Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Mr. Ernie McLean, MHA for Lake Melville replacing Mr. Kevin Aylward, MHA for St. George's-Stephenville East, for part of the meeting.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Good morning everyone.

My name is Sandra Kelly, for the record. I will be chairing this Committee until the arrival of Mr. Aylward. This morning we are very pleased to have with us the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development to present their Estimates. We will begin by introducing the members of the Committee who are present.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin-Placentia West.

MR. McLEAN: Ernie McLean, MHA for Lake Melville.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Now we will turn things over to the minister to introduce her officials and to make some opening remarks.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am Judy Foote, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. It is a pleasure to be here before the Committee this morning. Before I begin, allow me to introduce the officials who are with me from the department. To my immediate left is John Scott, the Deputy Minister; to John's left is Ken Curtis, the Manager of Financial Operations of the Central Administration Division; next to Ken we have Bill Stirling, the Executive Director of the Regional Economic Development. Immediately behind me is Terry Johnstone, Executive Director of Technology Development and Corporate Planning; next to Terry we have Donna Kelland, Assistant Deputy Minister of Trade and Investment for Jobs and Growth; next to Donna we have Ted Lomond, Executive Director for Federal-Provincial Agreements; next to Ted we have Phil McCarthy, Assistant Deputy Minister for Strategic Industries and Regional Development; back in the back benches is Larry Guinchard, Assistant Deputy Minister of Regional Operations. So, we have a good support team here this morning to answer any questions that you may have.

Let me start by saying that job and creation and economic growth remains key priorities for this government. Over the past five years our economy has been growing. It has become much more diversified. Real Gross Domestic Product grew by 8.2 per cent in 2002, marking the third time in five years that the Province led the country in economic growth. Employment is increasing and, in fact, reached an all-time historic high in 2002 for the second straight year. Out-migration is slowing. The trend line for most economic indicators is indeed moving in the right direction.

These gains are being realized throughout the Province across a number of sectors and are not just confined to St. John's. In fact, approximately 60 per cent of the 26,900 new jobs created since 1996 have been created outside the St. John's area. All regions of the Province are benefitting from economic progress, although not all at the same level yet. I think that is an important word there, Madam Chair, not all at the same level yet.

Government has an aggressive plan for economic growth in job creation. It is called the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth and was released as a companion document to the 2001 Budget in March, 2001. It is an action oriented agenda with over 130 specific priorities for action. Fully two-thirds of the priorities for action focus on the challenges confronting rural Newfoundland and Labrador making it a strong rural agenda as well. Continued support for the implementation of the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth is a major part of the 2003 Budget, as it was for the last two years.

The Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development is being allocated $43.7 million in 2004 to lead its implementation to build on the strong foundation on economic momentum we have established in recent years: new measures to support small business growth, industrial research and development, the attraction of new businesses to the Province, and regional economic development form major thrusts of the budget for the department in 2003-2004.

On the small business front, government is making new investments to encourage the growth of small business. Government is reducing the payroll tax for small businesses, easing corporate income taxes on small businesses, opening up new resources of capital for the private sector through various venture capital tax incentives and reducing regulatory red tape faced by the business community. These initiatives build on a number of small business development measures implemented in recent years through the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth.

Government is investing $5 million to establish an industrial research and innovation fund to leverage significant new research and development investments from federal institutions and the private sector. The fund will help ensure the Province remains competitive in the global economy and captures new economic opportunities available to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government will be moving to establish a new business attraction agency to entice new investment, new companies and new industries to the Province as strategic growth sectors of the economy. Government will contribute $1.5 million annually to this particular initiative. An additional $250,000 will be provided by Aliant through Network Newfoundland and Labrador and an additional $250,000 will be provided by Aliant to the recently announced Near Shore IT development initiative. This will provide the new agency with $2 million annually.

Government is also making significant investments in regional economic development and has budgeted approximately $9 million to implement a number of industry and community initiatives that have been approved under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Comprehensive Agreement, known as CEDA.

We have also budgeted an additional $5.5 million for new economic development initiatives as its contribution toward a proposed $20 million extension of CEDA as a transitional measure to a new model of federal-provincial cooperation through the creation of a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Development Board. Should the federal government decide not to partner with the Province in extension of CEDA or the proposed Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Development Board, the Province will use the $5.5 million provided in the Budget to ensure that key and strategic economic development initiatives, implemented by provincial departments and agencies through CEDA, continue in the future. This will include initiatives such as aquaculture programming, tourism marketing, youth entrepreneurship programs, and trade and export development activities.

The 2003 Budget also included $350,000 to host another rural expo event in 2003, and we are anticipating that will be in Gander. Over 500 people attended Rural Expo 2001, including 105 youth delegates, 260 conference participants and 120 exhibitors. There were over eighty nominations for the community economic development awards and an estimated 2,500 people toured through the business exhibition hall. Rural Expo 2001 was a huge success in showcasing and promoting the economic potential and entrepreneurial accomplishments of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The significant resources being allocated to the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development reflect this government's strong commitment to an action oriented, economic development agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. It was very comprehensive.

We will start now going through the headings. Mr. Byrne, do you want to start?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, thank you.

Sorry we were a bit late this morning but we were tied up in a meeting. I know you missed us.

MADAM CHAIR: We just started, actually, a few minutes ago.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I know.

Good morning everybody. I guess before we go into the details of the Budget, there are some larger issues that are facing the department. One dealing with the difficulty in negotiations that are ongoing, I assume, between your department, as the lead economic department of the Province, and the federal government as it relates to an economic renewal agreement. I have met with a number of the, in my capacity as a critic, zonal boards in the Province who - and I know they have expressed that to the department as well - are extremely concerned about what their future and ability will be to implement regional economic plans without such an agreement.

Can you give some general comment to that first before we get into - what has transpired? Where is the holdup? What seems to have happened? I understand there are some huge divisions and disagreement between the federal agencies and the provincial agencies in terms of where this should go, and I will leave it at that for the moment.

MS FOOTE: Let me start by saying that what has happened with the decision taken by the federal government doesn't only impact on Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, it was a unilateral decision taken by the federal government to get out of all cost-shared agreements throughout the country.

Having said that, when we made representation to the federal government to see CEDA continue or, in fact, to go down a different path of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Development Board, the response that came back from Minister Byrne, his initial response, was that no, the federal government is not interested in doing anything anymore on a cost-shared basis, that, in fact, they had taken the decision that they were going to go down their own path of funding economic development initiatives and not doing it on a cooperative basis with any government.

Now, we have not heard back from Allan Rock, and, of course, it would have been to Minister Rock that I would have written to ask him to consider this new approach, in light of the fact that there were not going to be any further cost-shared agreements. We have not heard back, to date, from him. I am hoping to get a meeting with him. I had hoped to get one next week, but he is away, he is out of the country, for a couple of weeks over Easter.

Having said that, where the Regional Economic Development Boards are today, they are in a better position than most other groups, because we were able to negotiate a three-year program with the federal government for them, an extension to their funding, so they are okay. Now, we tried to do the same thing with the federal government through ACOA for the industry associations, and they wouldn't bite. They said: No, we want to do them on a one by one basis which, of course, caused concern for the industry associations.

I am told that ACOA has been looking very favourably on groups that are coming to them looking for funding, even though some of them have gone looking to them for 100 per cent funding, bearing in mind our $5.5 million which will be our 30 per cent of the $20 million that we have put in the budget will not cover off 100 per cent of all of the initiatives that were traditionally covered. It just cannot happen. It won't even come close.

I am pleased to report that, I guess, in the last little while the federal government, ACOA, has seemed to be much more considerate of the fact that, look, this means that a lot of initiatives won't get funded if, in fact, we don't come to the table; maybe 100 per cent for some of them, and maybe higher than the traditional 80-20 or the 70-30.

I have been told by Nati, for instance, that ACOA has approved, through the SCIF program, some programs 100 per cent, so I am pleased about that. When you bear in mind that, in fact, this Pan-Atlantic initiative now, that the feds have in place, they have $700 million. They have more money now than they ever had to fund these types of initiatives. The problem we have is that under their guidelines ACOA cannot fund anything of a provincial nature, anything that would come out of a provincial government department. For instance, tourism marketing was funded on a joint basis but now we are going to have to fund that 100 per cent. That is $1 million that is going to have to come from that $5.5 million. The Fisheries Diversification Program, $500,000 will have to come out of that as well. Those are initiatives that are considered to be provincial. So ACOA cannot even look at those types of initiatives. Having said that, in our discussions with them they recognize that. What they are doing now is looking at some of those other initiatives and looking at funding them at much higher levels. We are hoping that with the amount of money we have we will be able to come to the table to help some, but not all, hoping that the feds will pick up the additional costs.

MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of the new model, I guess is the best way to put it, that the federal government has put in place with a pot of money - and you have indicated that it is $700 million. What strategy does the department have to access, or to aggressively access most of that? Does it require changing certain models or structures within government so that we are not perceived as funding that would be applied for, the feds would not be able to see it as normally coming from a line department of government? In terms of where this is a new initiative, obviously on the federal government, how have we responded, or the department responded, to a lead Economic Development Agency in terms of a strategy in which, not only the government, but stakeholders and groups, associations, et cetera, have some assistance in trying to make their way through those criteria to access that funding?

MS FOOTE: Well, that is part of the problem that we have. Now what is going to happen is that you have the federal government with their pot of money and we have our pot of money, which is what we have been saying to the federal government. This is not in the best interest of the Province. We have done some really good work over the past thirty years through cost-shared agreements by sitting down together and determining what the provincial priorities are. The problem we have now is that with the federal funding - and only the federal government taking in the proposals and improving them in their entirety, then they are determining what provincial priorities are. They may not necessarily be the priorities for this government or some of the agencies out there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Right.

MS FOOTE: We are kind of in a bind in that respect, but we have been sitting down with the officials of ACOA, whom I have to say have been very cooperative, understanding that this does pose a problem for us.

I know I heard Minister Byrne say that in the past there have been some issues with respect to disagreements at the levels between the federal and provincial officials. To the best of my knowledge that happens at any time, but they were always able to sort themselves out and get through the process and fund the particular initiative. It is an issue for us, I will say that to you. They have their own guidelines. They apply their own guidelines. Anything of a provincial nature they will not look at. We cannot go to them with the $1 million we need, the additional $1 million for tourism, and say: You should fund this; because they just cannot fund it under their guidelines. It is not the same as a cost-shared agreement.

MR. E. BYRNE: You have indicated as well that this is just not a Newfoundland and Labrador issue, that it is a nationwide issue. Have you had discussions - I would assume you have - with your counterparts in all the other provinces in terms of a national provincial strategy in trying to come to grips with this? I can imagine that many other provinces are in like situations and probably many debates around the country are occurring just like this one now in many rooms and maybe even in legislatures. What sort of strategy has the department, yourself as minister, either been part of or proposed on a national-provincial level to the federal government to try to get them to move in another direction?

MS FOOTE: Up to this point in time, when I came into the department the advice I had received was that in fact this had been discussed ad nauseam with counterparts across the country. So Minister Parsons has had discussions with his counterparts when he was acting minister. The deputy minister has been speaking with other deputy ministers. They have been speaking with the federal government, with Industry Canada. They have been speaking with ACOA.

The Premier, in fact, along with the other Atlantic Premiers - because of course the impact on Atlantic Canada is significant, more so than it would be on other provinces. Particularly if you look at some of the western provinces or Northern Ontario. Having said that, that all happened prior to March 31, which is when the agreement finished. There was a lot of attempt made to try and get the federal government to rethink their position on this. Clearly, they were not prepared to do that. Discussions that I had with Gerry Byrne, since coming into the department as well, clearly indicates that this is a Cabinet decision taken by the federal government. They are not going to revisit it. So then we thought: well, how do we get them to look at a different model? If they do not want to do cost-shared agreements anymore, how can we look at a different model? This is when we went forward with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Development Board, thinking: Let's sit down; let's look at a different approach. One of the issues we have all the time with groups and with organizations -

MR. E. BYRNE: That has been proposed for some time. Former Premier Wells proposed that, I believe in 1993-1994, if my memory serves me correctly.

