondering: has your department had any involvement, or is there anything you can do in IGA to assist to move that file forward? Because the federal minister is committed to doing something with it and sort of indicated that once we got our facts together, if we did it jointly to the CRA crowd, it might have more impact than if we just went it alone or if he went it alone?

MR. HEDDERSON: The lead minister on it is Minister Rideout. Of course, we support him. One of our jobs is to support ministries, their dealings with federal presence or whatever falls from that. We make ourselves available through giving analysis, research and that sort of thing. Also, I am not adverse to writing the necessary letters in order to support that position. In this particular case I believe the minister has approached Ottawa, and we are in full support of it and willing to help him out in any way that he wants us to help him out in order to move it forward.

MR. PARSONS: Is it fair to say that it has been left to the Minister of Fisheries and that IGA has not been involved unless asked?

MR. HEDDERSON: I guess we have been involved, and I will leave this to the deputy, but there has been no direct involvement.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. DUTTON: We would be happy to follow up on it if you have a suggestion.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I just thought it makes more sense if we have an IGA department. I realize the minister is trying his best. I did not know if there is anything through analysis even and assistance that you might be able to give, where you have access to federal departments including Revenue Canada. You might be able to provide the group with even some assistance to help them push their case because they do appear to have a good case. It is a matter of somebody making CRA lend an ear to it.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, we are open to –

MR. PARSONS: In fact, there is a motion put forward by the Member for Lewisporte, the government member, in regard to this issue which is going to be heard some time as a private member's motion. It is of active interest to both sides of the House on the issue.

CHAIR: Mr. Verge, did you want to interject there on that?

MR. VERGE: Yes, if I could.

CHAIR: If it is okay with you, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Sure, go right ahead.

MR. VERGE: Yes, I will just comment on that because I have done a bit of research on it, Mr. Parsons, and I think it is something that is of interest to all members in the House. We have put forward a private member's motion and, in essence, the motion is calling upon the House of Assembly to ask the Government of Canada to ask Revenue Canada to right the inequity and the unfairness, or the apparent inequity and unfairness that is there, particularly with the 1999 buy-out program. There were three buy-out programs, in 1996, 1999 and 2002, and it is the 1999 fisher people who seem to be most adversely affected by it. I expect that that motion will come to the House to be debated. It could be as early as Wednesday but we are not sure of that yet. I would also expect that it is something that all members on both sides of the House would be interested in having rectified.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Minister.

I am still in the water here: the cod recovery program. The Prime Minister, again, in his letter to the Premier in January of 2006 stated that an important aspect of cod recovery was, and I quote: ensuring that the Province has a greater role in managing the fishery.

I am just wondering: what actions have been taken by the provincial government to follow up on that? It seemed to be an olive branch at least, as far as management of the fisheries.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, indeed, and again, for details, I am going to refer to my deputy ministers.

MR. VERGE: Again, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture would be the lead, but one of the things that I believe the Premier has spoken about is the importance of doing more of our own primary research in regards to fisheries science and supporting that on a go-forward basis. Also, with respect to fisheries management generally, we have been very closely monitoring the activities happening through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and the things that have been happening there. Provincial officials are participating regularly in NAFO meetings and consultations, and in general there is a fair amount of interaction between DFO and Fisheries and Aquaculture on fisheries management issues, whether it is related to ground fish or other species.

MR. PARSONS: Just to change the subject here from the water to the air, I guess: what is the status now on Five Wing Goose Bay? You mentioned it earlier.

MR. HEDDERSON: Five Wing Goose Bay, of course, is one of our top priorities, because again we are responsible for Five Wing Goose, the issue and moving it forward. Of course, just in a nutshell, basically it was a commitment made by the Prime Minister during the election, a commitment to a Rapid Response Battalion - I believe it was 650, the unmanned vehicles squadron of 100-plus - and also to market that particular facility for international use.

We have been diligent. My predecessor, and certainly I carried on myself in trying to, again, keep reminding the federal government of those commitments and also trying to flesh out from their actions whether or not we are moving closer to having that turn into reality. When I came on the job, basically I met with Minister McKay, and there was a change in ministers. When I came in it had changed ministry, so I wanted to make sure that I met with this new minister, even though he had been in the portfolio for a number of months. When I met with him, basically he reiterated the commitment. He did not provide me with the timeline but said that they were working on a defence strategy. Of course, a number of days ago the defence strategy was indeed released and of course we did a thorough analysis. The details are very scanty, and as a matter of fact the announcement was a press release. Looking down through the press release and trying to glean from that, sometimes perhaps hope more so than anything else, really there was no direct mention of 5 Wing Goose in it. As a result we just analysed it and there were some possibilities, but again nothing substantive.