MS FOOTE: Yes. At this time now, of course, it is more important because now we do not have anything. I guess one of the basis on which we are suggesting that we could do this is to try and get away from a lot of the duplication and overlap that exists as well, when you have two economic development entities. So that was part of the suggestion and part of the recommendation.

I have not heard back, as I said, from Minister Rock. So I don't even know what his thoughts are on it. I will be pursuing it with him. I had hoped to meet with him next week - not possible apparently, but it is something we will pursue. Having said that, we are where we are today without any cost-shared agreements, and with our $5.5 million, knowing that the feds have $700 million that is pan-Atlantic to spend. I must say, the federal officials have been very good. They have consulted. They do touch bases with us to find out where we are with this.

Part of the problem we have, of course, is that groups will go to them and they will approve a project. They will do the analysis based on their perspective on what they think should happen. They will approve a project for 70 per cent and say: Go to the government and get the remaining money. We have had no input. We have had no analysis. We do not know if that is relevant or if it is important for that particular region. So that is where we are with it.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is some of the criteria? Is there new criteria, from the federal government's point of view, to access this $700 million pot for Atlantic Canada any different than what already exists?

MS FOOTE: No, it is the same criteria. It is a decision that was taken by the federal government for whatever reason. I ventured to say - in the media interview - that maybe it was because they felt they were not getting enough credit for the money that they were putting into the system, but of course they deny that.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is there any - maybe no official explanation on what has occurred. I know you cannot - I am not trying to ask a speculative question or hypothetical question. In just your own sense of it I guess, having been in the department before, or a version of it, on why the federal government has moved in this direction. Because it is a complete about-face, as everybody is aware, in terms of federal-provincial relations across the country.

MS FOOTE: You are asking me a question that I do not have an answer to. In fact, David Cochrane asked me the same question. I said: I have no idea. He mentioned: Do you think it is because the federal government thought they were not getting enough credit for the money that they were actually spending? Because the reality is, they put more money into it than a province. (Inaudible) would do when you consider it is 80-20 or 70-30 on any of those agreements. And I said: I have no idea. It is odd. Why would they not go down the path of continuing cost-shared agreements? Because everyone is a winner when you do that. I even said: maybe it is because they were not getting enough credit; but in this Province we never did anything without making sure they were at the table. Contrary to what happens in Ontario, Alberta and B.C., where they do not want to give the feds any credit for anything no matter who the stripe is, here I am saying: I do care how much credit they give as long as you give me the money.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. Take it all if you want. It is very narrowed-minded, from that point of view.

MS FOOTE: That's right.

MR. E. BYRNE: I guess on another issue, another topic altogether, in terms of the Immigration Investment Fund. What role does the department play in that fund?

MS FOOTE: The Provincial Nominee Program?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Immigration Investment Fund.

MS FOOTE: Is that the one that is handled through Finance?

MR. E. BYRNE: I know Works, Services and Transportation in the past, and Finance has played a role. Obviously, as the lead economic department in government there would have to be some involvement, whether in an advisory capacity or committee capacity, in terms of trying to advance proposals maybe or suggestions coming from people within the industry where they feel they could take advantage of this program and leverage it to get investors into the Province.

MS FOOTE: Yes, the Provincial Nominee Program?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MS FOOTE: We had 300 units in that program. In fact, when I was in the department before that was one of the initiatives we worked on. We have used up all 300 units. We are now at a point where we have another proposal that we want to take to Minister Coderre. We think it is one they will be supportive of, but of course we do not know that until we go. We are going to look for additional units.

MR. E. BYRNE: This one dealing with agriculture?

MS FOOTE: Yes, that's right. I met with the dairy farmers' association, and they make a very valid point. There is a great opportunity there. So, we have a proposal. I am waiting to get a meeting with Denis Coderre, just coming into the department obviously. But the proposal that we have now, we have reworked. There were some issues with the initial proposal, but all 300 units have been taken up. So we are going to look for additional units.

Now PEI had 1,000 units in their agreement, so we are going to look for another 700 units, bearing the time frame - I guess it is the end of March, 2004?

WITNESS: December, 2004.

MS FOOTE: December, 2004. That does not give you a lot of time to use up 700 units, but we are going to go for them anyway.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if you do not use them you lose them. You would be in the same boat if you did not go for it, type of thing.

MS FOOTE: You are right in terms of the agricultural, there is a golden opportunity there through this program if we can get the federal government to agree with it. We think we have ironed out where the problems were in the past with this new proposal.

MR. E. BYRNE: Whatever problems there were, were not necessarily just exclusive to our Province, but other provinces as well.

MS FOOTE: That is right. Absolutely.

MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of - you talked about it, I guess, inadvertently in agriculture. What role does the department play in terms of different sectors of the economy - we will talk about agriculture for the moment - in terms of long-term strategic planning, say in that industry? A huge industry, worth about $550 million, and probably one of the industries that has the opportunity for significant growth. What sort of involvement does the department have with the department of forestry and agriculture in terms of a long-term strategic plan for that industry in trying to advance its causes, assist, develop, market and aggressively pursue the opportunities that that industry presents to us?

MS FOOTE: Just let me speak, and maybe John or someone else can speak to it after. One of the things that I am doing, and I think it happened before I went there too, of course, but it is to meet more regularly with industry associations and with the dairy farmers out there to, again, find out what their issues are and have an ongoing discussion with them in how best to address those.

In terms of the relationship that has been built up and how we work with forestry, I am not sure. John, did you want to - is that an ongoing -

MR. SCOTT: Perhaps I can speak to that for a couple of moments.

First of all, the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods has primary responsibility for the primary end of the industry and has access to a number of federal-provincial funding mechanisms outside of ACOA. In our Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth, agrifoods is one of the ten sectors identified as having priority for growth and there was some strategic long-term direction articulated in that strategy.

The Department of Industry's role is from a business development point of view and value-added point of view. So secondary processing opportunities in looking at the business side of the business, either from a business financing side or a marketing side. There is strong collaboration between ourselves, the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods and the industry association, to identify where those opportunities are. As well, we take a very keen role with the Regional Economic Development Boards in terms of regional opportunities and priorities for agrifoods, and where the boards have identified that in a consultative manner through their own strategic planning process we partner with them and facilitate the implementation of those priorities where all stakeholders feel those are worthy of pursuit. We would engage ACOA, for example, in a facilitative role, or the Farm Credit Corporation, or the Business Development Bank of Canada if it is a business financing issue. If it is a production issue, on a technological basis, we would engage agrifoods - a branch in Forestry and Agrifoods. If it is something that our own programs lend support to, then we would bring that to the table. In the past we have had the benefit of our cost-shared agreements to leverage money as well, so we have played that type of facilitative co-ordinating role. If the framework is jobs and growth, the framework is the Department of Agrifoods primary processing policy and we pursue it from there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Anything that may arise from time to time that fits within that, or even outside of it, you need to have a look at it and do it due diligence, I suppose, and pursue it from there.

MR. SCOTT: Absolutely.

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't mean to be taking up time. I can stop if anyone else has any questions.

CHAIR (Aylward): The Chairman will allow you to carry on.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

CHAIR: The new Chair, who just got back here.

I am Kevin Aylward, the Chairman, by the way. I will just let you know who I am.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: It has been a long time since the days of (inaudible), Mr. Chairman. I met you there one time before, many years ago, and Mr. Lomond as well.

Again, generally if I could just pursue some of the larger concepts of the department and deal with the IT sector and recently, I guess, some of the challenges that the government has faced with respect to the agreement with xwave. I wonder if you can just speak to that generally for a moment. I have some specific questions dealing with that contract. I am fairly aware of the details of the contract as it was released publicly by yourself. Where do you see that agreement from that level first of all? There have been some, I guess, questions raised to myself and others, I suppose, but I will speak for myself, in terms of the strategy that was launched with xwave in buying out - letting Aliant buy out xwave in 1994, renewing the agreement, that in some ways we have lost our ability to really grow an IT industry and we have put all of our eggs in one basket in combining with a private company to develop and grow the IT industry in the Province. How do you answer that concern that is out there and, specifically then, how is the contract with xwave? How do you see it going?

MS FOOTE: I am aware of the concern because obviously NATI expresses that concern from time to time. The decision that was taken by the government to go that route again ensured a major player in the IT industry in this Province and made it possible for that particular company to be able to attract business to Newfoundland and Labrador. Part of the agreement, of course, is that they must support, they must make employment opportunities available to the local industry.

One of the issues that came up with xwave, that we had to visit, as you would know, was the whole issue around employment and that they had not met their employment objectives. It was necessary for them to do that to be compliant with the agreement. We met with xwave and with Aliant and had the discussion that it was necessary for them to be compliant; otherwise, we would impose the penalties that were there. I have to say that they were co-operative. They came to the table and recognized that it is about growing the local industry.

You find a difference of opinion between xwave and Aliant verses some of the other players in NATI. I keep telling Aliant that you are a member of NATI and I keep telling NATI that Aliant is a member of NATI. You are a family; try to get along. We all have disagreements, but -

MR. E. BYRNE: They are equivalent to a 1,000 pound gorilla in a twelve foot aluminum boat when it comes to the industry, though.

MS FOOTE: Having said that, the agreement is in place and it is in place for as long as Aliant owns xwave. The question is, of course, whether or not they are going to sell it. If they are, then we will have to look at where we are with respect to government work and whether or not we continue with that agreement - the Benefits Agreement - and it depends on who buys it. Of course, we will engage NATI in that consultation process to see -

MR. E. BYRNE: Have we gotten value for the privatization of xwave? It is a service that government will require in perpetuity. I know in 1994, when debates and discussions took place in the House here, people generally were in support of it. There were a number of concerns, but you are only trying to read, I guess, the tea leaves of the future as it relates to the IT industry at that time because there was no experience; but, based upon the last nine years that we have moved down that road has it, on balance, worked in your view? Have we gotten value for our money, from government's point of view?

MS FOOTE: Well, if you look at the number of employees at xwave, I think they have 450?

WITNESS: Five fifty.

MS FOOTE: Five hundred and fifty. Only 120 or so of those are actually doing government work, so clearly, because they had a government contract and were able to grow the industry, they were able to attract other business, so very little of the business they do is actually government work.

Having said that, according to the note that I have here, xwave brought in more than $48 million in new IT business to the Province since 1994. They have contracted out more than $20 million in IT work to local IT companies, and they have invested upwards of $6 million to bring the Atlantic data processing centre to Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. E. BYRNE: So, about $2 million a year they have given to local companies?

MS FOOTE: Yes. There is another $2 million, too, from government that is on the street, because when we renewed the agreement with xwave, the benefits agreement, we agreed, based on NATI's recommendation as well, to put $2 million of government work on the street, so really they have $4 million worth of (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of the announcement that you had recently, there were thirty-three jobs, I think - is that the number you used?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a reason for asking. I am not trying to, you know, set traps or anything for you this morning. A couple of days after that, I received an e-mail from a former xwave employee who was working in the IT sector - I do not know if you have received this -

MS FOOTE: I have the same e-mail.

MR. E. BYRNE: - about thirty-three jobs. You know, I found it a pretty cute story. Is there any merit to that? You received it. There were thirty-three jobs. I will just give it to you in context.

The day after, or around the same time, within a day or so, give or take a day, of the announcement that you had reached some arrangement and Aliant were going to live up to the spirt and create an extra thirty-three jobs, et cetera, apparently xwave laid off thirty-three employees, ten in the Province of Nova Scotia and twenty-three in New Brunswick, the exact number they were going to create here in the Province - this is what the e-mail alleged - and then offered those same employees, all of those employees they had declared redundant in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the opportunity to relocate to Newfoundland and Labrador for jobs there. Thus the argument being: Were three really thirty-three new jobs created? Probably not, but there were probably thirty-three new people moving to the Province.

MS FOOTE: Here there were thirty-three new jobs created.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, there were thirty-three new positions coming to the Province.

MS FOOTE: That is my only interest.

MR. E. BYRNE: And so it should be. It was just a question on a point of interest. Certainly, I didn't want to pursue that. I mean, thirty-three jobs are thirty-three jobs, as simple as that.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. I can't worry about New Brunswick.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was an interesting e-mail.

MS FOOTE: I know. I got the same e-mail.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

In terms of the future for the IT industry, some of the things that Ireland has been able to do in terms of the government itself, they are in a much stronger position in joining the European Union and the buckets of cash that came with that.

MS FOOTE: And Brussels leaving the money there for them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Unreal!

Some of the things they did, in terms of wiring Ireland, basically, themselves, and letting IT companies buy into that, the private sector wouldn't have done it.

How do you see the future, given what we have to work with from our own financial resources, from Broadband technology to, I guess, putting more and better infrastructure in place? Where do you see our Province going with respect to that?

MS FOOTE: Speaking on Broadband, because that is certainly something that, as you know, we announced in the Budget, the $5 million for Broadband, that came about as a result of an opportunity through the capital for the infrastructure program, for us to access $5 million there, match that with $5 million from the Province and look to the private sector for an additional $5 million. It is going to cost a lot of money to do what needs to be done in this Province. We don't have the money to do it and the private sector is not going to come to the table unless we are able to come to the table with matching funds.

I think we are making a good start with $15 million for Broadband. That, as you know, we announced in the Budget. That is a start for us and that will be through our Centre for Distance Learning Innovation. That centre is out of the Department of Education, but of course works very closely with this department because of the IT sector in the IT industry. So that will be done through a centre, but it will not be just schools that will be able to access it. Hopefully, it will be also - when it is up and available - available to business and to outfitters. So it will benefit the tourism industry -

MR. E. BYRNE: Everybody.

MS FOOTE: Everybody.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. I am going to pursue that in a few minutes because I just have to drop out to our caucus room for about ten minutes. I will just (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Can I go out with you?

MR. E. BYRNE: The coffee is not very good out there. Anyway, I will be back in a few minutes. I will leave it to one of the other members.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Are there other members interested in pursuing the minister?

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I will ask a few questions.

Mr. Chairman, we hear lots of talk from Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and from various departments I guess, about economic diversification, economic development, rural economic development. Most of the time I guess there is - or rarely, I guess, is probably the better way of putting it. Rarely do I hear much in the way of acknowledgment with the potential that we have in our, I will say, marine and fisheries related industries and the potential there for - I do not mean fish. I hate to bring up fish because whenever you bring up fisheries with the industry people they think you are talking about processing fish.

As you are aware, I am sure, over the past couple of years the makers of Netmind have made the first sale of a piece of acoustic technology from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for fisheries equipment to Iceland. I think it was a remarkable accomplishment on their part. I wonder how much, from your department's perspective, you have evaluated and planned for movement in that direction to help encourage that type of development here in the Province. Every time we talk, as I said, about fish and marine related industries we talk about pumping oil and filleting fish. There is a hole, in my view anyway - maybe I could stand corrected - but I would think that there is probably a fair amount of potential for growth in this service sector for that industry, especially given the educational facilities that we have here which we could use as resource material to help partner with the private sector or whatever, on those fronts.

I do not know if you understand my question. The questions is: Has your department looked at the opportunities there? Do you have anything in the way of a strategic plan to help move us further down that road?

MS FOOTE: Excuse me if I start to cough. The joke, when we started, was that I hope I do not have SARS. I am here with a headache, a cough and a temperature. I should have given out masks before I started.

CHAIR: We did Health last night, Madam Minister, so that is okay.

MS FOOTE: Trevor, with respect to the fishing industry. We do have the Fisheries Loan Board, as you know, which is in place for harvesters. That is one component. There was a $10 million diversification fund through FRAM/ED - through CEDA. No, through FRAM/ED, I am sorry. That was $10 million.

The fishing industry is treated, I guess, like we treat all sectors. If there is an opportunity there for growth, if someone has a proposal, if someone is developing a new product - and you are right, it is happening throughout the Province. There are some wonderful initiatives happening. With our regional offices around the Province and our development officers - and some of those are sector oriented - it is their job to work with different sectors to help grow those sectors, and the fishery would be one of them. There is a concentrated effort on the fishery, as there are in other sectors as well. We have people who are assigned to do just that, people who can work with different sectors to bring them along. Then, of course, working through the regional offices - they would work through the regional office into our office in St. John's to access any type of funding that they might want. But, of course, they would have to go through the same type of analysis that would be done for any sector.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. In my view, I think in many cases people do not realize the opportunity that is there. For example, last fall I ran out to the Baie Verte Peninsula for a day with Paul Shelley for a little visit. While we were there we ran down to La Scie and dropped into a place at the back of a hardware store there, Cape John Industries Ltd. I do not know if you have been there or not but a couple of young fellows, basically, started making crab pots for the local fishing industry. This past year they have exported, I am not sure if it 10,000 or 20,000 crab pots to Greenland. It is just a little thing and I bring it up in the context that I don't think people understand that we don't necessarily have to be developing this technology. A crab pot is not a very advanced piece of technology, but in the technology industry there is a world out there that needs a lot of equipment and we have the ability, with our best kept secret up there, the Marine Institute, to generate the people with the skills to do that. Again, I believe it would be a wise investment on the part of government to look at that sector of the economy and to develop a plan to move ahead there in that respect.

I will just give you an example. I have brought it up a dozen times to business people and to people in economic development on the Northern Peninsula. We have roughly 100 shrimp trawlers based in that area, on the east side and the west side, and every net at somewhere between $7,000 and $15,000 a pop comes over Bonne Bay hills, for example, and a significant number of them actually come from off the Island. Everything that is related to it comes from outside the Province and probably 95 per cent of it comes from outside the country.

Now, I know you can't build a factory in Newfoundland or Labrador to make shrimp twine, for example, for our little industry, but there are things that we can do there. Again, I have said to those people in economic development offices and in the local business community: Why don't you try and do some of it here? You know, there is potential for five or six or eight or ten jobs constructing this type of equipment for the local industry, the provincial industry, and wherever, but I don't think they recognize that. Even though you tell them, even though you show them, there are 100 nets with probably gross sales in excess of a quarter of a million dollars, people still don't realize that there is an opportunity there. I think maybe the department could help nurture that knowledge, I suppose.

MS FOOTE: You certainly don't have to educate me with the fishery, because I am from Grand Bank which is a historic fishing community. In my district, I guess, if you look at the majority of employment, it is certainly in the fishery.

You speak about the crab pots: Well, in Grand Bank there is a gentleman who is making lobster pots and selling them to St. Pierre and Miquelon and to other places, of course. He is recognizing an opportunity there. You are right, it is not just about some IT product. Things like crab pots or lobster pots, even if they just employ two people, it is a small business in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It doesn't have to be a big employer for it to be valuable.

You mentioned possibilities and whether or not people recognize them. There is an opportunity there now for someone to be making bags for fishermen to ship their shrimp or clams or whatever in. We had a little industry started up in Grand Bank employing three or four people doing just that, but it went under. Why did it go under? The market was there for the bags. In fact, we had someone call down to my district office to find out if it was still in place because this man wanted to buy bags and he couldn't get them anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. He was wondering how they were made, if they had the sewing machines and those types of things. Why do some things work and some don't? I don't know.

In terms of a focus on the fishery through our Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth, it became very evident from the consultation process that there was, in fact, an understanding and appreciation for the opportunities in the fishing industry as we went around the Province. In fact, if you look at the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth there is a very good focus there on the fishery. It is not that it is not part of what we are thinking of as a department of government. All of our regional offices - and you know we have them around the Province - are in tune with that report, in recognizing that this is a strategy that encompasses all sectors including the fishery. There is a recognition among the officials within the department of the value of the fishery to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When you consider the $10 million that was there for a diversification fund, then clearly there was emphasis put on the fishery.

MR. TAYLOR: I understand that, but again I wish I hadn't brought up the fishery, I wish I had just stuck to marine industry because I see a greater potential, and that is why I started off talking about Netmind and the export of acoustic technology to Iceland. Unfortunately, whenever we get into - as we are doing right now - the debate about opportunities related to the fishery, we go back to some form of processing, or secondary processing, or something that will serve an industry need here in the Province. It is hard enough to get people to see that, as I just indicated and as you indicated and understand, I am sure. There is a piece of GPS technology that you screw on the dash in a sixty-five footer in Newfoundland, that is the same piece of technology that goes aboard the Maersk Chancellor that is tied up on the waterfront there now. I do not know that our IT industry, our graduates from the Marine Institute, our graduates from Memorial University or, you know, our business community out there, really recognize the export potential of this part of what we are about, of our industry. I do not see where there is much that we can do, and I understand the bag issue. When the shrimp fishery started up, we talked about this, and I was a long ways from politics then. I was gone back aboard the boat and I was tangled up with St. Anthony Basin Resources, and we looked for opportunities. Somebody suggested that, well, maybe we could start up a little factory making bags, so we did a little bit of investigation on it. We were going to pay our people $10 and $12 an hour to make bags, and somebody in India, or wherever it is, is paying them $10 and $12 a month or something. I mean, we just cannot compete. What we can compete on, I think, what we would have maybe a better chance at, I am asking you if your department has, as part of its mandate, investigated the export potential for the IT sector of our marine industry, I guess.

MS FOOTE: Well, certainly through our strategic business initiative we are out there all the time looking at opportunities and identifying opportunities and seeing what the need is, not just in the country but internationally for different products, and looking at what is available or what can be done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Don't forget, we have the Canadian Centre for Fisheries and also the first fisheries innovation, and we also have the Canadian Centre for Marine Communications, so it is not that there is a shortage of places in which to pursue and follow through on opportunities of the type that you are speaking. There are lots of entities out there that, if someone has an idea, they could certainly follow through on. As well, from our perspective, from the department's perspective, we look at every opportunity, and certainly when we go out of the Province looking at what is happening in other areas, not only of the country but in other countries around the world, to find out what would be relevant for Newfoundland and Labrador and what could be done here, you are right, it has to be something that is applicable worldwide, or that is applicable outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, for it to be profitable in some cases, if you are talking the kinds of things that we are talking now.

MR. TAYLOR: Other than a person employed to install the equipment, outside of that, I do not think we can ever have a business or an industry that is sustainable based on 500 sixty-five footers. It has to be a bit more of a North American or global view or whatever if we are going to develop that part of it.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely.

It is like the light that was made for life jackets. If you were making that just for Newfoundland and Labrador, it would not have been a success. The point is, that is used everywhere now in the world. It is the same thing. When you are talking technology, you have to able to talk about larger than just Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. TAYLOR: On Regional Economic Development, just a quick question. I suppose it is probably able to be found there in the Departmental Salary guidelines. How many people does the department have employed as Regional Economic Development Officer type, whether it is directly employed or - I do not know if you directly employ all of them out there, because I know there are a lot of them. How many are employed directly by the department, if that is a fair question?

MR. SCOTT: We have approximately 200 people in the department directly. In the corporate office, which includes the Marystown branch, the Portfolio Management Division, there are approximately just over 100 there. The balance of our positions are what we would call field based, which would be in our regional offices around the Province and our zonal offices. They reach from Postville into St. John's itself. The department is split about 50-50, and the corporate office serves those regional offices.

The Regional Economic Development Boards themselves are funded through the federal and provincial governments still. They are in twenty economic zones. On average they would have four or five staff funded through the federal-provincial arrangements, on top of our own departmental staff.

MR. TAYLOR: That approximate 100 figure would be in addition to the 200?

MR. SCOTT: No, 200 all told for the department. It splits about 50-50 between corporate functions, which are primarily in St. John's but also partly in Marystown. Then the balance would be through our regional and zonal offices.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

Any questions, Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: You have rural blood in your veins, Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Pardon?