MR. PARSONS: Given the departure of our home-grown local boy as the head of the Canadian Forces, Mr. Hillier, would it be a fair statement to say that our chances are now – if we could not do it with one of our own in charge, we certainly are going to be in a worse situation after.

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, I do not know what kind of influence the General had, and I would only speculate to say one way or the other, but what I will say is that we still see that they are still indicating that the commitment is there. Since then, there has been a technical briefing which gave more details with regard to the defence plan, and from that there is going to be, well, some not so good news. Initially there was supposed to be, I guess, was it a 10,000 increase?

MR. DUTTON: 10,000 more regular force.

MR. HEDDERSON: Regular force, and reserves?

MR. DUTTON: That was another 9,000 or 10,000.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. There was supposed to be an increase, but the details came out and that is almost cut in half. Because when we saw, let us say the 10,000 increase, we said, well, that is a good sign, but now the detail is coming out that it is half of that. Then, that is still pointing: well, does that mean that we are going to get our 650 or our 150?

The details coming out of the technical briefing did not give us any great sense of comfort, and yet it did not cut off the possibility. We are still in, I guess for a better term I would say, limbo, still not knowing. This is a twenty-year plan. They are two years into their mandate now, and say, well, we still have some time, but we have not got a sense of whether they are going to do it, when they are going to do it, how many, or whatever. We must continue to push them and try to at least get some understanding as to what this plan is all about, and perhaps more details will become available as we delve further into it.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, moving on to another topic, the Lower Churchill, again the current Prime Minister, Harper, made a statement that a Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes, such as the Hibernia project.

Has government followed up on that? Have there been any discussions with the feds on the Lower Churchill initiative?

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I defer to my deputy minister to give us the details on that.

MR. DUTTON: In terms of project financing and so on, at this point we do not have a project release, so there is not financing in place and there is still additional time to work out those details. The federal government has announced three different programs for which funding for an East-West grid was eligible.

One was the ecoTrust that was announced last year. The other was the technology fund, which was a component of the new federal Turning the Corner green plan, and the third one was the Building Canada Fund. However, the money in those three programs, in terms of what would be available to Newfoundland and Labrador, would not make a dent in the total cost of such a significant project that would cost in the billions of dollars.

They have at least opened up the door to a willingness to contribute to the cost of transmission, to enhance transmission in the country, but the amount of money that is on the table is not sufficient to address in that regard.

Our total allocation under the ecoTrust, for example, I think was in the range of $23 million, and when you are talking about a project in the billions, it is not even rounding off money from that perspective. So, obviously, the focus in that program has been on other green initiatives.

MR. PARSONS: How about on the 8.5 per cent share in Hibernia? The Prime Minister, again, he did not support it at the time but he left the door open to discussing it in the future. Has there been any discussion on the 8.5 per cent share?

MR. DUTTON: Well, as you are probably aware, the Premier released publicly, the correspondence he had with the Prime Minister up to January on this topic. In his last letter at that time, that he had released, he had asked for some more explanation on the financial assessment that the federal government had done on the extent of which the federal government had recovered its investment in Hibernia. There has not been any response since then but that is not for lack of reminding the Prime Minister of our interest in receiving more detailed information, but it just not has been forthcoming to us to date.

MR. PARSONS: Also, the Prime Minister in January, 2006, recognized the importance of investing in science. He made a big deal of it actually, in management. He was talking also in the context of fisheries recovery at the time. I am just wondering, what has been done by government or yourselves to follow up on that initiative?

A comment he made was, "Another aspect of the recovery…" - that is referring to the cod - "…will involve an investment in science and management. Science is not enough, however, and I believe that for too long, the wisdom of those who actually derive their living from the ocean has been ignored. A Conservative government is committed to changing that and will consult more widely with corresponding provincial departments and with fishermen."

That is on the issue of science and management. I am wondering if there have been any discussions whatsoever in that regard between yourselves and the feds?