MS FOOTE: You have rural blood in your veins.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, he had a farm in his district up until a little while ago.

MR. H. HODDER: I did have one farm in my district.

MR. TAYLOR: Minister, an issue I guess that - I do not know how much your department - again, it is an important issue I think in rural development. I guess there is nothing you can do about it. It is not within your control, but I want to bring it up here in the hopes that either you have raised it or your department has raised it - just so that you recognize the potential that is there for it, I guess, when you meet with your federal and provincial counterparts that they become aware of the magnitude of the issue, if they are not already. Those are these European Union tariff issues which have a very negative impact on our - I am going back to the part of the fishing industry now -

MS FOOTE: You are going back to shrimp.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, no, actually there are two. There is the shrimp one - there are a whole host of them, certainly. It applies to all of it, but shrimp and also to cod, to groundfish. As a matter of fact, the Arnold's Cove plant, which barely gets mentioned, is seriously impacted by a 7.5 per cent tariff on exports to the European Union. They are profitable, but they are marginally profitable. I guess that is the reason why they decided to put the place up for sale back some time ago. I think it is off the block now and there were not any takers.

That is a very serious issue - and again, with the shrimp. In today's environment, I look at shrimp, if we did not have the tariff that we do going into the European Union we would be able to access the best market in the world for cold water shrimp and we would be the low cost producer going into that market. As it stands, we are one of the high cost sellers in that market because of the tariff. The other thing that it would do, it would enable us to access the industrial shrimp off the offshore factory-freezer trawlers for processing through our own plants here, which would really make about 20 million pounds of shrimp available to us, which effectively is enough to run the average shrimp plant in Newfoundland for probably about forty weeks of the year.

Anyway, it is a big issue. It would certainly increase the viability of our industry. I am just bringing it up here because I wonder if your department - because it is a rural development issue and because you are involved in rural development and trade - probably it is an Intergovernmental Affairs issue as well, but I would ask if your department - I know you have not been there very long now - were aware of it and made any representation to the federal government on trade issues?

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. This has been an issue for some time. When I was in the department before that, I was involved then in lobbying to get this changed. In fact, it is interesting that you bring up the fishery and focusing on the fishery. When we were in Iceland, back four or five years ago, Brookfield Ice Cream met with us on a trade mission and of course they were running into the same type of issue on ice cream as we were running into with fish. So it is a matter that we continue to lobby on, working with not only this department but IGA and with the Department of Fisheries of course when it pertains to fish.

MR. TAYLOR: I find sometimes people - I say again - do not realize the magnitude of the situation. People think that because we are selling all our shrimp and because we haven't used all the autonomous ATR, is it - whatever it is called where we can access the European Union market under lower tariff, if we make sure that our shrimp goes to a company where there is some repackaging done on it or whatever - people think because we are not using all that and because we are selling it all, everything is hunky-dory and it is not as big an issue as we are making it out to be. It is a massive issue, it is the difference between the viability of a shrimp industry on its own and a shrimp industry run in this Province on the back of a crab industry. That is what we have and I don't think everybody recognizes that either, but it is the fact of the matter.

I hear things coming out of Ottawa: Well, you know, you are selling all your shrimp. The federal minister, our federal representative, has backed that up on a couple of occasions and don't think it is as big an issue as it is. I hope that the Province recognizes it is as big an issue as it is.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to make a couple of comments on some data here.

One of the things the minister alluded to - I grew up on the Burin Peninsula and I grew up in a boat building family. In fact, I am the only generation of five generations that never made their money building boats.

Have we lost something there? For example, I go around Newfoundland, I am out in King's Point where I have family, my wife's family, and I see the boats that are being constructed in there. Then I drive down to Bonavista North and I see the kind of work that is being done down there. In terms of our ability to be able to construct, there is no question, we have a long tradition, in your District of Grand Bank and when I was growing up on the Burin Peninsula. Some of the great boat builders of the Province, the Grandys and the Thornhills were all -

MS FOOTE: The Grandy dory.

MR. H. HODDER: The Grandy dory and all the rest of it.

In terms of crafts, in terms of what Trevor was saying, we have to think outside the fishing industry, think in terms of recreation. When I am in Ontario, up around Orillia somewhere, and see all those crafts that are up there, I think: You know, is it possible that we in Newfoundland could be accessing some of that marketplace? I have always thought that, perhaps, there is something in the transition here in the downsizing of the fishing industry, that there might be something that we could be doing differently or could be accessing the skills we already have. If we wait another generation, they will be gone. Many of them are already gone, actually.

MS FOOTE: Harvey, just to give you some information on something that we are pursuing, that is a boat building strategy with the industry.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MS FOOTE: We are looking at doing that as part of our vision for that particular sector; but, when you talk about boat building in Newfoundland and Labrador, are you familiar with George Yates in Springdale?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Well, George is having tremendous success selling his boats as pleasure craft.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MS FOOTE: In fact he has one now, I think, that he is going to be shipping to Toronto, that will go from Toronto to the island there.

George tells me that, when he goes to boat shows, the people who come to him, it is always repeat business or someone who is familiar with someone who has bought a boat from him, and he has yet to have anyone find a problem with his product.

One of the interesting stories he told me is that usually when they go to these boat shows and they take orders for boats, most companies will ask you to put a certain amount of money up front. Like, if you are going to build a boat to a certain specifications, this boat is especially for you; so, rather than build it and you not pay me for it, they have to either pay some up front and pay the rest on delivery or pay all of it before it is delivered. What George has been doing is, in fact, taking the order and building the boat with no money up front and shipping the boat up to the owner. The owner will actually use it - do a test trial of the boat - and then pay him. He has yet to have someone not follow through on payment or say I do not want the boat. His business speaks for itself. He is doing a tremendous job. He has boats in California. He has boats in Cottage Country in Ontario. The market is there and there are people in the Province who are, in fact, availing of the market. He is one of them.

MR. H. HODDER: I have always viewed that as one of the industries that we could be expanding because we have a skill set and we have the background. This is the - because I have an interest in that kind of thing, particularly when it comes to smaller craft. I am not a boat owner but I grew up with them. When you go out to King's Point and Springdale, you see there is tremendous potential there. Likewise, for example, I have gone to Point Leamington where I lived for awhile and see the glove factory there. What is happening there: just a simple idea that someone had. The young fellow who came down - he was in Ontario making them - who came home and said: I am going to start a little factory here. I can do it.

MS FOOTE: Actually, he worked for the owner and the owner asked him about the potential in Newfoundland, so he came back to Newfoundland and set up the company there for the same owner. It has been a tremendous success, you are right.

MR. H. HODDER: A tremendous success and employing now, I think, about twenty -

MS FOOTE: I do not know. I have not been there since I was in the job last, but -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Where are they in terms of numbers?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, it is a fair number. I haven't visited that site now for five or six years, but it has had a tremendous impact. It has been able to let Point Leamington and Leading Tickles and a couple of communities there, you know, be pretty well self-sustaining, and it is that kind of condition that is very important.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was the issue that was in all the news several years ago in the minister's office there, and that was the issue of transferring the jobs to rural Newfoundland.

MR. E. BYRNE: I thought you were going to talk about the bison herd. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, no, we still have the press release. We just wanted to see if the bison - if there are any archeological digs on the Brunette Island, but we understand that the -

MS FOOTE: Maybe that is where the furniture is.

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, that is where the furniture is.

MR. E. BYRNE: Get onto that.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, there we go. We shall have to send out a search party.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: What did you say, Trevor?

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible) shredder?

MS FOOTE: For furniture.

MR. TAYLOR: Ground (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Let's hope the mikes aren't on.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are getting a little off track here. If you could just get it back in order here. We have coffee waiting.

MS FOOTE: Sorry. I apologize.

MR. H. HODDER: The transcripts will be quite interesting when we get them.

On that issue, there was an investment by the Province of somewhere between $15 million and $25 million and I wanted to give an update on that because primarily that was over many departments but it was brought forward by government as a way to stimulate employment and to bring long-term sustainable jobs to rural Newfoundland. While we would disagree here with the methodology that was used, we are certainly not opposed to trying to bring sustainable long-term jobs to rural Newfoundland. Has there been a final assessment of that completed and the final analysis - there was a lot of talk at the time about how much it was going to cost and all that kind of thing. Has there been anything done on that recently?

MS FOOTE: Treasury Board - now it is not within our department, other than that one portfolio which we moved to Marystown. But, to the best of my knowledge, the officials in Treasury Board are looking - I do not know what kind of analysis they have done, where they are, and what the total cost was. I have not been involved; don't know. I am pleased with the fifteen that are in Marystown.

CHAIR: On that note, we will go to a coffee break and be back here at 10:45 a.m. How is that?

We have coffee in the caucus room.

MS FOOTE: Is that a cough break, did you say?

CHAIR: Coffee and coughing break.

CHAIR: We are now back in order. If we can continue the Estimates of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Mr. Byrne, when you are ready.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, thank you.

MS FOOTE: If I could, just for a second?

CHAIR: Sorry, Madam Minister.

MS FOOTE: A couple of questions about different sectors and our strategy on a go forward basis. I do not know, but just to bring your attention to the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth. That, in fact, looks at a number of sectors, including the fishery sector, the aquaculture and the agriculture sector in terms of framework.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Also, it is a well-crafted document.

MS FOOTE: We just have to build on it, you're right.

I am going to have to apologize because it seems the more I talk the worse I get.

MR. E. BYRNE: You are not the only one in the boat today like that.

MS FOOTE: I told John he is on.

CHAIR: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: If that is the case, John?

Minister, you raised the Fisheries Loan Board in earlier comments. Just a couple of questions on that related to the recovery of old outstanding loans, those that are in arrears and what have you. The first question is: Would you be able to tell me how much the department has recovered - the loan board has recovered - in these old loans, say over the last couple of years? Most of those loans are probably in excess of ten or twelve years old. I know I get a lot of calls on it, and I am sure some of you people do also. Pretty well every member, I suspect, who has any kind of fishing constituency would get a number of calls on it. Some of the calls are from people who have the ability to pay - for lack of a better way of putting it - and some probably do not.

Anyway, the first question, I guess, is: What kind of recovery have you had in recent years on those old outstanding arrears?

MS FOOTE: Trevor, if you do not mind, I will ask Larry Guinchard to speak to this because he has that file.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. GUINCHARD: Yes, Mr. Taylor. As you know, from correspondence you have had with our department, each individual fish loan is treated on an individual basis because, as you know, each individual has different circumstances. These loans have been outstanding for a number of years. We have recovered in access of $2 million roughly in the past year, and probably a little over that the year before. We are budgeting, hopefully, this year another $1.5 million to collect on the Fisheries Loan portfolio as well.

MR. TAYLOR: What was that you are budgeting for this year?

MR. GUINCHARD: About $1.5 million.

MR. TAYLOR: In recovery?

MR. GUINCHARD: Yes.

MS FOOTE: I tabled the Annual Report of the Fisheries Loan Board in the House. I do not know if you were here or not, but a lot of that information is in there.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so I will get a -

CHAIR: They will give the detail.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. I will follow up by picking up a copy of that.

What is the cost of - before I go there - I guess I can get this also out of it. How much in the way of loan guarantees, and what have you, is the government putting out in the Fisheries Loan Board, as we call it, on a yearly basis today? Do they go together?

MR. GUINCHARD: About $30 million last year. Right, Phil?

MR. McCARTHY: Under the Loan Guarantee Program in the last few years, we have averaged somewhere between $10 million and $14 million in loan guarantees.

MR. TAYLOR: Ten million dollars to $14 million per year?

MR. McCARTHY: Yes, in 2001-2002 it was $14 million.

MS FOOTE: In the annual report, it says that the board approved $13.6 million in new fisheries loan guarantees in 2001-2002, through the chartered banks, to twenty-six fish harvesting enterprises for the purchase of new fishing vessels or the purchase of and/or renovation of used vessels. The board managed a fisheries loan guarantee portfolio comprised of 135 accounts in 2001-2002, having an outstanding value of $31.2 million.

MR. TAYLOR: How has that changed over the past five or six years? Has there been much of an increase in the number and the total amount in aggregate - the loan guarantees? Has it gone up? Has is gone down? Has it remained relatively stable?

MR. McCARTHY: In the last three years it has been fairly stable. In 1999-2000, we did around $13 million for about thirty-seven. In 2000-2001, we did around $10.5 million. In 2001-2002, we did close to $14 million.

MR. TAYLOR: Relatively constant.

MR. McCARTHY: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: The recovery on that, have there been any instances of failure to meet conditions, any foreclosure on any of those that you -

MR. McCARTHY: That is managed by the Department of Finance. The numbers are very, very low.

MR. TAYLOR: Very low.

MR. SCOTT: The Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program, over time, since it was introduced in the 1980s, has been very successful in that regard. The number of defaults have been on probably one hand - maybe two hands at most in the last several years - a very strong performance. I am not aware of any default in the last four of five years, particularly when we have been looking at a much more diversified vessel in terms of the new fishery, as I would call it. It has been a very successful program administered through the chartered banks.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

I know you have budgeted, as you said, $1.5 million for recovery in these old loans. How much is it costing the department, approximately, to recover this $1.5 million to $2 million a year?

MS FOOTE: Larry?

MR. GUINCHARD: We have a staff in Marystown; we have a portfolio office staff down there that manages all that fisheries loan portfolio, Mr. Taylor. I guess staffing runs about $500,000. The budget overall this year is about $750,000, I guess, if you put in all the purchased services and things like that. They do all of the accounting for all of the portfolios as well, not just the collections of the fisheries loan. They also do all the financial statements, preparation for the Auditor General, and things like that. There are three portfolios, really: the ENL loans, the Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Loan Board. The collection effort is concentrated on the fisheries loan part of it in that area.

MR. SCOTT: (Inaudible) perspective, we have a portfolio, including the guarantees, in the order of $140 million. The direct fisheries loan portfolio, which was the under $50,000 one before, has an outstanding balance of about $20 million. So, if you look at the relative portion that staff spent on various types of portfolios done in Marystown, that will give you some sense of how that gets split up.

MR. TAYLOR: I know that, as Larry said, there is flexibility, I guess, I will say, in how you handle the recovery of some of these outstanding loans. I don't know how to ask the question. I have talked to your staff on a number of occasions on behalf of individuals, and what have you, who have contacted me from around the Province, and I know, as I said in my opening remarks, or sort of alluded to it anyway, that some of these people, you make the contact, you find out the situation, and you know, as plain as the nose on your face, that some of these people have the ability to pay some, if not all.

The problem I see with some of it in the approach of the department - and I do not fault the individuals because I know that they have a job to do and they do it quite well, I think, to recover a couple of million dollars on loans that are in excess of ten years old, I would say almost entirely. They are doing a good job, in some cases, squeezing blood out of a turnip.

I find it very frustrating, I guess, when I find an individual - I will just give an individual example of a fellow who is sixty-five or sixty-six years old, he had a boat in 1988 and owed $4,000. I am talking about a specific case now. I am not going to be exact in the numbers I am using but I know that his wife is taking a fair amount of medication. When I talk to some of the case workers they understand the situation and understand that this person has a very limited ability to repay. You get the indication that: Well, if this fellow makes an offer of $500 or something like that, well we will probably accept that. It is a token type of thing, right?

I remember calling this individual back and advising him on what he should do. He was contacted some time shortly thereafter, when it was in the process of being brought to the board or had been brought to the board, whatever. He was advised that the board wanted $1,000 out of him, basically. One thousand dollars to myself and to most of us here, I guess, is not something that is extremely hard to put your hands on, but I know this individual and it was difficult to put his hands on it. He was just so intimidated by the call. Not that the person was necessarily intentionally, intimidating, but he was intimidated by it. He wanted to get this out of the way. It was hanging over his head. So he said: Okay. He agreed to it. Yes, he paid it, but I think there needs to be some direction from the department to be a little bit more compassionate towards the older people, in particular, who are in these situations. It is a tragedy.

I know of another situation where somebody has tried to start over in another business, and because that business is somewhat viable and generating a little bit of a profit, that their business is being threatened because of an old loan for a fifty-footer or something that they had back in - I remember when they got it but I cannot remember what year it was. I do not know, but I guess the question is: When are you going to bring closure to this? I know that with some of these people you can probably never bring closure to it, and I understand that a thirty-five year old individual like myself probably should have somebody breathing down his or her neck on some of this stuff because they have not done whatever. There needs to be a different approach, I think, on some of this, especially in light of the circumstances that brought all of this to where it is today.

MS FOOTE: I will speak to this, Mr. Chair.

Trevor, obviously, as a government, we are sensitive to those issues and to the situation in which people find themselves. As Larry said, each loan is looked at on a case-by-case basis. If there is an indication that you can, in fact, pay, you should pay, because at the end of the day we have a responsibility to recover taxpayers' dollars; but every case is looked at by individual basis, and if there are hardships, they are supposed to be taken into account. Any repayment schedules are supposed to be based on an individual's ability to pay, taking into account where they find themselves today. In fact, many loans have been written off because people cannot pay.

So, if you have knowledge of someone who has been hard done by or not treated fairly than feel free to bring it forward because it certainly is not the government's wish to put someone through a difficult time if their personal circumstances are such that they really cannot respond in the way that we would like for them to but they just cannot. It certainly is not government's intention to treat anyone harshly. In fact, we make an attempt to try and treat them all equitably and fair. As I say, loans have been written off. So it is not a case of not recognizing. Obviously, we must have recognized, in those instances, that there were hardships and people could not follow through and could not meet their commitment.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I am aware of instances where loans have been written off. Another example, I know of a situation where an individual contacted me - I guess I will bring it up in the context: Has there been a change? I do not know if that is a fair question, but it almost seems to me that in the last year-and-a-half, I suppose, I get a sense that there has been a change and there is more pressure on the people who are trying to recover these outstanding loans. I get a sense that there is more pressure on them to recover the money.

I will give you an example. About two years ago, first when I got elected, an individual called me and he owed - anyway, it does not matter what it was. It was a significant amount of money. He could never pay it off. He will never live long enough to pay it off. I know the individual and he has very few options open to him. He is fishing on a small crab boat with a person who has a permit now. I suspect he is bringing in, in earned income, probably about $10,000 a year - and EI with that. I talked to the case officer at the time, I forget who it was. Anyway, through the jigs and the reels, over the course of a couple of months it worked out: Well, okay, we will leave it alone. It was not written off because I do not think that you really do write them off. That is not the sense I get anyway. But, it is there: We won't bother you but if you win the lottery we are going to come looking for your $30,000 type of thing. That was left alone. Everything was hunky-dory, and just about a year later he called me and said: Boy, they are after me again. I cannot remember now what we worked out or how we worked out but we did work out some kind of a repayment schedule. I know he cannot afford it and it is causing hardship for that individual. Supposing it is $100 a month - yes, maybe it is only $100 a month but $100 a month to somebody who is bringing in $1,200 or $1,400 a month in EI and income throughout the year, on average throughout the year, is not a very big pile of money.

MS FOOTE: I can tell you there has been no change in policy and no change in direction in terms of whether they should increase the pressure or whether they should go after more. There has been no direction given along those lines. So nothing has changed from that perspective. If someone is doing it, they are doing it on their own, but I would expect what they are doing is following policy.

We have written off loans, yes. If the circumstances warrant it, loans are written off. I guess at the end of the day we have to look at the circumstances and determine whether or not they can, in fact, pay back some of the taxpayers' dollars that were borrowed. Don't forget, there is someone called an Auditor General too who looks at all of this very closely. We have to be seen to be doing the job that needs to be done, but at the same time being sensitive, as we are and we have been, to individual circumstances.

MR. SCOTT: I can add one small point. Our objective in the last several years, recognizing the age of these accounts, is to bring closure to them in an orderly businesslike manner, as soon as we can, being sensitive to the circumstances of individuals. As a corporate priority we are trying to bring this portfolio to closure in an orderly manner. As the minister said, there is no new policy direction in terms of getting tougher. That is not the way to bring closure to it. It is to bring closure to it on a responsible businesslike basis.

MR. TAYLOR: I think Ed Byrne is going to ask a few questions now.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

To the deputy minister: You mentioned earlier, when Mr. Taylor was asking about the outstanding amounts within the Fisheries Loan Board, about $20 million in loans outstanding of $140 million portfolio. Just for verification purposes: That is the same portfolio, I guess, that was reported in the Auditor General's report which said, the annual report of the Auditor General of the House of Assembly for the year ending March 31, 1999, included a report on Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador's loan portfolio - is that the same one? - funded through the former Department of Development and Rural Renewal's Strategic Enterprise Development Fund. Is that the one?

MR. SCOTT: That would be part of it. When we talk about our portfolio we include the former ENL loans and equity, the former Fisheries Loan Board, the former Farm Development Loan Board and our Loan Guarantee Program.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no money owing to you from the Farm Loan Board, or very little?

MR. SCOTT: Very little.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is about a 98 or 99 per cent repayment rate on that stuff.

MR. SCOTT: I believe in the Auditor General's report in 1999 she was focused on ENL, not Fisheries, not Farm, and not the Fisheries Guarantee Program. The Fisheries Guarantee Program is delivered legislatively through the Department of Finance Loan and Guarantee Act, but we administer it from an application point of view and an approval point of view. When we sum up our portfolio, we include that, but in the public accounts it would show up in the Department of Finance.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

Is most of that information available through the Freedom of Information, what the total outstanding portfolio is, $140 million, and where it would be owed from?

MR. SCOTT: Yes. In fact, there are -

MR. E. BYRNE: At some point in the future would you be able to provide that to us?

MR. SCOTT: In fact, the annual audited financial statements of each of the portfolios are tabled as part of the public accounts.

MR. E. BYRNE: It would all be in there?

MR. SCOTT: It would all be in there in terms of the liability, the value of the assets, and so forth and so on. We reported upon it when the minister tabled the department's annual report and the annual reports for the external boards and agencies in a capsulized form.

MR. E. BYRNE: A similar question to Trevor's, but on a different scale in terms of the pursuit of trying to recover loans that the Province has made to either groups, individuals, businesses, et cetera, and obviously we should pursue that. To the person, or the case which he referenced just a moment ago, the individual who owed $4,000 to the Fisheries Loan Board, it was pursued and an agreement was made in $1,000. At the same time people in the Province see, for example, in the Auditor General's report this year, where it said that one company - I will just read it for the record, if I may, Mr. Chair. It says, "In October 1992, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador (ENL) made its first loan of $500,000 to the Company to purchase equipment.

Since the initial loan of $500,000 in 1992, ENL has advanced five additional loans totaling $949,365. In addition to this $1,449,365 in loans, ENL also paid professional fees of $29,343 on behalf of the Company. In addition, interest charges of $976,849 have been added to these loans. As at 31 March 2002, ENL had recovered only $233,300 of its investment resulting in a balance owing of $2.22 million comprised of $1.32 million in principal and $0.9 million in interest. The Company has not made any payments since October 1998 and the entire outstanding balance is considered by ENL to be doubtful of collection."

It goes to show, in detail, right up until 1998, what was paid out from the department. I guess a couple of questions emanating from that. I don't know if you can name the company. If you cannot, that is fair enough but I will ask the question anyway. More to the point, while we are recovering monies from individuals from the Fisheries Loan Board, given the fact of where the fishery has gone and the circumstances surrounding the reality of the industry today, people ask legitimate questions about: well, when it comes to certain companies, we have not been able to recover substantial amounts and, in not recovering them, we have continued to loan, on the one hand, more money. I guess I am looking for a response to that sort of argument that has been publicly offered.