MR. DUTTON: I am sorry, did you say January 2008 or 2006?

MR. PARSONS: 2006.

MR. DUTTON: Okay. In that respect, as I recall, in the first budget of the new federal government they had - this would be Budget 2006. I think they did make some announcements around additional investment in fishery science, if I am not mistaken, but I am not sure that they enhanced that funding since that time.

MR. PARSONS: Have we done anything further? Are we just leaving it to them to -

MR. DUTTON: I think, as I had referenced earlier, the Premier has indicated an interest in provincial investments in fishery science as well, how to enhance our knowledge base in this area.

MR. PARSONS: Concerning federal presence in the Province, it seems to be an issue. There seems to be an overconcentration of federal agencies and services in some areas of the country and there has been an effort to hopefully get more done here. Can you give us an update on what exactly we are doing to push that envelope?

MR. HEDDERSON: The latest one is the forestry centre out in Corner Brook. What we found out there is that there was a commitment made by a previous Administration for - again, I do not have the numbers in front of me, but a specific number, and that was - maybe, just give me some sense of the numbers, Colleen, if you have them.

I am just trying to get the numbers for you. On that particular one - while they are getting the numbers - is that they were supposed to ratchet it up to a certain number. That has never happened. This Administration has really ratcheted it down.

The management is over in Halifax, or in one of the Maritime provinces. As people retire, they are not being replaced. That is the sort of issue - we take issue with that, and we do due diligence in drawing it to the attention - anytime I meet with ministers or we write the necessary letters, again, to remind them of the commitment that was made in that particular one.

As well, during the 1980s and into the 1990s we had an awful drop in the presence, offices moving outside the Province, et cetera. What we said is that - what our Prime Minister, when addressing this during the election campaign, clearly stated that he was not putting jobs in here just for the sake of putting jobs, but if we could demonstrate that we could offer something in the way of relevancy, be it in forestry or otherwise, that he would be only too glad to try to engage with the Province in establishing offices.

Like the Oceanic Research and that sort of thing, it is a natural for this Province. Of course, we would like to put something like that forward and are working on putting that forward to, again, create jobs; not just jobs, but really substantive jobs where decision making is done in the Province, and where it really ties in, it is something about who we are and what we are.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, aside from the forestry, which they had committed to and apparently are backing off on, or not following through on, at least.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: What initiatives have we put forward as a government? Rather than writing them letters and asking them to do stuff, what have we done to say we want this? What is the ‘this' that we are talking about?

MR. DUTTON: Well, a couple of things. First of all, the Premier has made the reference to the notion of a Canadian oceans agency as a potential new entity that could be headquartered in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that would be a way to address an issue with respect to the number of federal jobs but also in terms of decision making capacity. So that is a concept that he has raised with the Prime Minister and has discussed publicly, and something we are continuing to pursue. As I recall, minister, you raised that with federal ministers on your visit to Ottawa in January.

In addition to that, we have reviewed the federal budget and identified a number of federal departments that had allocations for new positions in the new Budget 2008, and where those new positions appear to align with some priority and opportunity in our Province, then Minister Hedderson has raised that with federal ministers in five different departments, including in Immigration, Parks, Public Safety, and a number of other areas. So we are looking at where those things align.

In addition, the minister has had some discussions with the Federation of Labour around their interests in the federal presence as well, in seeking some of their input. So that has been a very constructive dialogue that hopefully will bear some fruit.

Also, the federal government made a number of commitments to uniformed personnel. We have discussed 5 Wing Goose Bay.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. Here in St. John's as well.

MR. DUTTON: CFS St. John's was another commitment to 100 uniformed regular force and 400 reservists. That has not been acted upon as of yet. We have also been vigilant in reminding the federal government of that commitment.

We have seen other defence opportunities that might play out well for Goose Bay, such as the resurfacing of the runway in Bagotville. It may be a temporary opportunity, but there is an opportunity for military personnel from Bagotville to be temporarily assigned to Goose Bay to continue their actions there. So, that has also been raised. While there in not a firm decision on that yet, that also could bear some short-term benefit for the base at Goose Bay.

MR. PARSONS: It seems the only evidence I am aware of that shows the lack of a federal presence here was what done by the Harris Centre at MUN.

Does our government intent to undertake any kind of study yourselves to actually document the lack of a presence here, like the Harris Centre type of thing, except more extensive?