MR. SCOTT: That is, we understand, Sir, in the public concern. As the minister noted earlier, we manage our investments on a case by case basis and the fundamental objective is a developmental objective. While the recovery of the taxpayers' investment is very important, the primary concern is ensuring that investment works to create a strong business, a viable business, create jobs and, where there are circumstances beyond the company's own control or otherwise, to show flexibility and be a patient lender or investor, we do so. The guiding principle in the department is to look at each individual circumstance. I will say to you, as well, that all of our investments are dealt with and managed, in terms of decision making, by an arms-length board as opposed to internally within the department to ensure that there is objectivity, and to ensure that there is independence in terms of the assessment of the circumstances.

In the case of the Auditor General's report on this particular company, I would be happy to share the name of the company with you privately but the company is operating so these types of reports and Auditor General's statements are usually masked somewhat in terms of the name of the company because it could compromise their ability to raise capital or keep business.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, sure. I certainly do not want to go there, if that is going to do that.

MR. SCOTT: It would be very familiar to you and, I think, to Mr. Taylor as well, but in these circumstances the opportunity was there to grow a new industry in a rural area of the Province that was in desperate need of stimulus and, while there were a number of investments made over time, each were considered on their own merit by an independent board to determine whether it was in the public interest to carry on with that.

Ultimately, the intent still is to recover the loan but, in the meantime, the business is operating. It is generating jobs. It is generating taxes for the local economy and otherwise. Again, the fundamental principle is looking at case by case.

In the case of the fishery, you are dealing with an entrepreneur, a self-employed individual, and the enterprise is probably struggling, as opposed to an investment that is referenced as company A in the Auditor General's report, where the company is growing over time but taking longer than anticipated.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not want to be perceived as saying that we shouldn't entertain that but, in terms of being accountable to the criticisms or the concerns that are raised, they are legitimate, I suppose, and if they are raised we must deal with them as legitimate.

MR. SCOTT: Absolutely, and in the Auditor General's report we try to provide the perspective that we take in dealing with those issues, and in our response to it we try to present (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of the concerns raised in the Auditor General's report, and outside the Auditor General's report, about monitoring of the portfolio, and the department's involvement in monitoring and ensuring that what was agreed to was followed up on. If there are changing circumstances - I mean, that is the world we live in - that the department is aware of them, whether it be ensuring that if we have the right to have members sit on boards of directors, that they are there; whether it is financial statements that must be coming to the department and they do not, and they continue not to come. How does the department deal with those criticisms and challenges, because they are here and elsewhere?

MR. SCOTT: Again, those issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, looking at the particular circumstances confronted by the company. In the case of audit financial statements, or financial statements generally, that is a normal term and condition that we apply for monitoring. If a company is not in a position to bring forward the financial statements, or do so in a timely manner, that does present a challenge to us. We do require those to monitor the accounts effectively, but, at times, companies are not in a position to bring them forward. In those circumstances -

MR. E. BYRNE: You would think that any company worth their salt, on a year-by-year basis, would produce financial statements. They may not be willing to provide them to you or to a department of the government, but you would think they would have them for their own self-analysis. Not everyone does it.

MR. SCOTT: Indeed, I could not agree with you more, and it is good business practice.

MS FOOTE: I think the problem is, that it is the government, and government is always the last one that is considered as someone that needs to get paid back.

MR. SCOTT: That is part of it. If there are circumstances where the formal documents are not before us the duty of our staff, in which they discharge, is to visit the company, look at the records that they have, inspect the facilities and the like to ensure that there is monitoring beyond the formality of an audited statement - and not diminishing the importance of an audited statement.

In a practical sense, at the end of the day if we are not getting audited financial statements, or financial statements in accordance with the terms and agreement, yes, we could call the loan in terms of default. But, if the company is still there, producing jobs, generating wealth, then the decision is made: Do you call it on a technical basis and cause the company to collapse because you are calling the loan and its creditors are vulnerable and the like, or do you continue to work with the company to manage through that circumstance? It is difficult and it is a balancing act case by case.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, it has to be. It must be disturbing to you. For example, when the Auditor General - I mean the departments have a heads up because you have an opportunity to respond and your response is in every report. But when you see, for example, in one particular loan $1,175,000 and the review shows, for example, there was inadequate documentation to support how much the company paid for the building. The loan was provided for the purchase of building other assets acquired. In addition, a subsequent search with the Registry of Deeds by a government solicitor did not identify any title transfer of the building to the company.

Secondly, in addition to ENL Financing, shareholders were to contribute $600,000. There was inadequate documentation to show that shareholders had made the investment. Thirdly, as a condition of a $500,000 loan, the financing agreement stated that the company should not pledge the shares or assets of the company without written consent of ENL. After the company was provided its first loan of $500,000 it is clear the company purchased the remaining 50 per cent of the outstanding shares of the other shareholder. In exchange, the other shareholder took a $250,000 mortgage on the company's assets. There was no evidence on file that ENL gave consent, as required by the loan agreement, before this transaction occurred.

That is a pretty damning indictment, in my view - I am not pointing to anybody, I want to be clear on that - of the company; not necessarily of government but of the company. I guess by extension then in the question of monitoring our activities as a lender on a bonafide and legitimate basis to try to develop an industry in a particular region and help a company grow. It has to be frustrating when you have to deal with that as a deputy minister and as a political head of the department and as executive and support staff. How do you deal with that? What do you do? I am just trying to get a sense of how -

MS FOOTE: You are absolutely right, and it is difficult because you are put in the position where - what happens if the company has x number of employees and you go out, are you going to call the loan? Are you going to put them in a position where they are going to go under? It is really difficult because it could be a region where - one is, in fact, in Trevor's district - where in fact that could have happened. If we had not said: Okay, we will let it ride for the time being. But it is, it is a difficult call. What do you do? We have a committee in place, an independent board that looks at all the circumstances and then makes a decision and advises on the best way to go forward. It is a hard call. It is fine for the Auditor General, and God love whoever it is, you know, to sit there -

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. I mean they have the same mandates, no matter who it is.

MS FOOTE: Yes, that is right.

- and review this and make comments on: that this is not right or that is not right. At the end of the day, we - I guess politically and whoever is here - would have to make the decision whether or not you allow the company to continue or see it go under. I think anybody would make the decision that, hey, if you are employing fifty people, twenty people, ten people in an area where there is very little employment, that you err on the side of the company.

MR. E. BYRNE: If there is a reasonable chance of continued success, I suppose.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely.

MR. E. BYRNE: So, on the opposite side of the same question, I suppose: How do you answer the criticism, for example, on Newfoundland Bonding & Composites that the Auditor General put forward, that Cabinet made a decision prior to any due diligence being done? It is not supposed to happen that way. Newfoundland Bonding & Composites, for example, or any company for that matter, they go through the process in seeking investment and it hopefully ends up at the Cabinet Table - and government has every right to make that decision, obviously, and providing direction to get this through the process because this is the will of the Cabinet. We would like to see it done, and we believe it is in the best interest of the Province and the region, et cetera. How do you answer the criticism that that process was not followed, that a decision was made and then the loans were done after the fact, or the process in which officials were involved happened and occurred after the fact? Is that an anomaly? Obviously, it seems to me it is.

MS FOOTE: I think if you look at the situation with that particular company, the issue for us was, here was an opportunity at diversifying the economy, at doing something different, which we are trying to do in all parts of the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not questioning that.

MS FOOTE: What we were up against was the chance that it would go to P.E.I. Whether it would or would not have, who knows? But do you take that chance? What you make sure you do when you are going down that path is that the owner of the company is at the table with you. I do know that since then they have invested about what, $27 million?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Thirty-five million dollars. So I know what you are saying in terms of process but -

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not speaking to the company -

MS FOOTE: No, I know what you are saying in terms of process, but that is a call you make when you are looking -

MR. E. BYRNE: So the normal commitment, say, coming to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council from the line department and the minister (inaudible) department and the Premier to a company like that, where: Look, there is a process you must go through. We are not going to unduly impede it, but we are there with you and we are going to make it happen. What you are saying is, that assurance was not good enough at the time for...?

MS FOOTE: Oh, no. There was analysis done. It probably did not go through the regular route, but there was analysis done. Clearly, we did not go in this and say: Yes, we want this, so here is $9 million. No, absolutely not. We had to look at what it would have meant for the Province, and was it worth our while to invest that kind of money at this point in time? Everything pointed to this company getting some very good contracts. It was a political call, it was a judgement call, but it was a good call.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not dispute that. It is the process I am talking about.

Speaking of that company, or any other company that government is involved with, where you have the right, for example, to put people on the board of directors, or have the right to send in your own officials just to determine how things are going, has the money that we have provided, the large sums provided from the Treasury, been spent where it is? If it hasn't, there are reasonable explanations that can be provided for all of that as well, I suppose.

In this specific instance, why didn't government ensure that they had a right to put people on a board of directors and they had a right to send their own financial people in, whether from the Department of Finance or Treasury Board? Why were decisions taken like that, not to pursue that in terms of an ongoing monitoring process? It is not just with this company, but it has happened with others as well. Is that done on a case by case basis, you just don't have time? Is it that we are satisfied, from what we hear, from the evidence that the company has provided?

I think you know were my question is. It is about the process and the monitoring and accountability side of the equation, not the question of whether we should help the company or not. That is a separate issue.

MR. SCOTT: Again, the approach taken is on a case by case basis. I will say to you as well that over time, in respect of some of the examples that you have cited, Mr. Byrne, the Auditor General has referenced that there is inadequate documentation on file. We often have differences of view of what constitutes adequate documentation. At times, I will acknowledge to you, that we have followed up and monitored as the Departments of Development and Rural Renewal, Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and Finance. Sometimes our documentation efforts are lacking. It does not necessarily mean the monitoring is not occurring.

As well, in respect of some agreements, we do have rights to sit on boards. We exercise that on a case by case basis. Those are rights that we have as opposed to, I would say, a duty to actually do in every circumstance. If we are satisfied that we have a good enough understanding through other means of what is happening with a company - through, for example, annual financial statements that may not have been audited yet, site visits to the company and reports from the company itself - we would use our judgement, as the Department of Finance does, in respect to monitoring the CHC Composites file, because they are the ones that are monitoring that, and determine what intervention we need at what level.

We often reserve the right to sit on the board of a company. Sometimes we elect to do so. Our general approach is that we do not do so unless we have to. It is a measure of last resort rather than a measure of first resort. It really depends upon the circumstances.

MR. E. BYRNE: The airline industry, nationally and internationally, is in somewhat of a turmoil for a number of reasons: exploding oil and gas prices, a huge, huge and steep decline in passenger travel, lost revenues. You look at the type of restructuring that companies like Bombardier are going through and it is pretty challenging times for that industry generally.

Newfoundland Bonding Composites are facing the same challenges, and the airline industry is like that. If you look at the last twenty years, it is very much, like my father used to say, like a dog's stomach. When it is up it is up, and when it is down it is down. There does not seem to be any in-between with it whatsoever. What challenges are they facing? I understand that there are discussions ongoing with the department about government's possible further involvement with the company and, again, I am not questioning that. Could you elaborate on that at all? Because it seems to be a pretty bright industry. It is new and it is going through some challenges, like any private sector company would, but it presents a whole set of new problems that probably were not factored into the initial outlook of the company when first coming to government.

MS FOOTE: We see this company as expanding, and every indication is that it will. Strategically, their business is primarily military. So, if you look at what is happening now, not that it is something we like to see, but every time a helicopter goes down over in Iraq, it bodes well for Bonding Composites and any other company, so it is looking good. Every indication we have, working with company, is that - and the fact that they have invested $35 million themselves into this is a good indication that their own work, their own analysis, their own research, indicates that they have a bright future.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. I certainly do not want to be perceived as being negative towards that action, and government's involvement, because I am not at all. Are there discussions occurring? It has been suggested publicly, as well, that the company -

MS FOOTE: They have come back to us looking for some more support but, obviously, like any initiative, or any request, we certainly would have to do due diligence and we are doing that.