MR. DUTTON: The Harris Centre report precedes my time in the Secretariat, but I understand that the government worked co-operatively with the Harris Centre to help provide them with information. It has been supportive and concluded that their results were consistent with those that government had seen. It has been discussed at some length but it is not particularly an out-of-date study. There has not really been an abiding need to do an update or any additional study at this point, but we will continue to cite those figures in public comment and in meetings with federal ministers.

MR. PARSONS: Moving along to something that is near and dear to my neck of the woods, Marine Atlantic. During the last election the Prime Minister made a comment again of the importance of a reliable and affordable ferry service to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. I notice they have recently announced the purchase of a new boat and it is going to be on stream now in October. Has the provincial government had any meetings with the federal government regarding Marine Atlantic?

MR. HEDDERSON: The lead minister on that is the Transportation Minister, and of course, secondary to that is the Tourism Minister as well. Again, we support them in their efforts. Now, whether they have met or not, I will have to refer again.

Do we have any information as to whether they have sat down and actually met? I cannot speak for them, obviously.

MR. DUTTON: I could not say about specific meetings but they have certainly both made public calls, and correspondence has been exchanged with the federal government on the issue. There have been a couple of things, one was with respect to - I believe the new vessel is actually a lease and that is to help deal with some of the extra capacity requirement and also in the event that there was a vessel breakdown or something that required servicing, that they would be able to carry over their service without interruption.

There has also been a lot of concern about the fuel surcharges that have been applied as a result of the higher oil and gas costs. That is an issue they have raised as well in the public service. Just the need for a vessel replacement strategy, there is a long-term strategy being announced but there is nothing specific yet about when a new vessel might actually be built and if that might be something that could be done within the Province.

MR. PARSONS: On to the volunteer and non-profit sector, I am just curious - and I realize it is only new. You probably have not had a chance to get your head around some of this stuff yet.

I notice in the Province of Nova Scotia recently they introduced a provincial tax credit for volunteer firefighters, recognizing the value that they make to our communities and so on and offering an incentive to get more people involved, because in a lot of these communities now it is tough to get firemen and anybody committed enough to undergo all the extensive training and so on.

Have you given any, at least even preliminary thought to - is that the nature of the beast, for example, to consider such policies, do the math on it and see if it is possible, what it would cost government and that kind of stuff?

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, it is the nature of the beast because they are volunteers. Part of what we do in our office is recruitment and retention. Of course, you know recruitment and retention does involve incentives and so on. Initially, we are going back to the sector, I guess, and what I have been doing is going around doing informal roundtables and inviting groups, such as the volunteer fire people, to come in and meet with me so that we can get some sense - and that has come up from a number of different groups. Of course, we need to do the analysis, research and see with the sector if, indeed, that is an area they want to go into.

Again, I refer to my deputy minister just to qualify that.

MR. R. REID: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Parsons, what I am looking in the Estimates for is the actual name of the body in Municipal Affairs that includes emergency response and the fire commissioner.

Under the support of the Minister of Municipal Affairs there is a body that has been brought together, which includes volunteer fire departments through the chiefs' organizations, the commissioner, and three or four government departments. I am participating in that process and it is addressing a number of issues, not the least of which is recruitment and retention, which is the biggest challenge at this point that I think they face.

There is no question that there are a line of options that may provide remedy. For instance, in Nova Scotia there are other examples in different jurisdictions - insurance issues, for instance. Certainly, that concern is one that is an issue that - sorry, the other partner in that is the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipalities, or Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. I still call them the Federation, I probably should not but that is what I still call them. They are a partner in this process as well.

MR. PARSONS: I noticed the Province gave volunteer fire departments, I believe, sort of an honorary licence plate.

OFFICIAL: They did, yes.

MR. PARSONS: Some of the guys I have spoken to were disappointed that they did not get - they were looking, not only for the plate, actually they were looking for the cost of registration of their vehicles. They thought that might have been more helpful, but that wasn't to be. It is funny, because the Mayor of Ramea - he is also involved in the fire department in there - the last three letters in his plate were 666 and he did not know if government was trying to send him a message. In any case -

MR. HEDDERSON: That is a novelty. I do not know about an omen or not.