MR. E. BYRNE: If we could move into another area, that would be okay?

CHAIR: Sure.

MR. E. BYRNE: In terms of government's venture capital strategy or, as some would say, the lack of government's venture capital strategy, depending on who you talk to - I did not say it.

MS FOOTE: Did you read the Budget?

MR. E. BYRNE: I read the Budget. Like I said, it was a well-crafted document.

MS FOOTE: Like this one.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, exactly.

The Minister of Justice said to me the other day: You wanted annual reports, Ed, you got them.

MS FOOTE: You got them, that is right.

MR. E. BYRNE: We are here today like that, and that is fine. That is important. I am not trying to minimize that, because it is important to do that.

MS FOOTE: I know.

MR. E. BYRNE: We just have to get all of our Crown entities and agencies doing it too.

Anyway, in terms of the venture capital strategy, some individuals have discussed publicly and privately with me that they have participated in the strategy; they do not see that the department is aggressive enough in pursuing it. I guess I am looking for a general response to that sort of concern that may have been raised - I am sure it has been raised to the department as well - and your response to it.

MS FOOTE: Of course, what you see in the Budget is a reflection of ongoing discussions that we have had with people who have been interested in either investing or taking advantage of investment. A couple of the initiatives in the Budget, for instance, the Venture Capital (Direct Equity) Tax Credit Program, we have expanded that because clearly it was only available to individuals. What we were finding from individuals who also own companies was that they would like to be able to invest as a company, obviously, for the tax benefits.

I guess the most interesting one that we have announced is the possibility of a labour sponsored venture pool. That one, for us, I guess, we will go seeking proposals within sixty days from Budget Day. We would like to think that, with the availability of money there, we will get one that is labour sponsored, bearing in mind that the feds have one that is labour sponsored, and 15 per cent tax credit on that one and 15 per cent on this one would go very well.

MR. E. BYRNE: A big incentive.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely, but we are not sure. We are going to be flexible enough that if we do not get one acceptable to us based on what we are looking for, then we are going to be flexible enough to look at other venture capital pools. We are hoping it is going to be a labour sponsored one - whether it will or not.

We are hearing from a lot of small businesses that there is nowhere for them to access capital these days. It is difficult.

MR. E. BYRNE: It isn't there -

MS FOOTE: No, the banks are out of it altogether.

MR. E. BYRNE: Decisions are made in Halifax. There are vice-presidents of all the major branches here. They will probably challenge me on it, but I am confident enough in what I say, that they have very little authority in terms of dealing with the local business community in approving business loans.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. Many are made in Toronto.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?

MS FOOTE: Many decisions are made in Toronto.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Business development banks, it is a nightmare; very closed shop in terms of who has access, who does not. It is really scandalous.

MS FOOTE: They are out of the risk-taking business altogether.

MR. E. BYRNE: If everyone is out of it, who is in it?

MS FOOTE: That is right.

MR. E. BYRNE: On that front, do you have any regular discussions in your ongoing activities in the department with the banks on this issue, trying to squeeze and leverage?

MS FOOTE: Yes, all the time. It is ongoing, and it is like beating your head against a brick wall. Even if you look at Newfoundland and Labrador and how the banks perceive Newfoundland and Labrador, if you have assets here - not worth a pinch.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was just going to give you an example, a true story.

MS FOOTE: Not worth a pinch.

MR. E. BYRNE: A friend of mine, who I have known for twenty-five years but hadn't seen for about four or five years - I was at the Aquarena the other day picking up my daughter from swimming - comes over to me and I say: How are you doing all the time? Good. Still working away, doing well? He started to get into a complaint about no investment, no chance to get access to capital. He said: Ed, let me tell you, I am sitting on $850,000 worth of building assets that I do not owe a penny on. They are mine, and I could not leverage $200,000 against it, not $100,000, and I own them outright. Some of the properties, I have been leasing for the last fifteen years. I do not owe a nickel to anyone on them. They are all income now. Everything is paid off. He said: You talk about frustrating.

MS FOOTE: It is really tough.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is. How do we get around that? I do not know how to do it. When all of the major lending institutions and the arms of the federal government, who are not into it themselves, what do you do?

MS FOOTE: Of course, it is back to adventure capital, building on that and promoting that.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what we talked about in terms of, he said: There is no pool of venture capital that I can access. That is one of the challenges that he sees, not only for the Province but for Atlantic Canada as well.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. For businesses, I do not know, but ACOA does still lend money to businesses, so that is always a possibility for them.

MR. E. BYRNE: He did not want to do that. He says, I do not have time. He is a real entrepreneur, and he has done extremely well for himself. He said: I do not have time to deal with that. I do not want to deal with those. I have enough around me that I should be able to do this myself, and it is not a problem. He is bringing probably $150,000 of his own cash to it and couldn't leverage $200,000 on $800,000 worth of building assets that he owned outright, that he had long-term leases in 80 per cent of them. Incredible.

MS FOOTE: Well, I mentioned a boat builder earlier who told me last Friday that he cannot get his hands on $250,000. This is a man who is selling boats everywhere in North America. It does not make sense. We have a company in rural Newfoundland that has an asset, a plant there, worth $18 million and what do they value that at? A local real estate company went down to do an evaluation, and what was it?

WITNESS: Two million or $3 million.

MS FOOTE: Two million or $3 million, an $18 million facility, and that is in two years. It has been there. It is built. The bank, in that case an Italian bank, put money into it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is it an attitudinal problem? What is it?

MS FOOTE: Oh, absolutely. That is a part of it.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a big part of it, that I see.

MS FOOTE: It is a big part of it, absolutely. They look at us as if, you know, what do we have to offer, 530,000 people spread out around 10,000 miles of coastline. It is mainland attitude, I am sure of it, when it comes to the banks; and you are absolutely right, the people here have no authority.

MR. E. BYRNE: They do not.

MS FOOTE: None.

MR. E. BYRNE: If they want to get approval of a local mortgage outside of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, for example, it goes to Halifax for approval. That is a fact.

CHAIR: The Chairman -

MR. E. BYRNE: I mean, it is unbelievable.

Sorry.

CHAIR: No, no. The Chairman does not normally intervene but this topic has been grating at me for a long time so I will give you a radical thought and then I am going to leave it there. Then I am going to shut up.

Tax the banks on their profits in this Province for about 2 per cent to 5 per cent - figure out the number - tax them and put it into the venture capital fund and let them go after it. Then they will smarten up. It is the only thing that is going to get them to smarten up. So, think about it, threaten them with it, and maybe they will change their minds.

That is all I am saying. Thank you. Go ahead.

I am sorry, Mr. Byrne. I had to get it off my chest. I am sorry. My apologies.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Chair, do you know how many branches they have closed down in rural Newfoundland?

CHAIR: It does not matter, they are still making money.

MS FOOTE: They would probably close everyone if we did that.

CHAIR: They are making money. Remember, they are making money.

Now I am shutting up. My apologies, Minister. I had to get it off my chest. Okay, I will write a letter on it.

MS FOOTE: We all share your frustrations, sir.

CHAIR: Yes, I don't know if we all have them.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a couple of more but I need to go to the washroom - lots of water. So if you can give me a quick break?

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, no problem.

CHAIR: Mr. Taylor, before that, I just want to check with any of the members. Mr. Butler, do you have any thoughts or any questions on this?

MR. BUTLER: I had one there. It was in relation to - I think one of the hon. gentlemen here mentioned about information being provided with regards to accounts receivable, but I wanted to go back, and then when my hon. colleague brought up the Auditor General's report it really prompted me to ask this question.

In the Auditor General's report this year, I think there is a section there where there is $260 million or something that was written off over a period of time back over the years. The question I am asking - I do not know if it is all in relation to your department, minister, or from different departments, but my question is: Is all the information in relation to that $260 million available? For example, who the people were involved with those companies; why it could not be collected; the dates and times this happened; the years it was, and so on. Is that available?

MR. SCOTT: That level of detail would not be available through the public accounts. Quite frankly, even if we were to receive a Freedom of Information request, the level of detail that we reveal about an individual entrepreneur's dealings would be limited.

The normal practice would be to advise anyone and inform anyone of where we have invested money, with what company, for what purpose, but we would not report upon the status of that account. If an account is written off, it is summed up in the public accounts. Again, it is not a matter that we publish a list annually or otherwise of specific transactional write-offs.

MR. BUTLER: Just for clarification, say the Fisheries Loan Board. I know you said some of them may be written off, so I will just use a hypothetical name. John Jones from the District of Port de Grave probably owed $60,000. That would be available to the Auditor General, whereas someone who had $17 million written off, I cannot get that information. Is that correct?

MS FOOTE: If it is company versus an individual. The individual would have been an entrepreneur as well, right? You could not get that information?

MR. SCOTT: No, it would not matter whether it was an individual. It is an entity for making investment in a policy in terms of administratively applies. Having said that, the Auditor General has access to all of these records and all of these details. He or she has the right to report if he or she feels that there is anything inappropriate or contrary to legislation or whatnot.

MR. BUTLER: That is why I was looking for it, because this is in the Auditor General's report, and being on the Public Accounts Committee there are different issues that we bring forward. Here is the Auditor General provided with all of this information, about $260 million was written off, and if that is the topic I want to bring up, I cannot get the information to ask questions about it. That was the reason I asked that question.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

I think on the Public Accounts Committee you probably could get the information if you pursued it, I am assuming, with the PAC. We can check that out.

Madam Kelly.

MS KELLY: Just from the perspective of our Economic Development Agreements with the federal government that have run out, and they are not expressing any interest in renewing them. Has there been any new agreements, that you know of, struck with other provinces or has anything happened since our Budget was brought down to see any signs at all that they are going to cooperate? I know the money you outlined in your opening remarks, if we have to use all of that to fund the initiatives just here in our Province, I think some of the associations and stuff, there is going to be nothing left is there for each of the zonal boards and other proposals that will come in from communities? All our money will be used if the feds do not partner with us?

MS FOOTE: The same question was asked earlier by Mr. Byrne. I have not heard back from Minister Rock, and that is who I wrote to about the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Development Board. I had hoped to meet with him next week but he is away. He is out of the country for a couple weeks. We have not had any indication at all that the federal government is willing to reconsider. In fact, Minister Byrne came out very strong the day of the Budget to say that this was not on. He did that without full knowledge of what we had in mind. So I am hoping that on second sober thought he will reconsider and help us in terms of trying to move that forward with the Minister of Industry for Canada. This is not just between the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador, it is every province. They have gotten out of cost-shared agreements right across the country.

I am supposed to be in Alberta this Monday and Tuesday to meet with rural development ministers and I am putting this on the agenda hoping that we can - because those are the minsters you really need to meet with when you talk about CEDA and cost-shared agreements. I am hoping to be able to work with them to try and bring some profile to this issue. Even if the feds are saying they are getting out of cost-shared agreements, look at the type of proposal that we put forward as a Province. That would give them a way out, face-saving measure too, so that they are not back into cost-shared agreements, but it is a totally different approach. So that is my thinking on that.

MS KELLY: Will Minister of State, Andy Mitchell, be at that meeting because he is responsible for rural Canada? He could be a big ally there too.

MS FOOTE: Yes, he is chairing it actually.

MS KELLY: Excellent, good.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Kelly.

Ms Hodder?

MS M. HODDER: No questions, thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Mr. Taylor, sorry.

MR. TAYLOR: No problem, Sir.

Just a couple of questions. I have to go back, if I could for a minute - just a suggestion more than a question actually on the Fisheries Loan Board. I know one of the - you still have $20 million in outstanding debt there and you are budgeting for $1.5 million in recovery this year. I think it is fair to say that this problem will haunt us for a little while yet, unfortunately.