MR. PARSONS: When groups are to deal - again, I go back to this question, people ask you the process. There is an expectation out there where people think: We now have a door we can knock on. I realize yours is a policy type door, but - for example, if the Lions Club comes to myself and says: What is available in government that we as a volunteer group, what are the different pots of money that we might be able to access, or a fire department says, where do we go look? Can we come to your shop, because part of the problem in the past is that - we usually go to Municipal Affairs and they give you a special assistance grant. Every so often the fire department would get a bit of money and so on, but my understanding is there are other pots of money around government that would fit - like firemen may go to Municipal Affairs but Lions Clubs do not know where to go or whatever. All the different groups - it might be a youth group and whatever. Can they knock on your door and get direction as to what is available?

MR. HEDDERSON: Certainly, no problem knocking on the door, but as we are going forward - of course, you see, it was a very moderate ask that we put forward, but we feel as well that we need to have some sort of a clearing house function as well. Our Web site should help us there, plus our admin support that will come on as well, because navigating through, not only the provincial government but federal government fundings and other funding, we hope that we can be able to assist in the navigation through so that groups do not have to make the twenty phone calls to get to that one person and whatever.

As well, we are going to be working within government to try to facilitate the application process, the grants and so on, again, to alleviate some of the burden that is on the shoulders of our volunteers, our non-profit groups, as they try to carry out their duties, often through volunteers.

Do you want to add something?

MR. R. REID: I think one of the things with developing a Web portal is to try and allow for one place to come into government to find the answers to the questions, as the minister said.

There is a very good Web site that has been developed by enVision, which is part of the Community Services Council. We do not want to duplicate that. In a sense, we want to create a parallel organization and put a roof over it. That is also, in a way, similar to how we want to approach it inside government. As the minister said, we want to facilitate but the last thing any government department needs - frankly, any MHA needs - is another organization in the middle of all of this. Without money yourself - we are certainly not going to be in a position to tell a government department where to spend its money or complain that they did not spend it in one place or another.

In terms of pointing people in the right direction, holding hands, we recognize that is a function that we can and should be playing.

MR. PARSONS: The question on - of course, with the excessive increase in gasoline prices and so on today, it is having a big, big impact on a lot of volunteer groups.

We have all seen the reports, for example, on even the Meals on Wheels groups who, quite frankly, cannot afford any more to provide the service. Do you see a role here for your department for that type of volunteer, because that does have serious implications on a lot of volunteer agencies in this Province?

MR. HEDDERSON: The volunteer non-profit sector did come forward and have been lobbying government for years, I would imagine, to get the recognition they feel they deserve for their efforts. Recognition is fine, but the other aspect of it, I would say, is that they wanted a voice within government. Of course, the first thing they wanted to see was a minister responsible for the volunteer, which came about.

Now, part of my responsibility is to use that voice within government to bring forward anything that would affect the third sector. Again, I feel it is my responsibility to be that voice and to look for ways, be it through incentives as we talked about, and I did it globally, and the deputy minister talked about our committee with regard to the volunteer fire people.

We must find ways to be able to support - one of the directions I was given, as well, is that the sustained employability within that sector is another aspect that we - I have been asked and given a mandate to look at as well. So it is all tied in because it is having the capacity, not only the number of volunteers but also having the ability to carry out their work. These gas prices rising has put an awful strain on all sectors, but in particular this one. As we move forward we will try to find ways, again, through incentives, through whatever other ways we can find to alleviate the burden that they have.

MR. R. REID: Can I -

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, if you would.

MR. R. REID: Let me just add one thing. For the last couple of years anyway, the most important issue in that regard from the sector has been the cost of insurance. Certainly, the elimination of the levy had a direct impact.

The other problem is that a number of organizations have had trouble getting insurance, or having insurance that they have cover certain of their activities. For instance, if you are driving a bunch of kids to a hockey game and there is a problem, your insurance may not be appropriate, either your private insurance or the insurance that you think you have for the Lions Club who is sponsoring the hockey league.

One of the things that the Department of Government Services has done, as a result of an ongoing consultation chaired by Winston Morris, facilitated by the Community Services Council, involving people from the sector, people from the insurance industry, and people like Tom Johnson, who is the consumer advocate, is the department has hired an expert whose job it is to provide advice initially and primarily to the not-for-profit sector, but to people generally throughout small business, in terms of the best way to get insurance. I think that may prove to be an interesting model for us in terms of moving ahead on some of these, sort of, common problem issues.