In the interest of trying to resolve it and recover, I suppose, as much as can be recovered and do it in a more palatable way I think - one of the biggest frustrations I find, that comes to me from individuals who have to deal with this process, is a lot of these people are - I hesitate, they are not old. They are getting up towards retirement age. Some of them have retired. A lot of the people who are - they get the most frustrated with this. One of things that comes back, whenever they talk to the loan board or to these individuals, the first thing that comes out is: You have to pay all of this. Say it is $50,000. It could be $20,000 in principal and $30,000 in interest, in some of these cases, right? That is not outlandish at all. In almost all cases, the interest is up comparable to the principal, and in a lot of cases exceeds the principal. They are told, you have to pay it all. Well, I cannot pay it all. You have to pay it all. Send us a financial statement, a statement of your financial affairs. Do that and make us an offer.

In a lot of the cases the people are not even sure what they can afford - it is just a statement of fact - and do not know what the board is willing to accept, and do not find out until some months down the road from when they finally got around to saying: Okay, I am going to talk to these people.

In a lot of cases, as you said, Minister, the government, sometimes, in a lot of cases, is the last to be paid. People look on it that way, and for a whole variety of reasons that has been exacerbated in the fishery, the Fisheries Loan Board in particular.

My suggestion on this, and I do not know if you have given any consideration to it so I will ask if you have, wouldn't it be better if the people who are dealing with these individuals were given the latitude to get a line of communications going here? That is one of the biggest problems. The individuals on the front line should, by now, after twelve years - I know a lot of these individuals have not necessarily been in it twelve years, but the department has been, for about twelve years now, in a fairly concerted way, trying to recover this money. Somebody should know by now, with this case here, what is able to be done with this case here, especially once you get the statement of financial affairs. You should know what the board is able to accept.

I think it would serve the board better, it would serve the government better, and it certainly would serve the individual better if the lines of communication were open on a basis of a negotiation as opposed to: You make me an offer I cannot refuse. Because that is effectively what you have been telling them for the past number of years, in my experience anyway.

Really, what happens in some of those cases is that the individual contacts me - whoever me might be - and I contact somebody in the department and say, realistically now, where do you fellows see this one sitting? What kind of an offer do you need?

I will go back to the individual and say, you are wasting your time, based on my experience, and based on my conversations with the department, if you do not offer them $10,000. They might make the $10,000 offer and the next thing the board turns it down. I don't know. That is rare, I know. If they do not call me, this thing continues on and on and on. If somebody does not feel like telling them what they need to hear as opposed to what they want to hear, then they still do not get it resolved. Usually, if I call Larry or somebody else down there in Marystown and ask the point blank question, whatever the answer is that I get, I will go back to them and say, you are not getting this written off. If you do not make an offer of $5,000, it is pointless calling me and it is pointless calling them. That is the way it goes. A lot of people do not get to that, and when they do finally ask somebody the people do not tell them what they need to know.

My advice to you, in the interest of - would you consider, in trying to recover this $20 million, to start negotiating as opposed to asking them to make an offer you cannot refuse? You need to give these people an indication of what you are prepared to accept, and work from there. I think you do.

MS FOOTE: Trevor, I think you make some valid points.

MR. TAYLOR: I hope so.

MS FOOTE: I could have said you didn't.

Being back in this portfolio now, I am as concerned as you are if people are not being treated fairly. I think your suggestion that we look at what we have there, what is outstanding, the loans that are outstanding, I am sure, as you say, that many of those people have been back and forth and they are trying to settle those loans, so there should be a good history in terms of what they can or cannot afford and where they are right now in their lives.

I am certainly open to taking a different approach to looking at how we can deal with the outstanding balance on that loan and bring closure to it, so any suggestions, any recommendations you have and what you have put forward now, John has made a note of here. I am quite prepared to take a totally different approach if it is going to be in the best interest of the people who are working for us and with us, and the fishermen out there, who are the ones who are being talked to, to try and come to some kind of resolution of their loan, and in all of our best interests.

As you say, the last thing we need is to have someone who is near retirement age worrying about whether or not they are going to be continually harassed or harangued over this outstanding balance. Now, I do not know that they are. I hear the same stories that you do. I have to believe that the officials are being delicate in their approach. I do not know, but what I am prepared to say to you is that I am quite prepared to look at a different approach, to go at this in a different manner, so that we recover what we can; and, what we cannot, recognizing that there are hardships that prevent us from doing so.

MR. TAYLOR: There are days when I pity the person who is working for Industry, Trade and Rural Development, probably more than I pity the fellow who is calling me, because when you are talking about money and outstanding loans, serving judgement on people and freezing bank accounts, and stuff like that, people have a tendency to get the hair up on the back of their neck.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) their pillow.

MR. TAYLOR: That is right.

MS FOOTE: In their mattress and sock.

MR. TAYLOR: That is right.

MR. TAYLOR: I understand that situation. Like I said, there must be another way. After ten or twelve years now, maybe it is time to look at a different approach for the rest of it. I understand that you cannot necessarily write it off.

I know an individual who owes a fair amount of money. Some of it can be recovered and I know that he is willing to do something, but he is hard-nosed and if he gets someone on the other end of the phone who is a little bit hard-nosed, this is going nowhere - who says, make me an offer. No, boy, you have to pay it all. Then you are not getting anything. You have not gotten anything for two years and you have had judgements served on him for a couple of years. I know that, and you have tried to seize his accounts and he got around that. He is a cagey guy.

MS FOOTE: That is what makes it so bad for everybody.

MR. TAYLOR: I agree.

That is why I am saying that if you are going to sit there and wait for him to make an offer then he will find a way of avoiding you for several more years. That is my expectation anyway. I know him; he is a tough nut.

MS FOOTE: We can call the total loan and if we cannot get it take his boat and house.

MR. TAYLOR: He is out of the fishery. He has his licence sold. He is gone.

MS FOOTE: Well, we will take his house.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) confidential memo.

MR. TAYLOR: I am going to get off that. That is just my suggestion on that.

MS FOOTE: But, I hear you.

MR. TAYLOR: You mentioned also the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. I spent a little time on the board of that, but not long enough. Politics got in the way. Anyhow, as I recall, initially the provincial government was involved, and I know the provincial government is involved in that. Memorial University's resources are used by the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation and their partners on various projects, but under the latest funding from the feds is there - excuse me if I missed it - any involvement by the Province in the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation now, any direct financial contribution or (inaudible)?

MR. SCOTT: Step back for a moment here. You are absolutely right, Mr. Taylor. That started as an initiative of the federal and provincial governments financially, and the Economic Renewal Agreement supported it financially. Since then, the most recent round of funding has been through ACOA's Business Development Program and Atlantic Innovation Fund, to the best of my knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture could answer this more directly but I do not believe that we have a financial stake currently in the Centre for Fisheries Innovation. I stand to be corrected by my colleagues in the Department of Fisheries, but given the fact that we were funding that through cost-shared agreements before, as our contribution, my expectation is that we are not currently there.

I do know though, however, that in terms of the activities of the centre, and I cannot speak in terms of board representation, there is still a very strong relationship between the Department of Fisheries provincially and the board itself. The sister organization, the Centre for Marine Communications, with which we have a closer alignment, we are very much involved both on the board level and on the activities even though we may not be a financial player. That is where we are today.

MR. TAYLOR: The reason I asked it, I guess, I wondered, since this latest round of funding, as you said, I though it was from the Atlantic Innovation Fund through ACOA, the board of CCFI has been expanded to include the Maritime Provinces and I believe Quebec. I am not certain of that, all the same, but anyway certainly the Atlantic Provinces. All the Atlantic Provinces are now included there and I suppose that is only fair considering it is the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. It probably should have been like that before. I wonder if our provincial interests, especially in light of some development in the technology side over the past little while, if we would not be better served by having some financial involvement in that, in the interest of development, development here in the Province. There are tremendous resources at the disposal of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, the centre for marine dynamics, the flume tank at Marine Institute - the center for sustainable aquatic development, I think they have it called now - and all of the resources of the main campus of MUN and the campus of Marine Institute. There are probably others that I have not mentioned.

As I said, I was involved with CCFI but only for about six months. I ended up getting into politics and had to resign. I found, once I looked at CCFI, that a lot of what they have been doing has been more in the fishery resource side of it. Again, I think that we have been missing a tremendous opportunity, for whatever reason - I have my own theories as to why - but in the technology side and the service side of the fishing industry and the marine industry in this Province, from an export base. I think we should find some way of developing that. There are some local companies, as we have already talked about, who have made some significant strides there. The people who made NetMind - I cannot remember the name of the company now, and I apologize to them - before those people came up with their technology all we had was Scanmar. Now we have NetMind and they are exporting to Iceland and so on.

Our young people, I guess, in the interest of development, in my view, most of them today are not looking - like I was back in 1983 and 1984 - for a berth on sixty-five-foot longliner, and looking to get in the wheelhouse of it. There are a few of them out there. Most of them are the skippers sons who are looking to that, because they are going to take over a fairly lucrative enterprise at this point anyway, God knows what it will do to us in a year's time, but outside of that they are not. They are looking for the technology side of it. A lot of them are, unfortunately in my view, looking to Memorial University and not enough of them are looking to the technical side. If we are looking at rural development, trade, industry development and what have you, then maybe some form of partnering with CCFI and that type of an institution would serve our interests better.

MR. SCOTT: The reflection of, first of all, a Centre for Fisheries Innovation being broad in its scope, to be Atlantic Canada, is a reflection of where the resources are coming from, namely the Atlantic Innovation Fund and ACOA's penchant for going down a pan-Atlantic approach. I do not think, though, that necessarily is a detraction for us in that it represents an opportunity to broaden the reach as long as Newfoundland's agenda is appropriately reflected there, given the fact that it is still an agency of the Marine Institute and Memorial University and it is based here with an independent board. I think there is still the opportunity to make sure it is relevant to Newfoundland and Labrador's needs.

Oftentimes, from an industry business development point of view, our objectives are to broaden the reach geographically, internationally, of these agencies. Whether or not we could have greater influence on that if the Province were a financial partner - obviously, money talks, and we could. Traditionally, we have approached those agencies from the federal-provincial envelops of money, cost-shared agreements in the past. That is the dilemma that the Province faces now in terms of participating in those areas.

Given the fact that the board is largely private sector driven, we encourage them, as we do the Centre for Marine Communications, to be mindful of the commercialization opportunities, the technology opportunities, the opportunities to market services internationally.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has the more direct responsibility in terms of CCFI than ourselves, but clearly, from a provincial point of view, that is a key objective. If they are drifting away from that into the more traditional vein, or where opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador do not lie, obviously we need to be engaged on that front and try to bring it back in the best frame of reference that we can.

We have been encouraged, though, in recent years by Memorial University's repositioning itself of the university and the research institutions and these types of organizations towards that (inaudible) much more aggressively. I know the president of the university is very committed to that, and Les O'Reilly of the Marine Institute. It is a work in progress. We are monitoring it as best we can. The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, as I said, has the more direct relationship, but I think your points are well taken and certainly not inconsistent with our own views.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

We are going to have to come back for some more discussion on these Estimates for this department, given the level of interest, so if we could ask for an adjournment motion for now.

MR. E. BYRNE: If I may, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate the candidness of the meeting this morning. It was a chance to explore some broader topics that the department is involved with. I appreciate having the opportunity to do that. It was probably one of the most interesting departments in government, to be honest with you. We will deal with the estimates expeditiously when we get back. I don't want to be seen as deliberately holding it up, but it was a good discussion this morning. I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Before the adjournment motion, can we move a motion for the acceptance of the minutes of the Resource Committee for April 8 at 7:00 p.m.

MR. E. BYRNE: So moved.

MR. TAYLOR: Seconded.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Byrne, seconded by Mr. Taylor.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

I thank the Committee members for their level of interest. I thank the minister and her officials for their excellent answers to the questions. The Clerk and the Page of the House, thank you.

On motion, Committee adjourned.