Now, the price of gas, I am sure the minister would love to be able to say we will solve that tomorrow – I am not sure we are going to - but I think it is recognized that it is increasingly an issue, and there are a number like that.

MR. PARSONS: Just my last – I don't know if it is a question or a comment, but, Minister, after having gone through a lot of these issues, and notwithstanding your forty-six agreements that you have been successful in negotiating, all of these issues have been in the public domain for some years now, and it seems awfully frustrating - and you must find it frustrating as a minister – whether it is the 8.5 per cent on Hibernia, whether it is trying to get an increased federal presence here, there doesn't seem to be much success. Like, 5-Wing Goose Bay, we have all of these discussions going on, but year after year after year we keep saying: What is the progress? What is the status?

Notwithstanding your diplomatic efforts, would it be fair to say that we get what the feds give us. We can ask what we like, but in all those instances it just seems like you are writing letters back and forth but there is no progress on it.

MR. HEDDERSON: I can say that, the days on the job, there are some days that you are totally frustrated and other days that you are doing okay. I can understand what you are saying, but the thing about it is this: the federal government, whether they like it or not, have to give us our fair share, and I think the prime concern that we as a department have is to make sure that we are vigilant in ensuring that in all of the programs that are presented, and all that is done in other parts of the country, that we do get a fair share of it, and I am happy to report that, yes, we do.

Now, sometimes that is delayed in coming, and that adds to our frustration, but we do get the fair share. Of course, any jurisdiction wants to get that enhancement, and I go back to the success that we had with a previous Administration with regard to the Accord, and the work that went into that. We feel that even though our efforts don't seem to be getting, on a day-to-day basis, probably not even closer, we do believe that it is absolutely necessary that we continue to force this federal government to continue to give us our fair share and also to consider partnering with us in other ways.

As I have indicated, with our agreements that are there, and the community trust and these sorts of things, we do get our fair share, but again - and you named a couple of them - we must continue. There is $10 billion that is still owing to us, that we have forgotten about, and that we will continue, because to not continue means that we have basically given in, and I, for one, have no thoughts at all about giving in. Regardless of the frustration, regardless of sometimes the lack of success, I think it is important. This, I find, is an awesome responsibility and one which I welcome as a challenge. I have excellent officials around me, and a government that is determined, so onwards and upwards I hope.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Minister, to you and your staff.

I have no further questions.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Parsons.

Do any of the other members have comments or questions?

If not, there are a couple of housekeeping items; so, don't everybody dash off home yet.

I thank Mr. Parsons especially for his preparation and for his questioning, and the minister and his staff for their forthright and informative answers.

I will ask the Clerk, then, to call the subheads. We are going to deal with the Intergovernmental Affair Secretariat first of all, and then we will deal separately with the Voluntary Sector.

CLERK (Mr. MacKenzie): Subhead 2.3.01. to 2.3.04. inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 2.3.01. to 2.3.04. carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.3.01. through 2.3.04. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total for Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Moving, then, to page 21.

CLERK: Subhead 2.8.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 2.8.01. and its total are one and the same, so I will ask: Shall the subhead and the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, subhead 2.8.01. and total carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the total for Intergovernmental Affairs carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, total heads, carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Shall I report the total for Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat, total head, carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Okay.

The other housekeeping items would be the minutes of the previous meetings of the Government Services Committee. We will deal first of all with the minutes from May 12.

I understand from Mr. Forsey that Ms Jones was at that Committee meeting but her name was omitted, so Mr. Forsey would move that the minutes be amended.

MR. FORSEY: So moved.

CHAIR: It has been moved that Ms Yvonne Jones' name be added to the minutes of May 12.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: All in favour of the minutes, then, as amended, of the May 12 meeting of the Committee of Government Services.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, minutes adopted as amended.

CHAIR: The May 14 meeting. All in favour of carrying the minutes, as distributed, of the meeting of the Government Services Committee, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

The next meeting of this Committee will be, God bless us, at 8:30 on Tuesday morning after the long weekend. I am sure everybody will be anxious.

CLERK: It is 8:30 a.m., not 9:00 o'clock.

CHAIR: It is 8:30 a.m., not 9:00 o'clock.

MR. FORSEY: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Forsey that this Committee stand adjourned until 8:30 on Tuesday morning.

Thank you all very much.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.